Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1043

Declaration of Nathan Sabri in Support of #1042 Opposition/Response to Motion, #1041 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27)(Related document(s) #1042 , #1041 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/5/2012)

Download PDF
DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITIONS TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO ENFORCE EXHIBIT 2 quinn emanuel trial lawyers | washington, dc 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL: (202) 756-1950 FAX: (202) 756-1951 November 3, 2011 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Jason Bartlett Morrison and Foerster 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Re: Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.) Dear Jason: Per our discussions during yesterday’s meet and confer call, we have grouped Samsung’s Requests for Production (Set One) into categories for ease of reference. Those categories, and our comments where appropriate, are set forth below. Please provide a written response by Monday, November 7 identifying which categories of documents Apple will agree to produce. The parties can discuss any areas of disagreement at our next meet and confer session on Wednesday, Nov. 9. Product Examples, Technical, and Manufacturing Documents (1, 6, 7, 8, 16, 39, 69, 76, 77, 136) On yesterday’s call, you indicated that Apple would agree to a mutual exchange of product examples. We are considering your proposal and will get back to you. You also indicated that you would provide all requested manufacturing and sales information for all products manufactured and imported into the US. We are currently assessing whether this is adequate. Furthermore, you indicated that Apple intends to produce the documents already produced in the 794 investigation in this case. You also indicated that you are undertaking an quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100 NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700 SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100 CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401 02198.51855/4430287.2 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 LONDON | 16 TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712 Documents pertaining to this lawsuit and pre-suit investigation (38, 46, 52, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 126, 127, 153, 180, 185) Documents related to other lawsuits and enforcement of the Apple patents and claims (75, 91, 94, 120, 142, 184, 95, 124, 125, 187) Apple has produced a number of deposition and trial transcripts relating to inventors of patents previously asserted. Apple has also produced a small number of additional transcripts. The number of remaining transcripts from Apple’s witnesses is small, and highly relevant to this case. First, Samsung is entitled to these additional transcripts to assess credibility of the witnesses. See 9th Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 2.8 (evidence that a witness lied under oath on a prior occasion may be considered, along with all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give to the testimony of the witness). In addition, these transcripts should be producedbecause the witnesses’ testimony in all Apple-related litigations share a “technological nexus” to the technical issues in this litigation. Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Am. Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 375 (D. Del. 2009); see also Bennett v. Segway, Inc., 2011 WL 4965179 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2011). Here, the witnesses have been employed by Apple and have testified about the same or similar products at issue in this litigation. Samsung is entitled to this former testimony. Apple patent and trademark ownership (85, 84, 192) Patentability of all intellectual property in the case (93, 97, 98, 104, 105, 107, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 109, 122, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 188, 21, 22, 53, 61, 89, 92, 96, 99, 100) 02198.51855/4430287.2 2 Best regards, /s/ Marissa R. Ducca Marissa R. Ducca MRD 02198.51855/4430287.2 02198.51855/4430287.2 02198.51855/4430287.2 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?