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)

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: [phone] FAX: [phone]

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 [phone]

FAX (213)

443-3100

NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone]

FAX (650)

801-5100

CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
02198.51855/4430287.2 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

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