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 7

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

WWW.MOFO.COM

November 29, 2011

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail ([e-mail])
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Rachel:
I write regarding the parties’ ongoing discussion of the production of prior deposition
testimony by inventors.
As you may recall, Samsung initially requested that Apple produce complete transcripts of
all prior deposition testimony by all Apple inventors. Samsung insisted in meet-and-confer
discussions that any testimony by Apple inventors — with no subject matter limitation —
would be relevant and must be produced, if nothing else for impeachment purposes. This
broad interpretation of relevance would have required the production of any and all
testimony, even if entirely unrelated to the patents, technology, or products at issue. Apple
suggested that there must be some subject matter limitation, or this request would remain
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and little more than a fishing expedition.
Apple asked that Samsung provide a citation to case law supporting its position that any and
all prior testimony, excepting wholly unrelated material such as traffic accidents and divorce
proceedings, must be produced. In response, in Marissa Ducca’s letter of November 3,
Samsung cited Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Am. Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 375 (D.
Del. 2009), to support the proposition that testimony with a “technological nexus” to the
technical issues in this litigation must be produced. Samsung cited this same case in Marissa
Ducca’s letter of November 15. In subsequent meet-and-confer discussions, Apple stated
that, in the interest of compromise, it may be willing to produce transcripts that have a
“technological nexus” to the present case, using the term in the case law cited by Samsung.
Samsung asked Apple to articulate what it meant by “technological nexus.”
Apple interprets “technological nexus” to include prior cases involving the patents-in-suit or
patents covering the same or similar technologies, features, or designs as the patents-in-suit.

sf-3075074

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
November 29, 2011
Page Two
For the sake of clarity, with respect to design patent inventors, this would include prior cases
involving the asserted design patents or other design patents covering the same designs or
design elements. With respect to utility patent inventors, this would include the asserted
utility patents or other utility patents covering touch-based interface functions, display
elements, touch-screen hardware, or touch-screen logic.
This is consistent with the case law cited by Samsung, in which the Inventio AG court found
a “technological nexus” between the patent-in-suit and the patent in a prior case because both
patents concerned the technology of “recognition devices” and “identification codes”
allowing elevators to automatically assign predetermined destination floors without
additional information from the passenger. Inventio AG, 662 F. Supp. 2d 375, at 381.
Please let us know whether Samsung agrees to this scope of production.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:

Samuel Maselli
S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3075074