Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1056
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of Apple's Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung's Expert Reports filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of Reply re Apple's Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung's Expert Reports, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, #12 Exhibit 11)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/7/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN JOSE DIVISION
15
16
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
REPLY DECLARATION OF
MARC J. PERNICK IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT
REPORTS
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:
June 21, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
26
27
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
1
I, Marc J. Pernick, declare as follows:
2
1.
I am a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple Inc.
3
(“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. Unless otherwise indicated, I
4
have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from my
5
Morrison & Foerster colleagues. I make this Declaration in support of Apple’s Reply in Support
6
of Apple’s Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung’s Expert Reports.
7
8
9
2.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated
January 5, 2012 from Todd Briggs, counsel for Samsung, to Richard Hung, counsel for Apple.
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Claim Chart J-1 to
10
Samsung’s October 7, 2011 Invalidity Contentions. Claim Chart J-1 was Samsung’s claim chart
11
for the Diamond Touch system.
12
4.
Below is a highlighted screen capture of the “Properties” information from the
13
MERL production hard drive referenced in Paragraph 6 of the Declaration of James Ward in
14
Support of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung’s Expert
15
Reports (“Ward Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 1014). It states that the amount of data on the hard drive is 158
16
gigabytes.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
1
1
5.
My colleagues and I have reviewed service e-mails indicating the time of service
2
for the Von Herzen Invalidity Report and Maharbiz Infringement Reports that were due on
3
March 22, 2012. The e-mails reflect the fact that Samsung served the Von Herzen Invalidity
4
Report nine minutes before Apple served the Maharbiz Infringement Report. Attached hereto as
5
Exhibits 3 and 4 are copies of those e-mails.
6
6.
On August 3, 2011, Samsung’s counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
7
deposed ’607 Patent inventor Joshua Strickon in the ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-750. This
8
deposition is cited in the Von Herzen Invalidity Report at paragraphs 452, 456, and 457. (Dkt.
9
No. 939-4 Ex. 12.) Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 to the Pernick Reply Declaration is a true and
10
correct copy of the coversheet from the Strickon Deposition indicating that Quinn Emanuel was
11
present at the deposition.
12
7.
The email with bates number APLNDC0000994176 attached as Exhibit I to the
13
Ward Decl. (Dkt. No. 1014-0 Ex. I) was produced on October 16, 2011. Attached hereto as
14
Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the service e-mail for the bates range
15
APLNDC0000177368-APLNDC0001199845.
16
17
18
19
20
8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent
No. 7,469,381.
9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Exhibit A to Samsung’s
Patent Local Rule 4-2 Disclosure.
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Fourth Amended
21
Case Management Order in Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Case
22
No. 4:09CV00686ERW in the Eastern District of Missouri. This document was downloaded on
23
June 6, 2012, from the Pacer electronic docket for that action.
24
11.
I have reviewed the May 31, 2012 Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan (Dkt.
25
No. 1012). Ms. Hutnyan’s account of some of the details of the meeting that took place between
26
counsel for Apple and counsel for Samsung on March 14, 2012 is inaccurate. The discussion
27
below corrects certain of those inaccuracies.
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
2
1
12.
Counsel for the parties met on Wednesday, March 14 to discuss several agenda
2
items that each side had concerning outstanding discovery disputes. Apple was represented at
3
this meeting by Michael A. Jacobs, Alison Tucher, Jason Bartlett, Mia Mazza, Nathan Sabri,
4
Erik J. Olson, and me (of Morrison & Foerster), and Peter Kolovos and Calvin Walden (of
5
Wilmer Hale) via telephone. Samsung was represented at this meeting by Charles Verhoeven,
6
Diane Hutnyan, Rachel Kassabian, Joby Martin, and David Currie.
7
13.
Given that the fact discovery cut-off had been on March 8, 2012, this March 14th
8
meeting took place one day before the deadline for the parties to file motions to compel further
9
responses to the other side’s written discovery responses. (See Civil Local Rule37-3.) At various
10
points throughout the meeting, in addition to discussing the adequacy of various discovery
11
responses, the parties also discussed the possibility of agreeing to refrain from filing a motion to
12
compel for a short time so that the other party could supplement certain responses to address
13
deficiencies alleged by the other side.
14
14.
One agenda item that we discussed at the March 14th conference was the
15
sufficiency of Samsung’s responses to Apple’s Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12, which asked
16
Samsung to explain the bases for its non-infringement contentions and invalidity contentions
17
regarding Apple’s asserted design patents. I explained to Samsung’s counsel that, in Apple’s
18
view, Samsung’s original December 19, 2011 responses to these interrogatories were inadequate
19
because they did not provide the bases or underlying theories for Samsung’s claims that its
20
products do not infringe the Apple design patents or that the design patents are invalid.
21
15.
After discussing this issue for a few minutes, Samsung’s counsel Mr. Verhoeven
22
said that Samsung would review its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11-12, and would consider
23
supplementing the responses to add further details. Mr. Verhoeven said, however, that Samsung
24
would likely need a few days to assess its December 2011 responses, and to––if it determined that
25
supplemental responses were appropriate––prepare the amended responses. Mr. Verhoeven
26
asked if Apple would agree to forestall filing any motion to compel until at least Monday,
27
March 19, 2012.
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
3
1
16.
Both Michael Jacobs and I responded on Apple’s behalf. We told Mr. Verhoeven
2
that Apple would welcome receiving supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12
3
from Samsung and we encouraged Mr. Verhoeven to supplement Samsung’s responses as quickly
4
as Samsung could. We also agreed that Apple would not file any motion to compel further
5
responses to these interrogatories until at least Monday, March 19th.
6
17.
However, we also explained to Mr. Verhoeven that, apart from any potential
7
motion to compel more detailed responses, Apple was considering filing a motion under
8
Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to preclude Samsung from asserting at trial
9
any theories or bases that were not in Samsung’s December 19, 2011 responses to Interrogatory
10
Nos. 11 and 12. We expressly stated that Apple was reserving its right to file a Rule 37(c)(1)
11
motion to preclude or strike even if Samsung provided more detailed supplemental discovery
12
responses on March 19th.
13
18.
In response, Mr. Verhoeven asked if Apple was definitely going to file such a
14
motion to strike or preclude. Mr. Verhoeven indicated that, if Apple was definitely going to file
15
such a motion, Samsung would be reluctant to undertake the efforts required to supplement its
16
responses to the Apple interrogatories under discussion.
17
19.
I responded to Mr. Verhoeven. I told him that Apple was considering filing the
18
motion to strike or preclude that I had described, but that we had not reached a definitive
19
conclusion on whether to file such a motion. Mr. Jacobs and I stated that Apple was reserving its
20
right to file such a motion, and pointed out that, if Samsung served detailed supplemental
21
responses in a short time, it was free to argue that doing so might cure to some extent the
22
prejudice that Samsung’s delays had caused to Apple.
23
20.
In paragraph 6 of her Declaration, Ms. Hutnyan states that, during these
24
discussions, “Apple reserved the right to pursue motion practice if the supplemental responses that
25
Samsung served on March 19, 2012 did not contain sufficient detail.” That statement is overbroad
26
and inaccurate.
27
28
21.
I am certain that, at no point in the March 14th meeting, did I, Mr. Jacobs, or
anyone else representing Apple at this meet-and-confer session say that Apple would agree to
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
4
1
forego its rights to move under Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal Rules to preclude Samsung from
2
putting on theories or contentions at trial that were not timely disclosed in Samsung’s discovery
3
responses. I am also certain that nobody representing Apple at this meeting conditioned Apple’s
4
right to move for preclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) on the adequacy of any supplemental
5
interrogatory responses that Samsung might provide. To the contrary, as stated above, we
6
expressly reserved Apple’s right to file a motion to preclude or strike regardless of any
7
supplemental discovery responses that Samsung might serve.
8
9
22.
In paragraph 6 of her Declaration, Ms. Hutnyan also states that “[c]ounsel for
Apple specifically referenced Apple’s responses to Samsung’s utility patent contention
10
interrogatories, and stated that it would pursue motion practice if Samsung's supplemental responses
11
were not comparably detailed.” I want to clarify the context in which this subject came up. This
12
topic arose in a different setting from the discussion described above regarding Apple’s Interrogatory
13
Nos. 11-12 (regarding design patents).
14
23.
During this March 14, 2012 meet-and-confer session, the parties also discussed
15
Samsung’s response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 2. This interrogatory sought the detailed bases
16
for Samsung’s contention that it does not infringe Apple’s asserted utility patents.
17
18
19
24.
As of the time that discovery closed on March 8, 2012, Samsung had not provided
a substantive response to this interrogatory.
25.
On Monday, March 12, 2012, two days before the parties’ meet-and-confer
20
session, Samsung did serve a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 2. For each of the
21
Apple utility patents at issue, Samsung’s March 12th supplemental response listed a series of
22
claim limitations that Samsung contended were not present in at least some of its accused
23
products. Counsel for the parties discussed the adequacy of this supplemental interrogatory
24
response at the March 14th meet-and-confer session.
25
26.
I stated that Apple hoped Samsung would provide more details regarding its non-
26
infringement contentions for the asserted utility patents. I noted that, especially at certain places
27
in the response, Samsung had not given a robust explanation for the bases of its non-infringement
28
contentions.
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
5
1
27.
For purposes of comparison, I specifically referenced Apple’s response to a
2
parallel interrogatory that Samsung had propounded, in which Apple set out the bases for its
3
contentions for why it does not infringe the utility patents asserted by Samsung in this case. I
4
asked Samsung’s counsel to consider providing at least as much detail in a supplemental response
5
to Interrogatory No. 2 as Apple had provided in its response to Samsung’s parallel interrogatory.
6
Nobody representing Apple at this meeting said that Apple would necessarily file any motion if
7
Samsung refused to supplement.
8
9
28.
Mr. Michael Wagner’s expert report includes two different attachments with
damages-related figures. The first one, called “Tab 2,” is based on data produced during fact
10
discovery and incorporated into Apple’s damages report. All calculations and figures included in
11
the text of Wagner’s report reflect information from the “Tab 2” dataset.
12
29.
Mr. Wagner included a second attachment, called “Tab 6,” that we understand is
13
based on a different dataset and which is not consistent with “Tab 2.” As reflected in footnote 7
14
of his report, this attachment comes from data produced for the first time on April 16, 2012, the
15
day of his report. (See Dkt. No. 939-31 at 4 n.7) (“
16
17
”).) It was never available to Apple in
18
discovery and was available to Mr. Wagner for less than 24 hours. (See Dkt. No. 939-35 at
19
279:6-280:1.)
20
30.
Attached as Exhibits 10 and 11 are true and correct pages from Tab 2 and Tab 6
21
relating to the Galaxy S II/2 product. These excerpts illustrate some of the inconsistencies
22
between the financial data on the same product for the same period based solely on the data
23
source being used. For the single Galaxy S II/2 product the figures differ in at least the following
24
ways:
25
26
27
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
31.
For this product,
The inconsistencies between Tab 2 and Tab 6 are repeated for multiple products. To my
13
knowledge, Samsung has provided no explanation for these inconsistencies. Apple had no
14
opportunity to evaluate them during discovery or in the deposition of any Samsung witness.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
16
June 7, 2012, at Palo Alto, California.
17
18
19
/s/ Marc J. Pernick
Marc J. Pernick
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
7
1
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
2
I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
3
Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Yakov Zolotorev has
4
concurred in this filing.
5
Dated: June 7, 2012
6
By:
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PERNICK DECL. ISO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SAMSUNG’S EXPERT RPTS.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3153523
8
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?