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

Filing 1068

Declaration of Bill Trac in Support of #1063 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Reply in Support of Samsung's Motion for Summary Judgment filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (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, #28 Exhibit 28)(Related document(s) #1063 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/8/2012)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 12 2012-1105 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-01846-LHK, Judge Lucy H. Koh CONFIDENTIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES Charles K. Verhoeven Kathleen M. Sullivan Kevin P .B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees moving target construction is impermissible, see, e.g., Conoco, 460 F.3d at 135859, and has no basis in the patent, which contains no indication of a reflective surface. Additionally, the existence of a raised frame in the 1994 Fidler tablet (as opposed to a potentially flat one in the D'889 design) does not distract from the substantial similarity in the overall visual appearance of the two designs, which are essentially unadorned, basic rectangular shapes designed to put emphasize a large flat front for viewing content. Thus, contrary to Apple's assertions (Br. 63), the 1994 Fidler tablet would not need "major modifications" to become the design claimed in the D'889 patent, and therefore it is an appropriate primary reference. But even if the district court chose an improper primary reference, the record is replete with other prior art references disclosing a thin rectangular tablet shape with rounded comers dominated by a display screen with little, if any, ornamentation, including: JP 1142127 A4059; A4157-76. U.S. D337,569 (A4057; A4064; 4126-28.) 54 JP 0887388 A4058-59; A4147-55. U.S. D461,802 (A4057-58; A413037.) ,,. JP 0921403 (A4058; A4139-45.) (See also A4562; A4564.) The district court acknowledged some of this prior art (A43 n.26), and was not required to designate any of them as primary references for them to be considered as such, see Titan Tire, 566 F.3d at 1381. The district court, however, did not acknowledge any of Samsung's prior art that the court permitted to be filed after the preliminary injunction hearing (and thus is part of the record on appeal). In particular, the references shown below all disclose a flat, thin monitor with a clear, glass-like front face and avoid any of the purported shortcomings in the prior art that Apple has identified. 55 (1\;01 I ~u:::::::~."'l•. · A u ~-'"-"'u~,., ' I ..................,, · ~-·- ··· ·· i~ \ Ig~ .......J , : : ~- ..... ~--- q I ,,,~ ~~~:.~ <~..t,,,.., ,. ,, J :•·· · · ..............:::::._,. German Design Registration 40301867-0001 (A8540.) r'IP0 1 4 ""'" ~rus f'l.I'IO I(. Design Fiddler 1997 Blank Tablet A8508-09; see also A8469-80. 0001.1 48061-0001 Fiddler 1997 Newspaper Tablet A8511-15; see also A8469-83. In light of the extensive prior art that could have served as a primary reference, the district court's obviousness ruling cannot be set aside on this ground. 2. The HP Compaq TClOOO Is A Proper Secondary Reference The district court chose the TC 1000 as the secondary reference because it "contains a flat glass screen that covers the top surface of the tablet and a thin rim 56

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?