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

Filing 1083

Declaration of CYNDI WHEELER in Support of #1044 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Reply In Support of Motion For Clarification of May 4, 2012 Order filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) #1044 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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

EXPERT REPORT OF KARAN
SINGH, PH.D. REGARDING
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
PATENTS NOS. 7,864,163,
7,844,915 AND 7,853,891

Defendants.

20
21
22

**CONFIDENTIAL – CONTAINS MATERIAL DESIGNATED AS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT
TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER**

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

2

I, Dr. Karan Singh, have been asked by counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to

3

provide an opinion in the above-captioned case. I understand that Apple has alleged that

4

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

5

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) have infringed various patents

6

assigned to Apple. I have been asked to provide opinions as to whether Samsung has infringed

7

United States Patents Nos. 7,864,163 (the “’163 patent), 7,844,915 (the “’915 patent) and

8

7,853,891 (the “’891 patent”). My opinions are set forth below in this Report and in the

9

accompanying exhibits.
2.

10

I submit this expert Report in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11

26(a)(2). I reserve the right to supplement or amend this Report pursuant to Rule 26(e) and as

12

otherwise provided if additional data or other information that affects my opinions becomes

13

available. I expect to testify at trial regarding the matters expressed in this Report and any

14

supplemental Reports that I may prepare for this litigation. I also may prepare and rely on

15

audiovisual aids to demonstrate various aspects of my testimony at trial. I also expect to testify

16

with respect to any matters addressed by any expert testifying on behalf of Samsung, if asked to

17

do so.
3.

18

I am being compensated for my work in connection with this matter at my current

19

standard consulting rate of $450 per hour. I am separately being reimbursed for any out-of-

20

pocket expenses. My compensation is not based in any way on the outcome of the litigation or

21

the nature of the opinions that I express.

22

II.

23

QUALIFICATIONS
4.

Here, I provide a brief summary of my qualifications. I received my Bachelor of

24

Technology degree in Computer Science from the Indian Institute of Technology in 1991. I was

25

awarded a Master of Science degree in 1992, and a Ph.D. in 1995, both in Computer and

26

Information Science, from Ohio State University. I can read and program fluently in object-

27

oriented programming languages, such as C++ and Java. My qualifications and experience are

28

stated more fully in my curriculum vitae, which includes a list of all my honours, patents,
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

1

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

presentations, grants, and publications from the last five years, and is attached to this Report as

2

Exhibit 1.

3

5.

In 1994, I was invited to conduct research at the Advanced Telecommunications

4

Research laboratory in Kyoto, Japan. During this time I researched virtual reality technology,

5

specifically designing graphical environments in which human characters could interact with

6

computing systems.

7
8
9

6.

My Ph.D. dissertation, which I presented in 1995, was on creating representations

of humans which could interact in graphical environments.
7.

In 1995, I joined Alias Wavefront in Toronto, Canada. While there I designed

10

character animation and facial modeling tools for the first release of Maya, which is a software

11

system for computer graphical modeling, animation, and rendering which won a technical Oscar

12

in 2003, one of only 38 such awards since 1930. This software, which I worked on for more than

13

two years, is still the premiere software package today for these functions. I worked at Alias

14

Wavefront until 1999.

15

8.

I have worked with Chris Landreth, a director of animated films, since I started

16

with Alias Wavefront in 1995. Chris and I worked together on the design of Maya, and have

17

subsequently worked on a number of film projects. Notable among these projects is the short film

18

“Ryan,” which won an Oscar for Best Animated Short in 2005.

19

9.

Later in 1999, I joined a start-up company in California called Paraform Inc.

20

While there I worked to develop a system which transformed data from real objects which had

21

been scanned using lasers into useable digital models for downstream applications.

22

10.

For several months in 1999 I was a Visiting Professor of Computer Science at the

23

University of Otago in New Zealand. During that time I taught and conducted research in

24

computer graphics.

25

11.

Since 2002, I have been an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the

26

University of Toronto where I co-direct a graphics and human computer interaction laboratory

27

dgp (dynamic graphics project). I have conducted research and taught classes in graphics and in

28

human computer interaction. During this period, I have also undertaken consulting projects with
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

2

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

various companies in the computer graphics and design industries. Since 2002, I have also been

2

the Chief Scientist at Geometry Systems, which is a company which designs software for the

3

reverse engineering of physical objects into usable digital models. I also co-founded Arcestra,

4

Inc. in 2006, which is a software service for conceptualizing and visualizing architectural

5

interiors.

6
7

12.

devices inspired by a sketching metaphor.

8
9

My current research focus is on interaction techniques for pen and touch based

13.

I have previously testified by deposition as an expert in proceedings before the

International Trade Commission in the ITC Investigation In re Certain Electronic Digital Media

10

Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796 on behalf of complainant Apple.

11

III.

12

MATERIALS CONSIDERED
14.

In forming my opinions and views expressed in this Report, I reviewed the ’163

13

patent and its file history, the ’915 patent and its file history, and the ’891 patent and its file

14

history.

15

15.

I have also examined all of the following Samsung products, which are sometimes

16

referred to in this Report as the “Samsung Accused Products”: Acclaim, Captivate, Continuum,

17

Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000),

18

Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (including the i9100, T-Mobile, AT&T, Epic 4G Touch and Skyrocket

19

variants), Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Galaxy Tab 7.0, Galaxy Tab 10.1,1 Gem, Gravity Smart,

20

Indulge, Infuse 4G, Intercept, Mesmerize, Nexus S, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Transform,

21

and Vibrant.

22

16.

In addition, I have reviewed portions of Samsung’s website regarding most of

23

these products. I have also reviewed portions of the user manuals for these products. Attached as

24

Exhibit 2 is a chart that lists the Bates numbers where true and correct copies of printouts from

25

www.samsung.com of user guides and technical specifications for various Samsung Accused

26

Products have been produced.

27
1

28

Galaxy Tab 10.1 refers to both the WiFi and LTE versions.

EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

3

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

17.

I have also reviewed portions of the publicly available Android source code and

2

related documentation available at the Android developers website located at the following URL:

3

http://developer.android.com/index.html, as well as portions of the Samsung proprietary source

4

code that were produced by Samsung in this litigation prior to the close of fact discovery on

5

March 8, 2012. I have been informed that although Apple requested a production of all of the

6

Samsung source code for all of the Samsung Accused Products and that Samsung was ordered by

7

the Court to produce it by December 31, 2011, that Samsung produced source code only for a

8

subset of those products. Moreover, I understand that for those Accused Products for which

9

Samsung has produced source code, it produced only one version per Accused Product, even if

10

that product ran different versions of Samsung’s code over time. It is my further understanding

11

that Samsung has produced representative examples of the different versions of its source code

12

that were based upon Android releases 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1, and that Samsung has represented,

13

subject to certain conditions, that the source code for any other version of each Accused Product

14

that was not produced does not differ in any material way for purposes of this litigation with

15

respect to the three patents I am addressing, from the source code that it has produced.2

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2

For all three patents discussed in this Report, I understand that Samsung has represented
that the source code it produced on December 31, 2011 (on which my Report is based) is
representative of all versions, through February 14, 2012, of software on the following Accused
Products: Captivate, Continuum, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace Showcase, Galaxy
S 4G, Gravity Smart, Indulge, Intercept, Mesmerize, Nexus, Nexus S, Nexus S 4G, Replenish,
Showcase Galaxy S, Sidekick, Transform, Vibrant, and the Galaxy Tab.
I understand that Samsung has further represented that, as to source code accused of
infringing the ’915 patent, the code it produced on December 31, 2011 (on which my Report is
based) is representative of all versions of software on all of the Accused Products.
As to source code accused of infringing the ’163 and ’891 patents, I understand that
Samsung has recently represented that the code it produced on December 31, 2011 (on which my
Report is based) is representative of all versions of software on Accused Products released before
December 23, 2011. I understand that, in an email dated March 10, 2012, counsel for Samsung
provided notice that Samsung would be disclosing new versions of source code. I also
understand that counsel for Samsung described the code as “design-arounds” for the ’891 and
’163 patents. I have not reviewed this late-produced code, which I understand was produced on
or around March 12, 2012, as of the date of this Report and therefore cannot offer any opinion at
this time on whether it in fact reflects a “design-around” that avoids infringement of either the
’891 or the ’163 patent.

28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

4

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

18.

In forming the opinions in this Report, I have reviewed all of the material cited in

2

this Report, as well as the documents, things and materials listed in Exhibit 3. I also had

3

discussions with Bas Ording and Scott Herz, Apple employees listed as inventors on the ’891

4

and ’915 patents, respectively.

5

19.

If called to testify or to give additional opinions regarding this matter, I reserve the

6

right to rely upon additional materials that may be provided to me or that are relied upon by any

7

of Samsung’s experts or witnesses.

8

IV.

9

LEGAL PRINCIPLES
20.

I have not been asked to offer an opinion on the law; however, as an expert

10

assisting the Court in determining infringement, I understand that I am obliged to follow existing

11

law. I have therefore been asked to apply the following legal principles to my analysis of

12

infringement:

13

21.

I understand that to determine whether there is infringement of a patent: (1) the

14

claims of the patent must be construed; and (2) the properly construed claims must then be

15

compared with the accused products.

16

22.

I understand that the parties have proposed differing constructions of certain terms

17

in the ’915 and ’891 patents, and that the parties may have differing constructions of terms that

18

were not part of the claim construction hearing, but that no claim construction Order has been

19

issued. Because no claim construction has been issued by the Court, I have interpreted the claims

20

as one of ordinary skill in the art would have at the time the relevant patent was filed in light of its

21

claim language, specification, and prosecution history.

22

23.

I further understand that the claims should be construed from the standpoint of a

23

hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention date of the asserted patent. I

24

understand that claim construction is a matter of law and will be determined by the Court. I

25

reserve the right to modify my opinions if needed following the Court’s issuance of a claim

26

construction Order.

27

24.

28

As the second step in the infringement analysis, I understand that the properly

construed claim must be compared to the accused products. I understand that an accused product
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

5

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

implementing user interfaces. I have interpreted the ’163 patent claims according to how I

2

believe such a person of ordinary skill would have understood the claims in 2006.

3

B.

Apple’s Practice Of The ’163 Patent

4

33.

I have examined a number of Apple products, including the iPhone 4S, iPhone 4,

5

iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3G, iPhone, iPad 2, and iPad. It is my opinion that each of these products

6

practices the claims of the ’163 patent. For example, with Apple’s iPhone 4, a user can open the

7

Safari application and load a web page, such as the New York Times home page

8

(www.nytimes.com). The iPhone 4 displays the New York Times home page

9

structured electronic document that includes several boxes of content

which is a

on its touch screen display.

10

The iPhone 4 detects a user’s double tap gesture (two taps on the touch screen in quick

11

succession) on a box of content, and it responds to that gesture by determining which box was

12

tapped and then enlarging and substantially centering that box on the screen. If the user proceeds

13

to double tap on a second box of content on the web page, the iPhone 4 responds by substantially

14

centering that second box on the screen. If the user then double taps again on the second box

15

which is already enlarged and centered from the user’s previous actions

16

by zooming out, reducing the size of the web page to its pre-enlargement scale.

17

34.

the iPhone 4 responds

Based on my examination of the aforementioned Apple products, I conclude that

18

they practice the asserted apparatus and system claims of the ’163 patent, and their ordinary and

19

intended use practices the asserted method claims of the ’163 patent. I have confirmed the

20

behavior I saw on the iPhone 4 and other Apple products by examining portions of the source

21

code for Apple’s iOS operating

22

as well as the Event Handling Guide for iOS

23

(available at http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/EventHandling/

24

Conceptual/EventHandlingiPhoneOS/Introduction/Introduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP4000

25

9541).

26

35.

My examination was further confirmed by my review of the testimony of Scott

27

Forstall, one of the inventors of the ’163 patent. Mr. Forstall testified that at least the iPhone,

28

iPad, and iPod Touch practice the ’163 patent (Forstall Dep. Tr. at 24:8 24:16). He then walked
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

8

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

through a demonstration of some double-tap zooming elements of claim 2 of the ’163 patent,

2

confirming that the iPhone demonstrated in his deposition exhibited behavior meeting certain

3

elements of that claim (Forstall Dep. Tr. at 24:17 27:10).

4

C.

Priority Date of the ’163 Patent

5

36.

I intend to rely upon the documentary evidence and testimony of one or more of

6

the named co-inventors of the ’163 patent or other witnesses to testify regarding facts relevant to

7

the conception and reduction to practice of the claimed invention prior to the filing date of the

8

patent.

9

37.

I have reviewed the documentary evidence regarding the design and

10

implementation work done on the inventions claimed in the ’163 patent, including the deposition

11

transcripts of Scott Forstall, Chris Blumenberg, and Richard Williamson, emails regarding

12

technology demonstrations and planned and completed development tasks, as well as code check-

13

in logs. From that evidence, it appears that the claims of the ’163 patent that I analyze below

14

were conceived of by Andre Boule, Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay, Imran

15

Chaudhri, Richard Williamson, Chris Blumenberg, and Marcel van Os in or before March 2006,

16

and reduced to practice in March/April 2006.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

9