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

Filing 1091

Declaration of Adam S. Cashman in Support of #1090 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 5, #5 Exhibit 6, #6 Exhibit 7, #7 Exhibit 8, #8 Exhibit 9, #9 Exhibit 10, #10 Exhibit 11, #11 Exhibit 12, #12 Exhibit 13, #13 Exhibit 16, #14 Exhibit 21, #15 Exhibit 22, #16 Exhibit 23, #17 Exhibit 24, #18 Exhibit 26, #19 Exhibit 27, #20 Exhibit 28, #21 Exhibit 29, #22 Exhibit 30, #23 Exhibit 31, #24 Exhibit 32, #25 Exhibit 33, #26 Exhibit 34, #27 Exhibit 35, #28 Exhibit 36, #29 Exhibit 37, #30 Exhibit 38, #31 Exhibit 39, #32 Exhibit 40, #33 Exhibit 41, #34 Exhibit 42, #35 Exhibit 43, #36 Exhibit 44, #37 Exhibit 45, #38 Exhibit 46, #39 Exhibit 47, #40 Exhibit 48, #41 Exhibit 49, #42 Exhibit 50, #43 Exhibit 51, #44 Exhibit 52, #45 Exhibit 53, #46 Exhibit 54, #47 Exhibit 55, #48 Exhibit 56, #49 Exhibit 57, #50 Exhibit 58, #51 Exhibit 59, #52 Exhibit 60, #53 Exhibit 61, #54 Exhibit 52, #55 Exhibit 63)(Related document(s) #1090 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/13/2012)

EXHIBIT 29

Page 1767
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

___________________________
In the Matter of:

)

CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DIGITAL )
MEDIA DEVICES AND

337-TA-796

)

COMPONENTS THEREOF

Investigation No.

)

___________________________
Main Hearing Room

United States
International Trade Commission
500 E Street, Southwest
Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Volume 5

The parties met, pursuant to the notice of the
Judge, at 8:46 a.m.

BEFORE:

THE HONORABLE THOMAS B. PENDER

Page 1768
1

APPEARANCES:

2
3

For Complainant Apple, Inc.:

4

HAROLD J. McELHINNY, ESQ.

5

MICHAEL A. JACOBS, ESQ.

6

RACHEL KREVANS, ESQ.

7

MATTHEW KREEGER, ESQ.

8

Morrison & Foerster LLP

9

425 Market Street

10

San Francisco, CA 94105

11
12

ALEXANDER J. HADJIS, ESQ.

13

KRISTIN L. YOHANNAN, ESQ.

14

Morrison & Foerster LLP

15

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

16

Washington, D.C. 20006

17
18

CHARLES S. BARQUIST, ESQ.

19

Morrison & Foerster LLP.

20

555 West Fifth Street

21

Los Angeles, CA 90013

22
23
24
25

Page 1769
1

APPEARANCES (Continued):

2
3

For Respondents Samsung Electronics Co.,

4

Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and

5

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC:

6

CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN, ESQ.

7

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

8

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

9

San Francisco, CA 94111

10
11

KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON, ESQ.

12

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

13

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor

14

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

15
16

RYAN S. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

17

MICHAEL T. ZELLER, ESQ.

18

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

19

865 South Figueroa St., 10th Floor.

20

Los Angeles, CA 90017

21
22

ERIC HUANG, ESQ.

23

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

24

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

25

New York, New York 10010

Page 1770
1

APPEARANCES (Continued):

2
3

For Respondents Samsung Electronics Co.,

4

Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and

5

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC:

6

JOSEPH MILOWIC, III, ESQ.

7

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

8

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

9

New York, New York 10010

10
11

S. ALEX LASHER, ESQ.

12

PAUL BRINKMAN, ESQ.

13

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

14

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue

15

Washington, D.C. 20004

16
17

MARC K. WEINSTEIN, ESQ.

18

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

19

NBF Higiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7

20

Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku,

21

Tokyo, 100-0011, Japan

22
23
24
25

Page 1771
1

APPEARANCES (Continued):

2
3
4
5
6
7

For ITC Staff:
REGINALD LUCAS, ESQ.
Investigative Attorney
DAVID LLOYD, ESQ.
Supervisory Attorney

8

U.S. International Trade Commission

9

500 E Street, S.W.

10

Washington, D.C. 20436

11
12

Attorney-Advisor:

13

GREGORY MOLDAFSKY, ESQ.

14

Attorney-Advisor

15

Office of Administrative Law Judges

16

U.S. International Trade Commission

17

500 E Street, S.W.

18

Washington, D.C. 20436

19
20
21

Also Present:

Albert Kim, Interpreter
Ann Park, Check Interpreter

22
23
24
25

*** Index appears at end of transcript ***

Page 2037
1

complex in its design?

2
3

"ANSWER:

The geometry doesn't have

any flat surfaces.

4

"QUESTION:

And when you're referring

5

to the geometry that has no flat surfaces,

6

you're referring to the iPhone 3G?

7

"ANSWER:

8

Do you see that?

9

A.

Yes."

I see that, but, I mean, the iPhone 3G

10

has a flat front surface as well.

11

frankly, the flat front surface is a much

12

stronger dominant creator of overall impression

13

than the curvature of the rear.

14

JUDGE PENDER:

15

Quit while you're

ahead, Mr. Zeller.

16

And,

BY MR. ZELLER:

17
18
19

Q.

Does the back have any flat surfaces,

of the iPhone 3G?
A.

I happened to put a ruler across the

20

back of one, and I found a flat portion.

21

Again, I don't think that creates a significant

22

portion of the overall impression.

23
24
25

Q.

Is the back of the iPhone 3G, by your

definition, flat?
A.

Based on what is said here, it may not

Page 2038
1
2

be.
Q.

Now, going from a flat to a nonflat

3

surface is a major design change in your

4

opinion, correct?

5
6
7

A.

Focusing on that one element of the

phone, there is a difference, yes.
Q.

In fact, in your witness statement you

8

said, "flat versus nonflat surfaces represent a

9

major design choice."

10
11

Correct?
A.

I don't believe I was talking about

12

that in reference to this phone.

13

was talking about it in reference to the '638,

14

and that is the front of the phone, where the

15

major impression for overall impression for the

16

ordinary observer would be from the front or

17

three-quarter view of the phone.

18

whether the back was flat or curved would not

19

have as strong an influence on their

20

overall --

21

Q.

I believe I

Exactly

My question is didn't you say in your

22

expert rebuttal report or witness statement,

23

"flat versus nonflat surfaces represents a

24

major design choice"?

25

A.

For the front of the phone, I believe

Page 2039
1
2

that's true.
Q.

And in your view, flat versus nonflat

3

is treated differently if you're looking at the

4

back of a design patent, is that true?

5

A.

I believe different portions of a

6

device have a different overall effect on the

7

overall impression of the ordinary observer.

8
9

Q.

And so you -- you give different

weight to different -- different views of the

10

design patents when you're distinguishing

11

between them, is that true?

12
13
14
15

A.

Depending upon the design, that may or

may not be appropriate.
Q.

I'm not asking you what's appropriate,

I'm trying to find out what did you do.

16

Is it true that when you did your

17

invalidity analysis in this case, you gave

18

different weight to different perspectives or

19

views of the designs that you were evaluating?

20

A.

No, I gave equal weight to the views.

21

I may have given differential weight to one

22

smaller feature or a larger feature depending

23

upon the -- depending upon my understanding of

24

the design.

25

Q.

Now, it's true that you also have

Page 2040
1

given the opinion that the differences between

2

the iPhone 3G and the first iPhone, even though

3

there's that difference in the curved back that

4

we talked about, is a "minor detail that would

5

not alter the overall visual impression formed

6

by the ordinary observer," correct?

7
8
9

A.

That sounds exactly like my opinion,

yes.
Q.

10

Now, let's take a look at RDX-61C-14.
Now, you recall the last time you were

11

here you testified to His Honor that the

12

Galaxy S 4G lacks a perfectly flat back,

13

correct?

14

MR. BARQUIST:

Objection, Your Honor.

15

Once again, we're recrossing on infringement

16

issues from last week.

17

The Galaxy S 4G is an accused product.

18
19
20

MR. ZELLER:

This is not prior art.

It's to show his

inconsistencies, Judge.
MR. BARQUIST:

And Your Honor will

21

recall that the infringement cross-examination

22

itself went two and a half to three hours.

23

don't think we need to do it again.

24

JUDGE PENDER:

25

MR. LUCAS:

I

Mr. Lucas.

Your Honor, I don't know

Page 2130
1

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

2

TITLE:

3

INVESTIGATION NO:

4

HEARING DATE:

5

LOCATION:

6

NATURE OF HEARING:

7

I hereby certify that the foregoing/attached
transcript is a true, correct and complete record of
the above-referenced proceedings of the U.S.
International Trade Commission.
Date: June 6, 2012

8
9
10
11
12

Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices
337-TA-796

June 6, 2012

Washington, D.C.
Volume 5

SIGNED:CYNTHIA OTT______________________
Signature of the Contractor of the
Authorized Contractor's Representative
1220 L Street, N.W, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005

13

18

I hereby certify that I am not the Court
Reporter and that I have proofread the
above-referenced transcript of the proceedings of the
U.S. International Trade Commission, against the
aforementioned Court Reporter's notes and recordings,
for accuracy in transcription in the spelling,
hyphenation, punctuation and speaker identification
and did not make any changes of a substantive nature.
The foregoing/attached transcript is a true, correct
and complete transcription of the proceedings.

19

SIGNED:

14
15
16
17

H. NGUYEN ____________________________
Signature of Proofreader

20
21
22

I hereby certify that I reported the
above-referenced proceedings of the U.S. International
Trade Commission and caused to be prepared from my
tapes and notes of the proceedings a true, correct and
complete verbatim recording of the proceedings.

23
24
25

SIGNED:CYNTHIA OTT ___________________________
Signature of the Court Reporter