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

Filing 1127

RESPONSE (re #1121 MOTION for Leave to File Apples Administrative Motion For Leave To File Objection To Reply Evidence ) Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Objection to Reply Evidence filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/23/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S OBJECTION
TO REPLY EVIDENCE

vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
02198.51887/4825769.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE

1
2

OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE
Samsung opposes Apple’s attempt to introduce untimely and misleading testimony through

3 the Supplemental Declaration of Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph.D., in Support of Apple’s Opposition to
4 Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Samsung submits this opposition pursuant to Civil

5 Local Rule 7-11(b).
6

Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), Apple cannot include additional evidence or argument

7 within an Objection to Reply evidence.

Apple had a full and fair opportunity to present its

8 evidence in its Opposition, because Apple knew Tablecloth’s invention date.

Samsung clearly

9 stated that Tablecloth was demonstrated in the MERL lobby in January 2005, and provided an
10 invention date.

Dkt No. 933, Bogue Decl. ¶8 (“The Tablecloth application was written on or

11 before January 12, 2005 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.”).

Lacking evidence to rebut this fact,

12 Apple simply alleged that Samsung had provided insufficient evidence, prompting Samsung to
13 appropriately include additional support in its Reply.

L.R. 7-3(c).

Thus, Apple has no grounds

14 for its failure to produce this evidence in its Opposition.
15

In addition, Apple willfully withheld Dr. Balakrishnan’s supplemental declaration until the

16 day of the hearing to create maximum prejudice to Samsung.
17 declaration on June 19.

Balakrishnan Supp Decl. ¶12.

Dr. Balakrishnan executed his

At this point, Apple could have filed the

18 declaration with the court, or provided a copy to Samsung for review.

Instead, Apple withheld

19 the evidence for two days, springing the declaration at the last possible moment in oral argument.
20 Thus, Apple intentionally served Dr. Balakrishnan’s declaration in a manner that would not allow
21 the Court or Samsung to scrutinize it prior to the hearing.

For that reason, Apple’s evidence

22 should not be considered by the Court.
23

Finally, Apple’s supplemental evidence is misleading and creates no genuine issue of fact.

24 Dr. Balakrishnan fails to explain why a link to the Tablecloth application existed if the Tablecloth
25 application itself was not invented.
26 invented by January 2005.

Thus, there is no genuine dispute that Tablecloth was

Regardless, Apple has absolutely no evidence corroborating its

27 February 2005 conception date for the ’381 patent.

Apple and Dr. Balakrishnan rely entirely on

28 the testimony of the named inventor of the ’381 patent to support its February 2005 conception
02198.51887/4825769.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE

1 date.

This is insufficient as a matter of law.

See, e.g., Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d

2 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“This court has developed a rule requiring corroboration where a
3 party seeks to show conception through the oral testimony of an inventor.”)

Thus, TableCloth is

4 prior art under 102(g), both under the January 2005 date and the clearly undisputed June 2005
5 date.
6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Apple’s Objection to Reply Evidence and

7 strike Apple’s additional argument.
8
9
10 DATED: June 22, 2012
11

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

By /s/ Victoria Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51887/4825769.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE