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

Filing 1150

MOTION for Extension of Time and to Seal Documents re #1024 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1022 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1020 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #925 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,362,867 and Invalidity of U.S. Patent Numbers 7,456,893 and 7,577,460, #1013 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). Responses due by 7/2/2012. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Samsung's Motion, #2 Declaration of Anthony P. Alden in Support of Samsung's Motion, #3 Exhibit 1 to the Alden Declaration, #4 Declaration of Hankil Kang in Support of Samsung's Motion, #5 Exhibit 1 to the Kang Declaration, #6 Exhibit 2 to the Kang Declaration, #7 Exhibit 3 to the Kang Declaration, #8 Exhibit 4 to the Kang Declaration, #9 Exhibit 5 to the Kang Declaration, #10 Exhibit 6 to the Kang Declaration, #11 Exhibit 7 to the Kang Declaration, #12 Exhibit 8 to the Kang Declaration, #13 Exhibit 9 to the Kang Declaration, #14 Exhibit 10 to the Kang Declaration, #15 Exhibit 11 to the Kang Declaration, #16 Exhibit 12 to the Kang Declaration, #17 Exhibit 13 to the Kang Declaration, #18 Exhibit 14 to the Kang Declaration, #19 Exhibit 15 to the Kang Declaration, #20 Exhibit 16 to the Kang Declaration, #21 Exhibit 17 to the Kang Declaration, #22 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 1 of 5, #23 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 2 of 5, #24 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 3 of 5, #25 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 4 of 5, #26 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 5 of 5, #27 Exhibit 19 to the Kang Declaration, #28 Exhibit 20 to the Kang Declaration, #29 Exhibit 21 to the Kang Declaration, #30 Exhibit 22 to the Kang Declaration, #31 Exhibit 23 to the Kang Declaration, #32 Exhibit 24 to the Kang Declaration, #33 Exhibit 25 to the Kang Declaration, #34 Exhibit 26 to the Kang Declaration, #35 Exhibit 27 to the Kang Declaration, #36 Exhibit 28 to the Kang Declaration, #37 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Miscellaneous Administrative Request)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/28/2012)

KANG DECLARATION
EXHIBIT 6

Exhibit 10
(Submitted Under Seal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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

Defendants.
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN GRAY
REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
7,844,915 AND 7,864,163

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

44.

The Singh Report provides no additional discussion of how the "event object invokes"

16 the scroll or gesture operation. See Singh's report ¶¶321-323
17

45.

For at least reason, the Accused Products do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the

18 '915 Patent.
19

2.

It Is My Understanding That The Singh Report Opinions Regarding Indirect

20

Infringement Were Not Properly Disclosed In Apple's Infringement

21

Contentions.

22

46.

The opinions of the Singh Report rely on an indirect theory of infringement with respect

23 to the method claims of the '915 Patent. The opinion, as stated by the Singh report, is that "the Samsung
24 defendants have indirectly infringed the method claims of the '915 Patent." Singh Report at ¶ 304.
25 However, it is my understanding that Apple's P.L.R. 3-1 infringement contentions did not previously
26 disclose that it would be relying on this type of infringement theory with regard to the '915 Patent. The
27
28
-9-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

59.

The Singh Report does not identify any specific component in the Accused Products that

2 receives a user input. Singh merely asserts that "[e]ach '915 Accused Product … includes a touch3 sensitive display," but does not cite to any evidence to establish that any such touch-sensitive displays
4 receive "one or more input points."

Further, The Singh Report does not identify any software

5 component that receives or handles the user input from the touch-sensitive display. Singh Report ¶ 308.
6

60.

Additionally, I note that any Accused Products that do not receive user input in the form

7 of "one or more input points" do not infringe Claim 1.
8
9

3.
61.

10
11

'915 Patent, Claim 1[b]

Claim 1[b] recites:
creating an event object in response to the user input;

62.

I note that any Accused Products that do not create an event object in response to user

12 input in the form of "one or more input points" do not infringe this limitation.
13
14

4.
63.

'915 Patent, Claim 1[c]

Claim 1[c] recites:

15

determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation

16

by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-

17

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or

18

more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are

19

interpreted as the gesture operation;

20

64.

As discussed above, the Accused Products do not only use the number of touch inputs to

21 determine whether a scroll or gesture operation is performed and therefore do not infringe this
22 limitation.
23

65.

Claim 1[c] requires "determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture

24 operation." I have previously submitted an expert report outlining the reasons for my conclusion that
25 Claim 1 of the '915 Patent is indefinite and therefore invalid over the cited prior art.
26
27
28
-13-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

66.

In the alternative, should the court find that Claim 1 is not indefinite and confirms its

2 validity over the cited prior art, it is my opinion that Claim 1 is not infringed by the Accused Products,
3 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the following reasons:
4
5

(a)
67.

The Event Object does not "invoke"

The claim limitation relating to the event object invoking a scroll or gesture operation in

6 Claim 1[c] is preceded by the language "creating an event object in response to the user input" in Claim
7 1[b]. Therefore, both limitations refer to the same "event object."
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-14-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1
2
3
4

73.

The Singh Report provides no additional discussion of how the "event object invokes"

5 the scroll or gesture operation, as required by this limitation of Claim 1. See Singh's report ¶¶321-323.
6

74.

For at least these reasons, the Accused Products do not infringe Claim 1 of the '915

7 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
8

(b)

9
10

The number of touch inputs are not used to determine whether to
scroll or scale

75.

As described above in Section IV.A.1.a, on the Accused Products a user is able to scroll

11 with one or more fingers (e.g., two-finger scroll, three-finger scroll, etc.). Scrolling with two or more
12 fingers does not meet the limitation of "distinguishing between a single input point . . . interpreted as the
13 scroll operation and two or more input points . . . interpreted as the gesture operation."
14

76.

I note that the Singh Report does not show that the Accused Products invoke a scroll or

15 gesture operation by distinguishing "between a single input point . . . interpreted as the scroll operation
16 and two or more input points . . . interpreted as the gesture operation."
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

7

I

81.

The Singh Report fails to prove infringement because the '915 Patent's definition of a

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9 "gesture," found in the Specification, includes both scrolling and scaling operations. The Accused
10 Products therefore do not meet the claimed limitation of "distinguishing between a single input point . . .
11 interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points . . . interpreted as the gesture operation."
12 I also point out that Claim 1 uses the term "the scroll operation" to indicate that this operation is separate
13 and different from "the gesture operation." As set forth in my initial expert report on invalidity, the
14 conflation of scroll operations and gesture operations provided the basis for my conclusion that the '915
15 Patent is indefinite.
16

82.

For at least these reasons, the Accused Products do not infringe Claim 1 of the '915

17 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
18
19

(c)
83.

Additional Comments

The Singh Report also relies on Ioi Lam's deposition testimony stating that Android has

20 "event objects." Singh Report ¶ 325. I note that this statement and citation is nearly meaningless, as all
21 event-driven GUI systems have event objects, or similar message-passing models.
22
23

5.
84.

'915 Patent, Claim 1[d]

Claim 1[d] recites:

24

issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or

25

gesture operation;

26

85.

As discussed above, systems that do not issue one or more scroll or gesture calls from the

27 event object created in response to user input in the form of "one or more input points" do not infringe
28
-16-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1 Dated: April 16, 2012
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-75-