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

Filing 1183

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Claim Construction Brief filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Trac Declaration in Support of Motion to Seal, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Samsung's Claim Construction Brief, #4 Schmidt Declaration in Support of Claim Construction Brief, #5 Exhibit 1, #6 Exhibit 2, #7 Exhibit 3, #8 Exhibit 4, #9 Exhibit 5, #10 Exhibit 6, #11 Exhibit 7, #12 Exhibit 8, #13 Exhibit 9, #14 Exhibit 10, #15 Exhibit 11, #16 Exhibit 12, #17 Exhibit 13, #18 Exhibit 14)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/5/2012)

EXHIBIT 5

99999.77769/4844798.1

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK



DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN
DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT REGARDING THE
INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO.
7,469,381



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,

Defendants.




02198.51855/4749987.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381

1

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,698,711; 6,493,002; 7,469,381; 7,663,607; 7,812,828; 7,844,915; and

2

7,853,891 (Dkt No. 849) at 23.) I adopt this construction for my analysis in this declaration.

3

31.

I understand that the Court interpreted the claims of the '381 patent to be

4

"fatalistic" such that if a user scrolls past the edge of an electronic document in the first direction,

5

the screen must snap back to that document when the user lifts her finger.

6

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt No. 449) at 60.) I adopt this construction for my

7

analysis in this declaration.

8
9

32.

(Order Denying

I understand the Court has not provided a construction for “electronic document.”

In addition, the ’381 patent does not provide an explicit definition of “electronic document," and

10

only provides a few examples.

11

Samsung proposed in its Patent Local Rule 4-2 disclosures, namely "information that is visually

12

represented on a screen that has a defined set of boundaries." I understand that Dr. Balakrishnan

13

effectively agreed with this construction during this August 16, 2011 deposition, where he stated

14

"the electronic document is some visual representation on the screen that has a defined length and

15

a width as an example, or defined set of boundaries, because they may not have to be a

16

rectangular set of boundaries."

17

attached hereto as Exhibit 2.)

18

33.

I interpret “electronic document” according to the construction

(8/26/2011 Deposition of Ravin Balakrishnan at 27:19-25,

I understand that the Court has not issued claim construction regarding other

19

disputed terms of the '381 patent. In this declaration, I have attempted to apply the claim

20

constructions that would be used by one of ordinary skill in the art.

21 IV.

OVERVIEW OF THE '381 PATENT AND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS

22

A.

23

34.

The '381 Patent Generally
The ‘381 patent, titled “List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and

24

Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display,” was filed on December 14, 2007 and issued on December

25

23, 2008.

26

filed on January 7, 2007.

It claims priority to a number of provisional applications, the earliest of which was
The patent has one named inventor, Bas Ording.

27
28

02198.51855/4749987.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-7DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381

1

set up and trivial to calibrate.

2

of the projected image, the DiamondTouch system running Tablecloth/DTFlash operates

3

precisely as described in this declaration.

4

110.

Once calibrated, which requires four finger touches on the corners

Dr. Balakrishnan also appears to be concerned that the DiamondTouch system was

5

not being used as intended in order to take the videos and photographs attached to the Expert

6

Report of Andries van Dam, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.

7

a picture of the DiamondTouch table, projector, and a computer, here the ThinkPad laptop,

8

driving the display.

9

properly and is behaving in its intended manner.

Below is

As the photograph indicates, the DiamondTouch system was calibrated

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in

23 Providence, Rhode Island on May 17, 2012.
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4749987.3

By
Andries van Dam

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-31DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381