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

Filing 1204

Declaration of Deok Keun Matthew Ahn in Support of #1203 Claim Construction Statement filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6)(Related document(s) #1203 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/10/2012)

Exhibit 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6

APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,

7

PLAINTIFF,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C-11-01846 LHK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 21, 2012
PAGES 1-108

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20

APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE

21
22
23
24
25

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

1

1

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

3
4

JUNE 21, 2012

(WHEREUPON, COURT CONVENED AND THE
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:)

5

THE CLERK:

CALLING CASE NUMBER

6

C-11-01846 LHK, APPLE, INCORPORATED VERSUS SAMSUNG

7

ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED, ET AL.

8

MR. MCELHINNY:

9
10
11
12

HONOR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR

FOR THE PLAINTIFF, HAROLD MCELHINNY AND

MICHAEL JACOBS.
MR. LEE:

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

ALSO

FOR APPLE, MARK SELWYN AND BILL LEE.

13

THE COURT:

14

OKAY.

MR. JOHNSON:

GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

15

KEVIN JOHNSON FOR SAMSUNG, AND WITH ME ARE

16

VICKI MAROULIS AND MIKE ZELLER.

17

MR. ZELLER:

18

THE COURT:

19

OKAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.
OKAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I HAVE QUESTIONS.

SAMSUNG'S

20

MOTION CHALLENGES ALL OF APPLE'S CAUSES OF ACTION,

21

AND I HAVE QUESTIONS BASICALLY ON EACH.

22
23
24
25

LET'S START WITH THE TRADE DRESS, TRADE
DRESS DILUTION ISSUE.
LET ME ASK, AND IF -- MR. MCELHINNY, ARE
YOU HANDLING THIS ISSUE?
3

1

WAS -- LET ME ASK, WITH REGARD TO THE '381, WHETHER

2

YOU HAVE THE SAME POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF AN

3

"ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT," BUT YOU'RE JUST DISAGREEING

4

HOW TO APPLY THAT CONSTRUCTION?

5

ACCURATE STATEMENT, OR NO?

6

MR. JOHNSON:

WOULD THAT BE AN

I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME

7

AGREEMENT; YET, AT THE SAME TIME, I HEAR DIFFERENT,

8

DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS COMING FROM THEM ON WHETHER

9

WE -- WHAT WE SAY IS ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT IS

10

ACTUALLY MET BY WHAT THEY SAY IS AN ELECTRONIC

11

DOCUMENT.

12
13

SO I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A
SPECIFIC DISPUTE OR NOT.

14

WE THINK --

15

THE COURT:

BUT THAT STILL SOUNDS LIKE

16

YOU AGREE ON THE CONSTRUCTION, BUT YOU DISAGREE ON

17

ITS APPLICATION.

18

THAT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME.

19

WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THAT'S WHAT

MR. JOHNSON:

WELL, "ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT"

20

SPECIFICALLY, IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN

21

THE CONTEXT OF THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER.

22

WAS "BEYOND THE EDGE OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT."

23

IT

SO THE ACTUAL TERM "ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT"

24

WE THINK IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND REFERS TO

25

WEB PAGES AND DIGITAL IMAGES AS EXAMPLES OF
73

1

ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS.

2
3

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SPECIFIC
DISPUTE IN THAT RESPECT.

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. JACOBS:

WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
I THINK THAT THAT HASN'T

6

BEEN JOINED.

7

FORMALLY AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF "ELECTRONIC

8

DOCUMENT."

9

THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN JOINED

I THINK BOTH SIDES HAVE ADDUCED THEIR

10

EVIDENCE WITH IMPLICIT DEFINITIONS OF "ELECTRONIC

11

DOCUMENT."

12

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THEIR -- IN THE CASE OF

13

TABLECLOTH, THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE

14

TWO IMAGES REPRESENT A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR WHETHER

15

EACH IMAGE IS A SINGLE DOCUMENT, AND THAT CREATES

16

PART OF A FACT ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER TABLECLOTH, AS A

17

MATTER OF SUBSTANCE, IS ANTICIPATORY.

18
19

IN SHORT, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S JOINED,
YOUR HONOR.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. JOHNSON:

22

THE COURT:

23
24
25

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN -I THINK IT --- THAT IT'S NOT JOINED?

DOES THAT MEAN IT'S NOT RIPE OR IT HASN'T -MR. JOHNSON:

WELL, I THINK HE'S SAYING

THERE IS A DISPUTE, BECAUSE I THINK HE'S SAYING
74

1

ON THAT.

2

THAT A SCREEN THAT HAS MULTIPLE PHOTOGRAPHS ON IT

3

IS AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.

4
5
6

FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ARGUE -- APPLE ARGUES

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE
BOUNDARIES AROUND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT?
AND ULTIMATELY I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO DO

7

IT IS TO COME UP WITH EXAMPLES, TO SAY IT IS THIS,

8

IT IS NOT THIS.

9
10
11

MR. JACOBS:

AND I THINK THE POSITION IS

BEING SOMEWHAT OVERSIMPLIFIED.
AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS

12

MULTIPLE IMAGES IS AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.

13

DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY REPRESENTATION ON A SCREEN

14

OF MULTIPLE IMAGES IS A SINGLE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT.

15

MR. JOHNSON:

THAT

WE, FRANKLY, COULD LIVE

16

WITH THE PORTION OF THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

17

WHICH BASICALLY SAYS, QUOTE, "UNDER THE EXPRESS

18

LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIMS, WEB PAGES AND DIGITAL

19

IMAGES ARE EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS."

20
21

WE BELIEVE THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT AND
THAT COVERS MULTIPLE IMAGES.

22

MR. JACOBS:

NOT REALLY.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. JACOBS:

25

BUT I THINK ACTUALLY, WHAT WE SHOULD DO,

WELL -AND YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHY.

78

1
2
3
4

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

5
6
7
8
9

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

10

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH

11

FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY

12

CERTIFY:

13

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT,

14

CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND

15

CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS

16

SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

17

HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED

18

TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

/S/
_____________________________
LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595