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

Filing 1206

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 [Public] Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motions in Limine, #2 Declaration of Joseph Kanada, #3 Exhibit 8, #4 Exhibit 11, #5 Exhibit 13, #6 Exhibit 14, #7 Exhibit 15, #8 Errata 16, #9 Exhibit 17, #10 Exhibit 18, #11 Exhibit 19, #12 Exhibit 20, #13 Exhibit 21, #14 Exhibit 22, #15 Exhibit 23, #16 Exhibit 24, #17 Exhibit 25, #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)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/10/2012)

Exhibit 39

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN
BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D.
REGARDING INFRINGEMENT
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381

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.

20
21
22

**CONFIDENTIAL – CONTAINS MATERIAL DESIGNATED AS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT
TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER**

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

claims or, put otherwise, is not a staple article of commerce that has substantial non-infringing

2

uses.

3

V.

4

DETAILED OPINION REGARDING THE ’381 PATENT
36.

I understand that in this lawsuit, Apple has accused Samsung of infringing the

5

’381 patent. In particular, Apple alleges that Samsung infringes claims 1-11 and 13-20 of the

6

’381 patent (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”).

7

37.

Specifically, I understand Apple has alleged that certain products that are made,

8

manufactured, produced, or sold by Samsung infringe the ’381 patent, including at least the

9

Captivate; Continuum; Droid Charge; Epic 4G; Exhibit 4G; Fascinate; Galaxy Ace; Galaxy

10

Prevail; Galaxy S (i9000); Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, and Epic 4G Touch variants); Galaxy S

11

4G; Galaxy S Showcase (i500); Galaxy Tab 7.0; Galaxy Tab 10.1; Gravity Smart; Gem; Indulge;

12

Infuse 4G; Intercept; Mesmerize; Nexus S; Nexus S 4G; Replenish; Sidekick; and Vibrant. I will

13

refer to these products individually by their names, or in the following collective forms:

14

“Accused Products (Gallery)” mean the Captivate; Continuum; Droid Charge; Epic

15

4G; Exhibit 4G; Fascinate; Galaxy Ace; Galaxy Prevail; Galaxy S (i9000); Galaxy S II

16

(i9100, AT&T, and Epic 4G Touch variants); Galaxy S 4G; Galaxy S Showcase;

17

Galaxy Tab 7.0; Galaxy Tab 10.1; Gravity Smart; Indulge; Infuse 4G; Mesmerize;

18

Nexus S; Nexus S 4G; Replenish; Sidekick; and Vibrant.

19

“Accused Products (Contacts)” mean the Captivate; Continuum; Droid Charge; Epic

20

4G; Exhibit 4G; Fascinate; Galaxy Ace; Galaxy S (i9000); Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T,

21

and Epic 4G Touch variants); Galaxy S 4G; Galaxy S Showcase (i500); Gem; Gravity

22

Smart; Indulge; Infuse 4G; Mesmerize; Sidekick; and Vibrant.

23

“Accused Products (Browser)” mean the Exhibit 4G; Galaxy Ace; Galaxy S II (i9100,

24

AT&T, and Epic 4G Touch variants); Galaxy Tab 7.0; Galaxy Tab 10.1; and Gravity

25

Smart.

26

“Accused Products (ThinkFree Office)” mean the Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G,

27

Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S 4G,

28
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

9

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

Galaxy S Showcase, Galaxy Tab 7.0, Indulge, Intercept, Mesmerize, Replenish, and

2

Sidekick.

3
4

38.

I understand that other Samsung products contain similar features and functions,

and therefore also infringe the ’381 patent.

5

39.

If I am called as an expert witness, I expect to testify regarding general

6

background and technical matters relating to the subject matter of the ’381 patent and its claims,

7

including the operation of graphical user interfaces. I further expect to testify regarding matters

8

pertaining to Samsung’s infringement of the ’381 patent. I have been asked to analyze the ’381

9

patent and the Samsung devices and provide technical teaching and opinions regarding that

10
11

patent.
40.

The explanation of my opinion regarding infringement of the Asserted Claims of

12

the ’381 patent includes (1) the claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and (2) the videos on the

13

produced herewith as Exhibits V1-V9, which are an integral part of my report, and which provide

14

documentary and demonstrative proof of infringement of each of the Asserted Claims. (Exhibit

15

V1 – Captivate gallery video; Exhibit V2 – Captivate contacts list video; Exhibit V3 – Vibrant

16

gallery video; Exhibit V4 – Vibrant contacts list video; Exhibit V5 – Exhibit 4G phone gallery

17

video; Exhibit V6 – Exhibit 4G phone contacts list video; Exhibit V7 – Exhibit 4G phone

18

ThinkFree Office video; Exhibit V8 – Galaxy Tab 10.1 gallery video; Exhibit V9 – Galaxy Tab

19

10.1 web browser video.) These exhibits are intended to be exemplary and not exhaustive. The

20

discussion below concerning infringement is meant to be read together with the material in

21

Exhibits 3 and V1-V9. I also incorporate by reference my declaration in support of Apple’s

22

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 91), as well as the exhibits thereto.

23

41.

It is my opinion that the Samsung devices infringe the asserted apparatus claims of

24

the ’381 patent, and that any user operating the Samsung devices for their intended purpose,

25

including to view electronic documents, would infringe the method claims.

26

A.

The ’381 Patent

27

42.

U.S. Patent no. 7,469,381 C1 is titled List Scrolling and Document Translation,

28

Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display. The filing date of the patent application
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

10

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2

AA.

Supplementation

3

267.

I reserve the right to supplement this report with new information and/or

4

documents that may be discovered or produced in this case, or to address any new claim

5

constructions offered by Samsung or ordered by the Court.

6

268.

In connection with my anticipated testimony in this action, I may use as exhibits

7

various documents produced in this case that refer or relate to the matters discussed in this

8

report. In addition, I may have demonstrative exhibits prepared to assist in the presentation of my

9

testimony and opinions as set forth or cited in my report.

10
11
12

Dated: March 22, 2012
RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK