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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?