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

Filing 1236

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Objections to Apple's Exhibit List, Proposed Joint Exhibit List and Deposition Designations filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Trac Declaration, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Samsung's Objections, #4 Ex. A, #5 Ex. B, #6 Ex. C, #7 Ex. D)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/13/2012) Modified on 7/16/2012 Pursuant to General Order No. 62 attachment #1 Sealed (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT D Exhibit D Objections to Deposition Designations Samsung generally objects to Appleā€™s planned designation of deposition testimony from the 794 Investigation (with the exception of specific transcripts as to which the parties have agreed to cross-use). Witness from Whom Apple Intends to Designate Testimony Objections Seung-Ho Ahn (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Timothy Benner Brian Blasius Robert Brunner Samsung objects to the designation of testimony from Mr. Brunner on the grounds that Apple has not demonstrated that he is unavailable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). Dong Hoon Chang Stephanie Chen Joseph Cheong Samsung objects to any testimony of Mr. Cheong beyond the scope of Apple's representations to the Court in its motion to compel as to the subjects on which it intended to depose him. Benjamin Cheung Joon-Young Cho Nara Cho Seungwhan Cho Sung Ho Choi (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Gee-sung Choi Gin-kyu Choi Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Joon Ill Choi (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Soon-Jae Choi Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Minhyung Chung (NDCAL and ITC testimony) 02198.51855/4853553.1 1 Witness from Whom Apple Intends to Designate Testimony Objections Cira Conley Justin Denison (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Sung-Ho Eun Wong Pyo Hong Moon-Sang Jeong Hee-Won Kang (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Monica Karo Corey Kerstetter Wookyun Kho Ahyoung Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Bora Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Byungwook Kim Hun Kee Kim Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Jae Yoel Kim Jinsoo Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Min-Goo Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Minkyung Kim Noh-Sun Kim Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Se-Hyoung Kim Sehyun Kim Seong Guen Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Seongwoo Kim (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Soeng-Hun Kim Young-Bum Kim (NDCAL and ITC 02198.51855/4853553.1 2 Witness from Whom Apple Intends to Designate Testimony Objections testimony) Yong-Jun Kwak (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Ioi Lam (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Samsung objects to the designation of testimony from Mr. Lam on the grounds that Apple has not demonstrated that he is unavailable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). DonJoo Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) GiYoung Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) HyeJung Lee Hyeon Woo Lee JuHo Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Jun-Sung Lee Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. JunWon Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Kiwon Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) MinHyouk Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Sanguen Lee Seung Yun Lee Sungsik Lee YunJung Lee (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Qi Ling Samsung objects to the designation of testimony from Mr. Ling on the grounds that Apple has not demonstrated that he is unavailable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). Daniel Mauney Travis Merrill (ITC testimony) Young-Suk Moon Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Ki Hyung Nam (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Jeong Seok Oh Markus Paltian Chang Soo Park Hyoung Shin Park (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Junho Park Sang-Ryul Park Seunggun Park 02198.51855/4853553.1 3 Witness from Whom Apple Intends to Designate Testimony Objections Todd Pendleton (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Sean Roarty Brian Rosenberg Karl Heinz Rosenbrock (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Tim Rowden (ITC testimony) DongSeok Ryu MinCheol Shin Tim Sheppard (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Jaegwan Shin (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Samsung objects to the designation of testimony from Mr. Shin on the grounds that Apple has not demonstrated that he is unavailable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4). Jaehwang Sim Dale Sohn Hangil Song (NDCAL and ITC testimony) Himke Van Der Velde Gert-Jan Van Lieshout Jeeyeun Wang Richard Wesel Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an expert regarding patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Hyun Goo Woo JungMin Yeo Sun Young Yi Seung Hun Yoo Jae-Seung Yoon Samsung objects to designations from this witness on the ground the witness is an inventor of patent(s) that are no longer being asserted and hence irrelevant. Andre Zorn 02198.51855/4853553.1 4

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?