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

Filing 1291

Statement (Joint) Regarding Use of Representative Products at Trial by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation). (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit, #6 Exhibit, #7 Exhibit)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

EXHIBIT 3

In The Matter Of:
APPLEȱINC.ȱ
v.
ȱSAMSUNGȱELECTRONICSȱCO.,ȱLTD.,ȱetȱal.
ȱȱȱ___________________________________________________

RAVINȱBALAKRISHNAN
Julyȱ12,ȱ2012

ȱȱȱ___________________________________________________
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN - 7/12/2012
Page 24
1

THE WITNESS:

As I said before, apart

2

from this duality here of the Exhibit 4G

3

where there were two devices with different

4

colored casings and the replacement of some

5

of the devices for a variety of reasons,

6

those were the only devices that I considered

7

for the purposes of my infringement report.

8

Q.

So for a given product -- for a given

9

product, have you reviewed or considered more than

10

one Android version in formulating the infringement

11

opinions in your report on infringement of the '381

12

patent?

13

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

14

THE WITNESS:

Vague.

If you can restate that

15

question or maybe have the court reporter

16

read it back, if you don't mind, I want to

17

make sure I'm clear on the question.

18

MR. TUNG:

19

You can read back the

question.

20
21

Sure.

(Question read back.)
A.

So for a given product -- so, for example,

22

the Captivate or the Continuum, the device I

23

reviewed had the particular version of Android that

24

I have listed in this table in Exhibit 101 running

25

on it.

800-869-9132

And for that particular version of Android

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
www.merrillcorp.com/law

RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN - 7/12/2012
Page 25
1

running on that particular device I've determined

2

that the particular applications have the infringing

3

behavior.

4

What I've also determined is that additional

5

versions of Android by looking at the source code

6

and also the other versions of the phone would also

7

have similar behavior, infringing behavior.

8

I mean to say by that is if, for example, you have

9

the Captivate phone running Android version 2.2.1,

So what

10

given that Android version 2.2.1 running on the

11

Droid Charge, I have determined to be infringing the

12

'381 patent claim for some applications.

13

same version of Android was to run on a Captivate

14

phone, there is no reason why it would not infringe.

15

So that would also infringe.

16
17

Q.

If that

But you have not considered or examined a

Captivate phone running 2.2.1, correct?

18

MR. MONACH:

Object to the form of the

19

question as vague and compound.

20

and answered.

21

It was asked

You can do it again.

THE WITNESS:

I've not examined the

22

Captivate phone, per se, running 2.2.1, but I

23

have looked at 2.2.1 code that was produced.

24

If that 2.2.1 would run the Captivate, then

25

that would infringe as well.

800-869-9132

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
www.merrillcorp.com/law

RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN - 7/12/2012
Page 26
1
2
3

Q.

How do you know that the 2.2.1 code running

on the Captivate would also infringe?
A.

Because the 2.2.1 code running on the Droid

4

Charge or the Epic 4G and some of the other devices

5

I have listed here clearly infringe.

6

running on another device, there's no reason why it

7

would be any different behavior if it's the exact

8

same code running on that device.

9

Q.

And code, if

So is it your testimony that the same code

10

running on different devices always operates the

11

same way?

12

MR. MONACH:

13

question.

14

Object to the form of the

Object as beyond the scope.

THE WITNESS:

For the particular

15

functionality we're talking about here, for

16

the bounceback functionality, that particular

17

functionality, that software-based

18

functionality, if it's running on another

19

device that had similar touch hardware

20

capability, in other words, which all these

21

phones and tablets do, as one skilled in the

22

art, I don't see any reason why it would not

23

behave the same way.

24
25

Q.

So have you ever observed two different

devices running the same version of Android and

800-869-9132

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
www.merrillcorp.com/law

RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN - 7/12/2012
Page 27
1

exhibiting different behavior?

2

MR. MONACH:

3

hypothetical.

4

Objection.

Object.

THE WITNESS:

Incomplete

Beyond the scope.

I have not observed two

5

different devices running the exact same code

6

that exhibits different behavior.

7

Q.

My question is have you observed two

8

different devices running the same version of

9

Android exhibiting different behavior?

10

MR. MONACH:

11

THE WITNESS:

Same objections.
I might have, but I want

12

to make a distinction between what you call

13

the version of Android and what I'm saying is

14

the same source code.

15

somebody labels it a version of Android

16

doesn't mean somebody else couldn't have

17

changed it and putting in on a different

18

phone and calling it the same version of

19

Android.

20

distinction.

21

running on a different device with the same

22

capabilities as a device, that would

23

infringe.

24
25

Q.

So just because

I just wanted to draw that
If it's the exact same code

Do you know if Captivate running Android

version 2.2.1 code has the exact same code as, for

800-869-9132

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
www.merrillcorp.com/law

RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN - 7/12/2012
Page 28
1

example, the Droid Charge running Android version

2

2.2.1?

3

MR. MONACH:

4

Object.

Beyond the scope

of the supplemental deposition.

5

THE WITNESS:

If 2.2.1 were running on

6

the Captivate, it would be the same code.

7

Why would it be different?

8

piece of code and put it on another machine,

9

it's the same code.

10
11

Q.

If I take one

But didn't you just testify that someone

could have changed the code?

12

A.

Then it's not the same code anymore.

13

Q.

So you haven't observed the Captivate running

14

the source code that you inspected for the Droid

15

Charge, correct?

16
17
18
19
20

A.

I have not seen the Captivate running 2.2.1,

per se, no.
Q.

But you are rendering an opinion on Captivate

running 2.2.1 Android version code?
A.

That's right.

If it ran 2.2.1, and it's the

21

same 2.2.1 that I've examined in the context that

22

was provided by Samsung for examination, and that I

23

have determined when running on the Droid Charge and

24

Epic 4G, for example, do infringe, if that same code

25

were to run on the Captivate, I don't see any reason

800-869-9132

Merrill Corporation - San Francisco
www.merrillcorp.com/law