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

Filing 1312

Declaration of Mark Tung in Support of 1269 ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Kohi> filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3, # 2 Exhibit 4, # 3 Exhibit 5, # 4 Exhibit 6, # 5 Exhibit 7, # 6 Exhibit 8, # 7 Exhibit 9, # 8 Exhibit 11, # 9 Exhibit 12, # 10 Exhibit 13, # 11 Exhibit 14, # 12 Exhibit 15)(Related document(s) 1296 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/24/2012) Modified on 7/25/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 14
FILED UNDER SEAL

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
_______________________________
APPLE INC., a California
)
corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) Case No.
) 11-CV-01846-LHK
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.
)
_______________________________

13
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KARAN SINGH, PH.D.
Redwood Shores, California
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Volume I

Reported by:
Danielle de Gracia
CSR No. 13650
Job No. 143641
PAGES 1 - 285

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 8
1

1

Foerster, also for Apple.

2

2

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

3

3

is Danielle de Gracia of Veritext.

4

4

reporter please swear in the witness?

5

5

6

6

7

The court reporter today
Would the

11:04:52
KARAN SINGH PH.D.,
having been administered an oath, was examined and

8

8

testified as follows:

9

9

10

10

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14

Q

Good morning.

15

15

A

Good morning.

16

16

Q

Please state your name for the record.

17

17

A

Karan Singh.

18

18

19

19

Q

What is your business address?

20

20

A

My university address?

21

21

Q

Yes.

22

22

A

40 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario,

23

23

24

24

Q

Do you live in Toronto?

25

25

A

Yes.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

Please begin.

11:05:02

EXAMINATION
BY MR. BRIGGS:

11:05:04

My passport has my first name

as Karansher.

11:05:16

University of Toronto.

212-267-6868

11:05:29

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 161
1

Double-Tap as a supplementary zooming method,'" you

2

know, as part of some -- you know, as part of the

3

larger context of that document, to me, you know, is

4

an indication of -- of attempting to emulate specific

5

features that -- that appear in the claims of the

6

'163 patent.

7

Q

Okay.

04:17:52

Does the '163 patent -- do the clai-

8

-- strike that.

Do the claims in the '163 patent

9

cover just a double tap to zoom?

10

MR. MONACH:

11

THE WITNESS:

12
13
14

Objection.

Asked and answered.

Maybe not.

BY MR. BRIGGS:
Q

And why not?

You need the second tap,

right?

15

A

Uh-huh.

16

Q

Okay.

17

04:18:08

04:18:20
So which one of these documents

describe --

18

A

19

question.

20

Q

21

I believe -- sorry.

Please finish your

Which one of these documents describe a

04:18:30

double tap to zoom and then a subsequent tap?

22

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

Under the best

23

evidence rule, the documents themselves are the best

24

evidence of what they say.

25

recollection, if you have one.

212-267-6868

But you can give your

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:18:44

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 162
1

THE WITNESS:

I believe it was the document

2

that gave me reason to believe that this was the

3

case.

4

BY MR. BRIGGS:

5

Q

Okay.

But as you sit here today, you can't

6

remember a specific document that showed a double tap

7

to zoom followed by -- or described that followed by

8

04:18:52

another tap?

9

A

No.

As I sit here today, I believe there

10

was a design document that indicated that --

11

indicated that the -- that two taps, you know,

12

that -- that multiple gestures, a first gesture and

13

then a second gesture was desirable and perhaps

14

should be emulated.

15
16

Q

Are you aware of any design-arounds to the

04:19:07

04:19:32

'163 patent?

17

MR. MONACH:

18

THE WITNESS:

Objection.

Vague.

I mean, I don't know

19

conclusively but I believe there may have been

20

some -- some suggestions proffered in -- in the -- in

21

one of the reports of Mr. Gray.

22

BY MR. BRIGGS:

23
24

Q

04:19:55

Could you implement a design-around to the

'163 patent?

25

MR. MONACH:

212-267-6868

Objection.

Vague.

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:20:10

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 163
1

THE WITNESS:

I think the '163 is a

2

wonderful design.

3

motivation to even -- even want to design around it.

4

BY MR. BRIGGS:

5

Q

I would have to question the

What about the second gesture, could --

6

could you instead of performing the second tap, make

7

that second tap do something different like, for

8

example, zoom -- zoom the device out after you zoom

9

04:20:18

in?

10

A

11

scenario.

12

as I said, I would question the motivation -- the

13

desire to do it.

14

second gesture, I think shows wonderful insight in

15

the -- in the browsing experience that the likelihood

16

that when you are in a zoomed in view to read a

17

particular portion of a document, that you are likely

18

to want to continue to perhaps read other neighboring

19

or -- or other content rather than wanting to go back

20

out of context, and then potentially come back.

21

Well, that's sort of a hypothetical

04:20:41

But I would -- I would question, firstly,

I mean, the design of having a

04:21:14

04:21:42

So to me, that's -- that's -- that's

22

quite poor -- quite a poor alternative.

23

have to look at that alternative precisely and

24

analyze it to -- to -- to make sure that it didn't

25

actually -- that it in fact was a design-around.

212-267-6868

Plus I would

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:22:04

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 164
1

Because the '163, you know, has a fairly large number

2

of claims.

3

design-around, I believe it needs to -- it needs to

4

not infringe any of those claims.

5
6

Q

So when, you know, for it to be a

Well, let's just focus on Claim 2 because

04:22:23

that has the two gestures we were talking about.

7

A

Okay.

8

Q

I think we have established that to infringe

9

Claim 2, when you tap on the second box, that second

10

box then has to be substantially centered; is that

11

right?

12

A

Yes.

13

Q

Okay.

04:22:43

So if you had a design-around where

14

you tapped on the second box and the device did

15

something other than substantially centering what was

16

in the second box --

17

A

Sorry --

18

Q

-- that wouldn't infringe the claims,

19

correct?

20

A

04:22:57

I just wanted to -- I'm sorry I -- I cut you

21

short firstly, but I just wanted to qualify you --

22

you sort of talked about the second box and tapping

23

on the second box, and I just wanted to make sure or

24

add that, you know, that sort of -- there is an

25

assumption that -- that a first box has been tapped

04:23:04

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:23:24

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 165
1

on and so on prior to -- prior to this step.

2

Q

That's what I meant.

3

A

Yeah.

4

apologize.

5

the question.

6

Q

I just wanted to clarify that.

I cut you off.

So I

Maybe you can just repeat
04:23:42

So my question is, is if you tap on a first

7

box and zoom in on it and substantially center it and

8

you see a second box on the screen and then you were

9

to tap on it and it did something other than

10

substantially centering that second box, would that

11

infringe Claim 2 of the '163 patent?

12
13

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

04:24:00

Incomplete

hypothetical.

14

THE WITNESS:

You'd probably need to tell me

15

what it would do instead.

16

BY MR. BRIGGS:

17

Q

04:24:17

What if I tapped on the second box and the

18

entire image on the screen went back to the state it

19

was in before the first tap, would that infringe?

20
21

A

It probably would not infringe Claim 2, but

04:24:29

it may infringe other claims of -- of the '163.

22

Q

Are you sure about that?

23

A

Sure that it would -- that it might --

24

Q

Don't all the independent claims require the

25

same procedure of a first tap and a second tap?

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:24:51

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 166
1

A

I'd have to check -- check that for sure.

2

Q

Okay.

3

A

Well, I mean, there are a large number of

But you are not for sure?

4

claims.

5

yeah, to be conclusive.

6
7

Q

I need to -- I need to really look at them,

Okay.

04:25:05

Let's just assume for the sake of

moving things along --

8

A

Okay.

9

Q

-- that we are talking about Claim 2.

10

A

Fine.

11

Q

So in that case, the scenario that I just

04:25:13

12

gave you, if the second gesture made the screen go

13

back to the state it was in before you had the first

14

tap, would that infringe the claims?

15
16

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

Incomplete

04:25:34

hypothetical.

17

THE WITNESS:

18

Claim 2 again.

19

Let me just take a look at

BY MR. BRIGGS:

20

Q

Well, the last limitation in Claim 2 states,

21

"In response to detecting the second gesture, the

22

structured electronic document is translated so that

23

the second box is substantially centered on the touch

24

04:25:52

screen display."

25

So in my hypothetical, when you tapped on it

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:26:04

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 167
1

the second time, you went back to the original state.

2

Would that be non-infringing?

3
4

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

Incomplete

hypothetical.

5

THE WITNESS:

In that hypothetical scenario,

6

if the second box happened to have been substantially

7

centered in the first -- in the -- in the zoomed out

8

state, then it would still be infringing.

9

04:26:19

--

10

Were that

BY MR. BRIGGS:

04:26:36

11

Q

By coincidence.

12

A

Right.

13
14
15
16

Were that not the case, then yes, it

would not be infringing.
Q

What if I tapped on the second box and

nothing happened.
A

Would that be non-infringing?

04:26:46

If you tapped on the second -- you know, I'm

17

just having a problem finding the claim.

18

really like to have the claims under -- the claim

19

language under my eyes.

20

Q

Call them 25 and 26.

21

A

Yeah, no, no.

I would

I was just fumbling with the

22

pages.

23

assuming that you have done all, you know, you

24

practiced the claims up until the element that --

25

where -- where the second box is -- is gestured on,

212-267-6868

Yes.

04:27:05

So to answer that question, again,

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:27:44

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 168
1

if that second -- yeah.

2

And it did not substantially translate -- it

3

did not translate to substantially re- -- to center

4

the second box, then that would be non-infringing on

5

Claim 2.

6

Q

Not necessarily all the claims.

04:28:09

I think if you go back and look at the

7

claims, you'll see that that's in all of them, but I

8

understand your position.

9

A

Okay.

Fine.

10

Q

This last limitation of Claim 2 which

11

involves the second tap, do you know how that claim

12

04:28:22

limitation came into existence?

13

A

I'm not sure I understand your question.

14

Q

Okay.

I think you testified earlier that

15

that step was intuitive or wonderfully intuitive, the

16

second tap.

17

you know how that limitation in the claims actually

18

found its way into the claims?

19

A

04:28:47

And my question is, is do you know -- do

Well, I do recall maybe some inventor

20

testimony talking about perhaps the -- the conception

21

of this -- that described it.

22
23
24
25

Q

04:29:18

Do you understand that that limitation was

added during prosecution of the patent?
A

Perhaps I need to double -- crosscheck that

with this prosecution history.

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:29:36

516-608-2400

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 169
1
2

Q

Okay.

Do you know if the examiner added

that limitation to the claims?

3

A

I need to double check that.

4

Q

And do you know if the examiner added that

5

limitation to get arou- -- to make the claim

6

allowable over prior art?

7
8

A

I again need to double check with the

prosecution history.

9
10

04:29:50

MR. MONACH:

Are we at convenient short

stopping point?

04:30:04

11

MR. BRIGGS:

Yes.

12

MR. MONACH:

Because we have been going for

13

a while.

14
15

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

Going off the record.

The time is 4:30.

04:30:08

16

(Recess.)

17

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

18

record.

19

We are back on the

BY MR. BRIGGS:

20
21

Q

The time the 4:39.

Dr. Singh, let's turn to your invalidity in

04:39:40

the section on the '163 patent.

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

Which starts at page 7.

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

And the first piece of prior art I wanted to

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

04:39:57

516-608-2400