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 12
FILED UNDER SEAL

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

Page
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 1
MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... 4
LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................ 6
DETAILED OPINION REGARDING THE ’381 PATENT ............................................. 9
A.
The ’381 Patent ..................................................................................................... 10
B.
Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 12
C.
Apple’s Practice Of The ’381 Patent .................................................................... 12
D.
Samsung’s Emulation Of Apple And The Features Of The ’381 Patent .............. 13
E.
Samsung’s Knowledge of the ’381 Patent ............................................................ 17
F.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 1 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 17
G.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 2 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 27
H.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 3 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 28
I.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 4 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 28
J.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 5 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 28
K.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 6 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 29
L.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 7 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 30
M.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 8 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 30
N.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 9 of the ’381 Patent........................................ 32
O.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 10 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 33
P.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 11 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 34
Q.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 13 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 35
R.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 14 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 36
S.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 15 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 37
T.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 16 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 38
U.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 17 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 39
V.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 18 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 41
W.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 19 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 42
X.
Samsung’s Infringement of Claim 20 of the ’381 Patent...................................... 51
Y.
Difficulty of Design Around ................................................................................. 58
Z.
Non-Infringement Contentions ............................................................................. 59
AA. Supplementation.................................................................................................... 62

27
28
i

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
(APLNDC-Y0000066320.)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

181.

All of the aforementioned Samsung devices also have touch screen displays. (See

Ex. 3.) It is my opinion that these products satisfy this element of claim 19.
182.

Claim 19, Element [b]: “one or more processors.”

183.

It is my opinion that all of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfy this

element of claim 19.
184.

For example, as Samsung describes some of its own products, they are devices

with the following processors:

12

•

Captivate: “1 GHz, Cortex A8 Hummingbird Processor” that uses
“Android 2.3, Gingerbread.” (APLNDC-Y0000066835);

•

Vibrant: “1 GHz Cortex A8 Hummingbird Application Processor”
that uses “Android 2.2, Froyo.” (APLNDC-Y0000066798);

•

Exhibit 4G: “1-GHz Hummingbird” processor that uses “Android
2.3, Gingerbread OS.” (APLNDC-Y0000066850); and

•

Galaxy Tab 10.1: “1 Ghz Dual Core Nvidia Tegra2 Processor” that
uses “Android 3.2, Honeycomb.” (APLNDC-Y0000066820-821.)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

185.

Claim 19, Element [c]: “memory; and”

186.

It is my opinion that each of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfies this

element of claim 19.
187.

For example, as Samsung describes some of its own products, they are devices

with the following memory:
•

Captivate: “Internal Memory” of “2 GB.” (APLNDCY0000066836);

•

Vibrant: “Internal Memory” of “2 GB.” (APLNDCY0000066800);

•

Exhibit 4G: “Internal Memory” of “512 MB.” (APLNDCY0000066850); and

•

Galaxy Tab 10.1: “16 GB Internal Memory.” (APLNDC-

24
25
26
27
28

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

44

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2

Y0000066850.)
188.

Claim 19, Element [d]: “one or more programs, wherein the one or more

3

programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more

4

processors, the programs including:”

5

189.

It is my opinion that each of these devices satisfies this element of claim 19.

6

190.

As described above in the discussion of claim 1, these devices run a number of

7

programs such as the “Gallery,” “Contacts,” “Browser,” and “ThinkFree Office” applications.

8

These programs are stored in the memory of the Samsung devices, and are configured to be

9

executed by the processors in the Samsung devices. In addition, by way of example, Samsung

10

describes in the user manual for the Exhibit 4G phone the process of launching and using the

11

Gallery application:

12
13
14
15

(APLNDC-Y0000066418.)
191.

Because these devices perform the elements described in claims 1 and 19, they

16

must have instructions for performing those methods and a storage medium for those instructions

17

as recited in those claims. As noted above, all of the aforementioned Samsung devices use the

18

Android software platform. As the publicly available source code and documentation for the

19

Android software platform available on the Android developers website

20

(http://developer.android.com) confirm, this software platform includes executable instructions

21

for displaying electronic documents, as described above.

22

192.

Moreover, as discussed above, I have also confirmed that these products contain

23

programs and instructions for performing the methods discussed above. For example, the source

24

code for detecting a user’s finger movement, translating an electronic document, detecting a

25

user’s lifting of his finger from the touch screen, and translating an electronic document in a

26

second direction can be found in the following source code modules for the Exhibit 4G phone’s

27

Gallery application: RenderView.java, GLSurfaceView.java, GridLayer.java, and

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

45

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

GridInputProcessor.java, and GridCameraManager.java. (SAMNDCA-C000007890-8007.) As

2

another example, the source code for detecting a user’s finger movement, translating an electronic

3

document, detecting a user’s lifting of his finger from the touch screen, and translating an

4

electronic document in a second direction can be found in the following source code modules in

5

the Galaxy Tab 10.1’s Browser application: WebView.java and View.java. (SAMNDCA-

6

C000003501 – 3549.)

7

193.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

8

Android running on the Samsung products accused of infringing the claims of the ’381 patent

9

(Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that each such product includes similar

10

computer code that detects a user’s finger, translates an electronic document, and displays an area

11

beyond the edge of the electronic document.

12
13
14
15

194.

Accordingly, executable instructions for performing the infringing functionalities

are stored in memory on these devices.
195.

Claim 19, Element [e]: “instructions for displaying a first portion of an

electronic document;”

16

196.

17

element of claim 19.

18

197.

It is my opinion that each of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfies this

As depicted in Exhibit 3, and by way of example, the Exhibit 4G phone can

19

display a first portion of an electronic document such as a photograph through its Gallery

20

application. Because the Exhibit 4G phone performs this element of claim 19, it must have

21

instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document such as a photograph. What I

22

observed on the device is further confirmed by my inspection of the source code for the Gallery

23

application in the Exhibit 4G phone, discussed above.

24

198.

Each of the other aforementioned devices can also display a first portion of an

25

electronic document, as demonstrated in Exhibit 3, and therefore must also have instructions for

26

doing so.

27
28

199.

Claim 19, Element [f]: “instructions for detecting a movement of an object on

or near the touch screen display; instructions for translating the electronic document
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

46

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the

2

electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in

3

response to detecting the movement;”

4

200.

5

element of claim 19.

6

201.

It is my opinion that each of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfies this

As depicted Exhibit 3, and by way of example, the Exhibit 4G phone can detect

7

when a user places a finger on the touch screen display and moves his finger in a first direction.

8

It then translates the electronic document, in this case a photograph, in the same direction,

9

resulting in the display of another portion of the photograph which is different from the first

10

portion. By way of example, the Exhibit 4G phone is capable of detecting the movement of a

11

finger on its touch screen, and in response, scrolling the photograph in the same direction,

12

displaying a second, different portion of the photograph. Because the Exhibit 4G phone performs

13

this element of claim 19, it must have instructions for detecting the movement of a finger on its

14

touch screen, and in response, scrolling a photograph in the direction of the finger movement and

15

displaying a second, different portion of the photograph. What I observed on the device is further

16

confirmed by my inspection of the source code for the Gallery application for the Exhibit 4G

17

phone, discussed above.

18

202.

Each of the other aforementioned Samsung devices can also detect the movement

19

of a finger on their touch screens, and in response, scroll an electronic document in the direction

20

of the finger movement and display a second, different portion of the electronic document, as

21

demonstrated in Exhibits 3 and V1-V9, and therefore must also have instructions for doing so.

22

203.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

23

the doctrine of equivalents because the instructions for the Accused Products (Gallery) are

24

insubstantially different from the instructions as recited in claim 19.

25

204.

In particular, the Accused Products (Gallery) perform substantially the same

26

function of translating an electronic document in a first direction to display a second portion of

27

the electronic document, substantially the same way by displaying the movement of an electronic

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

47

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

document to display another portion of the electronic document, to achieve substantially the same

2

result of showing a second portion of the electronic document following movement in a direction.

3

205.

Moreover, translating a document in a first direction based on the movement of a

4

human finger with minor irregularity is not substantially different from doing so based on an

5

absolutely precise movement. Translating a document in a first direction based on the movement

6

of a human finger operates to perform substantially the same function (translating the document),

7

in substantially the same way (by detecting the movement of an object), to obtain substantially

8

the same result (translation of a document in a first direction) as translating based on the

9

movement of an object with absolute precision.

10

206.

Claim 19, Element [g]: “instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of

11

the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein

12

the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic

13

document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction

14

while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display;”

15

207.

16

element of claim 19.

17

208.

It is my opinion that each of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfies this

As depicted in Exhibit 3, and by way of example, the Exhibit 4G phone, in

18

response to reaching an edge of a photograph in the Gallery application while a finger continues

19

to move the photograph in the same direction – that is, to scroll it beyond the edge – will display a

20

black region beyond the edge of the photograph, and thereby display a smaller third portion of the

21

photograph.

22

209.

Because the Exhibit 4G performs this element of claim 19, it must have

23

instructions for displaying a black region beyond the edge of the photograph and displaying a

24

smaller third portion of the photograph, all in response to the edge of the photograph being

25

reached while translating the photograph in the first direction while the finger is still detected on

26

the touch screen display. What I observed on the device is further confirmed by my inspection of

27

the source code for the Gallery application in the Exhibit 4G phone, discussed above.

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

48

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

210.

Each of the other aforementioned Samsung devices can also, in response to

2

reaching an edge of an electronic document, while a finger continues to move the electronic

3

document in the same direction, display a distinct region beyond the edge of the electronic

4

document, and thereby display a smaller third portion of the document, as demonstrated in

5

Exhibits 3 and V1-V9, and therefore must also have instructions for doing so.

6

211.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

7

the doctrine of equivalents because the instructions for the Accused Products (Gallery) are

8

insubstantially different from the instructions as recited in claim 19.

9

212.

In particular, the Accused Products (Gallery) perform substantially the same

10

function of displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document in response to an edge

11

of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first

12

direction, substantially the same way by displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic

13

document when a user attempts to move the electronic document beyond its edge, to achieve

14

substantially the same result of showing an area beyond the edge of the electronic document.

15

213.

In addition, displaying black in an area beyond the edge of a document on a screen

16

by not illuminating the area is not substantially different from doing so by filtering or blocking

17

light in the area. An AMOLED screen displaying black operates to perform substantially the

18

same function (displaying a black area), in substantially the same way (avoiding emission of

19

light), to obtain substantially the same result (showing a black area) as a screen that displays

20

black by filtering or blocking light.

21

214.

Claim 19, Element [h]: “instructions for translating the electronic document

22

in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer

23

displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion

24

is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or

25

near the touch screen display.”

26

215.

27

element of claim 19.

It is my opinion that each of the aforementioned Samsung devices satisfies this

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

49

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

216.

As depicted in Exhibit 3, the Exhibit 4G phone, in response to detecting that the

2

finger is no longer on the touch screen, will scroll the photograph in the other direction until the

3

area beyond the edge of the photograph is no longer displayed. What is then displayed is a fourth

4

portion of the photograph that is different from the first portion.

5

217.

Because the Exhibit 4G phone performs this element of claim 19, it must have

6

instructions for scrolling the photograph in the other direction until the area beyond the edge of

7

the photograph is no longer displayed. It must also have instructions to display a fourth portion

8

of the photograph that is different from the first portion, all in response to detecting that the finger

9

is no longer on the touch screen. What I observed on the device is further confirmed by my

10

inspection of the source code for the Gallery application in the Exhibit 4G, discussed above.

11

218.

Each of the other aforementioned Samsung devices can also, in response to

12

detecting that the finger is no longer on the touch screen, scroll the electronic document in the

13

other direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed,

14

thereby displaying a fourth portion of the electronic document that is different from the first

15

portion, as demonstrated in Exhibit 3, and therefore must also have instructions for doing so.

16

219.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

17

the doctrine of equivalents because the instructions for the Accused Products (Gallery) are

18

insubstantially different from the instructions as recited in claim 19.

19

220.

In particular, the Accused Products (Gallery) perform substantially the same

20

function of translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the

21

edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the

22

electronic document, substantially the same way by translating the electronic document so that it

23

returns to fill the screen, to achieve substantially the same result of not showing an area beyond

24

the edge of the electronic document.

25

221.

Based on the foregoing analysis of documents and the operation of these devices

26

as indicated in more detail in the accompanying exemplary claim chart and videos, I conclude

27

that each and every element of Claim 19 is met by these devices, which therefore infringe that

28

claim. Because each of these products runs the Android software platform and contains
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

50

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

61