Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1314
NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) re 1269 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,, Order on Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Unredacted Declaration of Mark Tung in Support of Samsung's Conditional Motion for Relief (Dkt. No. 953) (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)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/24/2012)
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
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?