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

Filing 1359

Unredacted Exhibits to Kanada Declaration in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsungs Motions in Limine re 1256 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, re (Dkt. No. 1206) by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 6, # 6 Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit 9, # 8 Exhibit 10, # 9 Exhibit 12, # 10 Exhibit 41)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit 41 (Submitted Under Seal) In The Matter Of: APPLE, INC., v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ___________________________________________________ JUN WON LEE - Vol. 1 March 5, 2012 ___________________________________________________ HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ---o0o--APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. __________________________ / DEPOSITION OF JUN WON LEE ___________________________ Monday, March 05, 2012 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION REPORTED BY: RACHEL FERRIER, CSR 6948 (3-441636) HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION JUN WON LEE - 3/5/2012 30 1 THE INTERPRETER: 2 MR. HEYISON: 3 5 -- to resolve this so I can move on here. 4 10:11:41 THE INTERPRETER: MR. HEYISON: 7 THE INTERPRETER: MR. HEYISON: 10 Q 11 Great. Okay. So this person is SVP in this A Okay. Excellent. Apple? 12 13 14 10:12:27 Boo sa jang is EVP and context, I believe. 9 10:11:55 Okay. jeon moo is SVP. 6 8 So -- 15 Now, at the first meeting, who attended from Jim Luton, patent counsel, and the general counsel came too. Q I don't remember the name, though. If I suggest to you Bruce Sewell, is that the general counsel from Apple that attended the meeting? 16 A Apple's own general counsel, Bruce Sewell. 17 Q Where was the meeting? 18 19 10:12:54 MR. WEINSTEIN: THE WITNESS: 20 Objection; outside the scope. Seoul. BY MR. HEYISON: 21 Q Can you give me a month and a year? 22 A I don't remember the date. 23 24 10:13:16 25 at remembering the dates. Q Okay. I'm not really good I have to look at the record. So did anybody make any written presentations? 617-542-0039 Merrill Corporation - Boston www.merrillcorp.com/law HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION JUN WON LEE - 3/5/2012 31 1 MR. WEINSTEIN: 2 THE WITNESS: 3 Probably Samsung did some kind of presentation -- oh, Apple did -- 4 10:14:17 Objection; beyond the scope. THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 5 Apple -- probably Apple did some kind of presentation, 6 but Samsung did not make any presentation. 7 BY MR. HEYISON: 8 9 10:14:36 Q Okay. Please tell me in as much detail as you can -- strike that. 10 Okay. 11 MR. WEINSTEIN: 12 THE WITNESS: 13 14 10:15:02 the time. How long did the meeting last? Objection; outside the scope. I don't remember those dates at BY MR. HEYISON: 15 16 Q I don't have all those things in my head. Please tell me in as much detail as you can what Apple said and what Samsung said. 17 MR. WEINSTEIN: 18 THE WITNESS: Objection; outside the scope. Samsung mostly was listening to 19 about Samsung's smartphone infringed Apple phone's patents and design, so they were complaining about our 22 infringement about Apple's patent and design in their 23 phone. 24 10:16:20 20 21 10:15:52 what Apple said in the first meeting. BY MR. HEYISON: 25 Q 617-542-0039 Apple was talking Anything else that you recall Apple saying? Merrill Corporation - Boston www.merrillcorp.com/law HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION JUN WON LEE - 3/5/2012 32 1 MR. WEINSTEIN: 2 THE WITNESS: 3 10:16:47 I don't remember any specific contents in detail. 4 BY MR. HEYISON: 5 Q And so what did Apple say in response? 6 MR. WEINSTEIN: 7 MR. HEYISON: 8 Q 9 10:17:06 Objection; outside the scope. Samsung. Thank you. What did Samsung say in response? MR. WEINSTEIN: 10 Objection; outside the scope. THE WITNESS: Same objection. Samsung contended that there was 11 no such infringement and also requested the evidences 12 for the contention of the infringement. 13 BY MR. HEYISON: 14 10:17:49 Q Okay. At that first meeting you attended, 15 Mr. Lee, did Samsung assert that Apple was infringing 16 any of Samsung's patents? 17 MR. WEINSTEIN: 18 THE WITNESS: Objection; outside the scope. Samsung did not assert that any 19 10:18:32 specific Samsung's patent was infringed. 20 BY MR. HEYISON: 21 Q At that meeting, that first meeting, did 22 23 infringing any Samsung patents? 24 10:19:10 Samsung tell Apple that Samsung believed Apple was MR. WEINSTEIN: 25 THE WITNESS: 617-542-0039 Objection; outside the scope. It is possible that Samsung might Merrill Corporation - Boston www.merrillcorp.com/law HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION JUN WON LEE - 3/5/2012 165 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, RACHEL FERRIER, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter, hereby certify that the witness in the 4 foregoing deposition was by me duly sworn to tell the 5 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the 6 within-entitled cause; 7 That said deposition was taken down in 8 shorthand by me, a disinterested person, at the time and 9 place therein stated, and that the testimony was 10 thereafter reduced to typewriting by computer under my 11 direction and supervision and is a true record of the 12 testimony given by the witness; 13 That before completion of the deposition, 14 review of the transcript [X] was [ ] was not requested. 15 If requested, any changes made by the deponent (and 16 provided to the reporter) during the period allowed are 17 appended hereto. 18 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 19 attorney for either or any of the parties to the said 20 deposition, nor in any way interested in the event of 21 this cause, and that I am not related to any of the 22 parties thereto. 23 DATED: 24 _____________________________ RACHEL FERRIER, CSR No. 6948 25 617-542-0039 Merrill Corporation - Boston www.merrillcorp.com/law

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?