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).

Exhibit 7
(Submitted Under Seal)

Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 26.4
Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.

Summary of Selected Documents Reflecting Comments on Demand for Design Patents and Trade Dress
#

Document Description

Bates Number

Party

Comment

47

Competitive Tablets Product
Experience: Form Factor & Display
Size / Aspect Ratio validation
Research Report, 8/28/11

Survey contain user preferences of tablets:
SAMNDCA00237976 - 8036, at
Samsung "consumers ranked Apple iPad (41%), Galaxy Tab 10.1" (26%) and 8.9 (17%) as most preferred
'7978
tablet based on overall preference, taking into consideration form factor AND display size."

48

Critical Findings Brief: Competitive
UX Evaluation of Atlas, Victory,
Supersonic and Vegas with HTC
Incredible and Apple iPhone 3GS

SAMNDCA00238251 - 8277, at
"Overall, the iPhone 3GS was rated better than other devices in overall design, life needs and
Samsung
'8254
values, touchscreen, general usability and users satisfaction across the sessions."

Smartphone

49

50

51
52

53

Email chain from Shoneel Kolhatkar,
RE "Changes of Tablet Spec", 3/7/11
(Translated)
Email chain between Yong Il Lee and
others, RE "About Galaxy Tab 10.1
Inch Introduction Strategy", 3/11/11
(Translated)
North America P4(P7510 Wifi) BBY
Retail Store Visit T/F Report, August
2011 (Translated)
P5 Usability Evaluation Results 4/9/11 (Translated)

x

x

SAMNDCA00514511 - 4520, at
In response to requests to change tablet specs, YK Yongki Min noted it was "intending the
Samsung
'4512
improvement of product competitiveness against i-PAD 2, to my understanding."

x

Don Ju Lee: “The bottom line is that our P3 should go head-to-head against I-Pad II [sic] this time.
SAMNDCA00514571 - 4578, at
First, the problem is strengthening the quality of the product. 1. We will proceed on the premise
Samsung
'4576
that the thickness of the P3 that is already in the process of being reviewed should be less than
8.8mm."

x

SAMNDCA10154003 - 4053, at
Samsung conducted a survey of customer returns, and 15% were attributed to design, of which
Samsung
'4013
4% was attributable to appearance alone.

x

SAMNDCA00176053 - 6171, at
A major problem area "Legibility [for P5] is not good [as iPad 2] as the icon label is too small in
Samsung
'6057
proportion to the large screen."
A side by side comparison of secondary icons from various phones, including the iPhone, is listed.
In reviewing iPhone's secondary icons, "many icon metaphors are simple vector shapes which are
Competitor Analysis Design & Layout - SAMNDCA00228887 - 8933, at
Samsung easy to understand…. Icons are very ownable and can easily be identified as part of the Apple
'8900, '8905, '8915
2009 GUI Framework, 04/2008
family." The reported recommended "maintaining a strong link between the visual style of main
menu icons helps maintain a family feel."

54

A side by side comparison of the main menu layout and main menu icons is listed. The Apple
Competitor Analysis Design & Layout - SAMNDCA00228934 - 8980, at
iPhone's "iconography used is very ownable - even icons for third party applications or features
Samsung
'8947, '8964, '8969, and '8979
seem very iPhone-like… Visual language of iconography fits into the overall Apple family identity."
2009 GUI Framework, 04/2008
The report recommended "maintain consistent visual application of icon style within the brand."

55

56

iPad vs. Honeycomb P5 UX
Comparison of Competitiveness,
2/10/11 (Translated)

57

The Cambridge Group - Developing
an Optimized Positioning Strategy for
The Cambridge Group notes that the iPhone "will affect consumer expectations for design, user
SAMNDCA00249029 - 9120, at
Samsung's U.S. Mobile Phone
Samsung interface and presumably cell phone music capabilities." the report also notes that reviewers are
'9046 and '9049
Business, Positioning Strategy
"most impressed with the uniqueness of the form…."
Recommendation. Final Report.
1/30/07

58

European Telecommunication
Operation P5 vs. iPad 2, 5/18/11

59

Acme, July 2008

x

x

"Detailed functionality and variegated settings make for certain portions that are better in
Analysis of Relative Strengths and
SAMNDCA00203727 - 3768, at
comparison to iPad, but also lends to a cluttered and stuffy feeling. Graphic Detail inadequate
Weaknesses P1 vs. iPad App, 4/20/10
Samsung
'3728
compared to the iPad, lacks realness. Insufficient Visual Effect leads to deficiencies in fun factor
(Translated)
and user comfort level."

Page 4 of 12

Tablets

x

x

"Because P3 [Honeycomb] GED is inferior to Samsung’s TouchWiz in terms of maneuverability,
SAMNDCA00203811 - 3879, at
intuitiveness and so forth, table UI/UX optimized to the comparable level as that of iPad has to be
Samsung
'3878
applied. Black UI appears somewhat less refined, actually hinders visibility and readability… The
way menu is presented, pop-up location, consistency of icons, and uniformity are poor."

S-ITC-010617659 - 7694, at
The P5 "Icons are too small and too close to each other," while the iPad 2 "icons are big and the
Samsung
'7663
gap between the applications are ideal."
SAMNDCA10275576 - 5646, at
"Overall, they were quick to compare it to the iPhone. Uniformly, people felt Acme was a copy of
Samsung
'5593
the iPhone."

Prepared by Invotex Group

x

x

x
x

Submitted Under Seal; Highly Confidential;
Outside Counsel Eyes' Only