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

Filing 136

Declaration of Michael T. Pieja in Support of #133 Opposition/Response to Motion to Disqualify Bridges & Mavrakakis, LLP filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) #133 ) (Taylor, Stephen) (Filed on 8/1/2011)

1 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
3 RICHARD S.J. HUNG (SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
4 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
5 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 KENNETH H. BRIDGES (SBN 243541)
[e-mail]
8 MICHAEL T. PIEJA (SBN 250351)
[e-mail]
9 BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS LLP
3000 El Camino Real
10 One Palo Alto Square, 2nd Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
11 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
12
13
14
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
16

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice anticipated)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
STEPHEN E. TAYLOR (SBN 58452)
[e-mail]
STEPHEN MCG. BUNDY (SBN 253017)
[e-mail]
JOSHUA R. BENSON (SBN 269111)
[e-mail]
TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 355
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
SAN JOSE DIVISION
19
20 APPLE INC.,
Plaintiff,

21
22 v.

23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
24 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
25 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
26
Defendants.
27

Case No.: C-11-01846 (LHK)
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF APPLE'S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES
& MAVRAKAKIS, LLP
Date: August 24, 2011
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION

28
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF APPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)

1

I, MICHAEL T. PIEJA, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an associate in the law firm Bridges & Mavrakakis, LLP, counsel of record for

3 plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned action. I have been a member of the Bridges
4 & Mavrakakis, LLP law firm since it first opened in 2010. I have been a patent litigator for
5 approximately seven years. The facts set forth in this declaration are personally known to me to
6 be true, and if called upon to testify about the matters contained in this declaration, I could and
7 would testify competently thereto.
8

2.

This declaration is submitted in support of Apple’s Opposition to the Motion to

9 Disqualify the Bridges & Mavrakakis, LLP firm (the “Bridges Firm”) filed by defendants
10 Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
11 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) on July 11, 2011.
12

3.

Before joining the Bridges Firm, I was an associate in the Palo Alto office of the

13 Houston-based law firm Wong Cabello LLP (April 2009 to August 2010). Prior to that, I was an
14 associate with the Kirkland & Ellis LLP firm working in its New York (September 2004 to July
15 2005) and San Francisco (September 2006 to March 2009) offices.
16

4.

Apple filed this litigation against Samsung on April 15, 2011 (the “Apple v.

17 Samsung Case”). I formally made an appearance in this case as counsel of record for Apple on
18 June 16, 2011, the same day Apple filed the First Amended Complaint.
19

5.

The Bridges Firm made its representation of Apple known to Samsung in or about

20 September 2010 when Thomas Mavrakakis and I attended a meeting that lasted approximately two
21 hours at Apple’s offices in Cupertino. In attendance were Apple’s Senior Director and Chief
22 Patent Counsel, Richard Lutton, Jr., and five Samsung representatives, including representatives
23 from Samsung's legal department. During that meeting Mr. Lutton, assisted by Mr. Mavrakakis
24 and myself, made a presentation to the Samsung representatives regarding Apple’s views on
25 Samsung’s unauthorized use of Apple’s intellectual property rights. This presentation included a
26 discussion of certain Apple utility patents that, we informed Samsung, appeared to be used by the
27 Android platform in Samsung’s smartphones. At this meeting, Mr. Mavrakakis and I both
28 introduced ourselves as outside patent counsel affiliated with the Bridges Firm. It was made clear
1.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF APPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)

1 to the Samsung representatives in attendance that the Bridges Firm was representing Apple in
2 asserting its intellectual property rights against Samsung.
3

6.

On April 27, 2011, Samsung filed litigation against Apple in the United States

4 District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. C-11-02079 (the “Samsung Case”).
5 I have been informed that the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
6 (“WilmerHale”) was hired as lead counsel to defend Apple in that case. I have never advised
7 Apple or any counsel at WilmerHale about any issues associated with Samsung’s assertion of its
8 intellectual property rights against Apple products in the Samsung Case.
9

7.

With respect to Samsung, I have only provided legal advice and representation to

10 Apple in connection with Apple’s intellectual property rights as they relate to the Samsung
11 Android-based Galaxy line of smartphones and tablet computers.
12

8.

It is a matter of public record that I have also represented Apple in other matters

13 relating to Android based smartphones. For instance, I was counsel of record for Apple in
14 litigation against HTC, including ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-710, and assisted Apple in
15 analyzing its intellectual property rights in connection with that action.
16

9.

While I was an associate at Kirkland and Ellis in 2006, I was part of the team of

17 Kirkland attorneys who represented Samsung in actions before the International Trade
18 Commission (Wireless Communication Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing
19 Same, No. 337-TA-583 and Wireless Communication Equipment, Articles Therein, and Products
20 Containing the Same, No. 337-TA-577)(the “Ericsson Litigation”). My work on that case related
21 primarily to the assertion of a Samsung patent relating to a voice recording functionality against
22 various Ericsson cellular telephones. My representation of Samsung on the Ericsson Litigation
23 matter ended in or about June 2007.
24

10.

My prior representation of Samsung had nothing to do with touchscreen

25 technology, devices utilizing the Google open source Android platform, touch-based user
26 interfaces, or any of the other technologies that are the subject of the claims Apple is pursuing in
27 the Apple v. Samsung Case. At the time that I represented Samsung, to my knowledge, Samsung
28

2.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)

1 was not selling any products that used the Android operating system, multitouch-based
2 smartphones, or multitouch technology.
3

11.

My responsibilities in the Ericsson Litigation did not provide me with any special

4 or unique insight into Samsung’s handling of patent cases. The public record discloses that
5 Samsung defended itself using standard defenses such as invalidity, non-infringement, inequitable
6 conduct, and the defenses that are common to standards-related cases in the mobile
7 communications field, such as those relating to “FRAND” (fair, reasonable, and non8 discriminatory) licensing commitments. At the time of the Ericsson Litigation, I was an associate
9 with approximately three years’ experience. Outside of depositions, I did not have contact of any
10 kind with any Samsung employees and I played no role in formulating litigation strategy.
11

12.

None of the Samsung products that were at issue in the Ericsson Litigation form the

12 basis for any of the claims that are being asserted by Apple in the Apple v. Samsung Case. To my
13 knowledge, all of Apple’s affirmative claims in the Apple v. Samsung litigation are directed at
14 products Samsung introduced several years after the Ericsson Litigation ended in 2007.
15

13.

I have never represented Samsung in any case or matter in which an Android-based

16 smartphone, or products utilizing touchscreen hardware or interfaces, was the subject matter of the
17 inquiry, investigation or litigation.
18

14.

On June 27, 2011, the Bridges Firm received a letter addressed to the attention of

19 Kenneth Bridges from Victoria Maroulis, counsel at Quinn Emanuel representing Samsung in the
20 Apple v. Samsung Case. The letter raised questions about a potential conflict of interest in the
21 Apple v. Samsung Case based on the Bridges Firm attorneys’ prior representation of Samsung.
22

15.

On June 29, 2011, I sent a response to Quinn Emanuel’s June 27 letter, explaining

23 to Ms. Maroulis that the Apple v. Samsung Case did not involve any issues relating to the Bridges
24 Firm attorneys’ prior representation of or work for Samsung. Because Mr. Bridges was away
25 from the office at the time and unable to meet and confer on June 29 as Ms. Maroulis had
26 requested, we subsequently agreed to meet and confer by telephone on July 5, 2011.
27
28

3.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)

1

16.

On the afternoon of July 5, 2011, Kenneth Bridges and I met and conferred with

2 Quinn Emanuel by telephone regarding Samsung’s concerns over the alleged conflict of interest.
3 During the meet and confer discussion, Samsung’s counsel asked us questions about the scope of
4 the Bridges Firm’s representation of Apple and the nature of the Bridges Firm’s interactions with
5 counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP and WilmerHale. Mr. Bridges informed Ms. Maroulis that
6 the Bridges Firm in no way had participated in representing Apple concerning either the ‘604
7 Patent (which had been part of the Ericsson Litigation) nor on any FRAND issues relating to
8 Samsung patents. Mr. Bridges also told Ms. Maroulis we would be happy to seek permission from
9 Apple to provide her with additional information if she would provide Mr. Bridges with specific
10 follow-up questions, either orally or in writing. The Quinn Emanuel firm, however, had no further
11 communications with the Bridges Firm and obviously declined to ask for more information.
12

17.

Since the time of Samsung’s dismissal of the Samsung Case and the inclusion of

13 those claims as counterclaims in the Apple v. Samsung Case, the Bridges Firm has continued to
14 limit the scope of its representation to the affirmative claims asserted by Apple against Samsung.
15 I have had no involvement in defending Apple against Samsung’s affirmative claims.
16

18.

At no time have I communicated to Apple, or to anyone representing Apple, any

17 Samsung confidential information that I acquired during the course of my representation of
18 Samsung. Any and all Samsung confidential information that is known to me as a result of my
19 prior representation will continue to be maintained by me in confidence, and will not be disclosed
20 by me to Apple or any other third party in the future.
21

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the

22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 1st day of August, 2011, at Palo Alto, California.
23
24
25

/s/ Michael T. Pieja
MICHAEL T. PIEJA

26
27
28

4.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)

1
2

ECF ATTESTATION
I, STEPHEN E. TAYLOR, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to

3 file this DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION
4 TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP. In
5 compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Michael T. Pieja has concurred in
6 this filing.
7
8 Dated: August 1, 2011

TAYLOR & COMPANY LAW OFFICES, LLP

9
10

By:

11

/s/ Stephen E. Taylor
Stephen E. Taylor

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5.
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. PIEJA IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS, LLP: CASE NO. C-11-01846 (LHK)