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

Filing 1360

Unredacted Declaration of Bill Trac in Support of Samsung's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) re 1256 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, re (Dkt. Nos. 1068, 1069) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to the Trac Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 to the Trac Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 8 to the Trac Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 9 to the Trac Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 10 to the Trac Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 14 to the Trac Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 15 to the Trac Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 16 to the Trac Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 17 to the Trac Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 18 to the Trac Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 19 to the Trac Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 20 to the Trac Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 21 to the Trac Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 22 to the Trac Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 23 to the Trac Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 24 to the Trac Declaration, # 17 Exhibit 25 to the Trac Declaration, # 18 Exhibit 26 to the Trac Declaration, # 19 Exhibit 27 to the Trac Declaration, # 20 Exhibit 28 to the Trac Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 28
FILED UNDER SEAL

Attorneys' Eyes Only - Pursuant to Protective Order

Page 1
1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

5

6

7

8

9

APPLE, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
vs.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, LTD.
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants
)
------------------------------)

10
11
12
13
14

***
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
***

15
16
17
18

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JANUSZ A. ORDOVER
New York, New York
Friday, April 27, 2012

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Reported by:
THOMAS A. FERNICOLA, RPR
JOB NO. 49019
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Attorneys' Eyes Only - Pursuant to Protective Order

Page 251
1

case that it's the court's action in enjoining

2

Apple that causes the antitrust entry?

3

A.

It would be hard to blame the court

4

for causing an antitrust injury.

5

makes a ruling in response to Samsung's request

6

or demand for injunctive relief.

7

The court

I am opposed to the whole concept of

8

Samsung asking for injunctive relief, given its

9

repeated FRAND commitments on these seven

10

patents, the blanket commitment and then the

11

individual FRAND commitments relating to each

12

one of those seven patents made late but,

13

nevertheless, they were made.

14
15

Q.

Are you aware of any actual -- strike

that.

16

Is it your opinion that Apple has

17

sustained any actual injury to date -- strike

18

that again.

19
20

Is it your opinion that Apple has
sustained antitrust injury to date?

21
22

MS. MILLER:
A.

Objection.

I think that "antitrust injury" is a

23

term of art.

24

harm due to the needs to defend itself across a

25

broad range of jurisdictions, that is no doubt

It certainly sustained certain

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Attorneys' Eyes Only - Pursuant to Protective Order

Page 252
1

significant cost.

2

So that's a harm to Apple.

3

yet to harm competition because Apple, at this

4

point, can pay the bills.

5

necessarily cut back on its R&D.

6

lucky that that's the -- that they are the

7

target as opposed to some other company which

8

may have a lesser ability to survive the

9

multi-jurisdictional litigation that Samsung

10

has rolled out in this particular situation.

It has

It does not have to
So we are

11

So someone else may actually have --

12

be forced to exit, and such exit may, in fact,

13

harm competition and, therefore, be an

14

antitrust injury.

15

Q.

But -- so the only injury you're

16

aware of Apple sustaining to this point is

17

incurring litigation costs; correct?

18

A.

No.

I believe that they are also

19

incurring additional costs, such as the time of

20

the management that's being diverted perhaps

21

from other matters that they should be paying

22

attention to.

23

It's a highly -- it's a quickly moving

24

marketplace and, clearly, there's been a lot of

25

time and energy spent at Apple trying to

It's a competitive environment.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Attorneys' Eyes Only - Pursuant to Protective Order

Page 253
1

respond to these litigations and trying to

2

perhaps map out how the -- how its market

3

circumstances are going to unfold, given the

4

allegations and the claims made by Samsung.

5

So there's more to the effect other

6

than just, you know, whatever the millions and

7

tens of millions of dollars worth of costs

8

incurred.

9

consequences.

10

Q.

There is other less tangible

In terms of the setting aside

11

legitimate costs, any other, with respect to

12

any injury that Apple has sustained, other than

13

litigation costs, have you conducted any

14

investigation as to the extent of that injury?

15

A.

No.

I have not conducted any such

16

investigation, neither do I know what Apple's

17

litigation costs have been heretofore.

18

Q.

So you haven't don't -- quantified

19

any of the injury that Apple has sustained as a

20

result of any antitrust injury; correct?

21

A.

I think you misspoke a couple of

22

times, but I know what you have in mind -- I

23

think that I have not quantified the dollar

24

harm to Apple as a result of these issues that

25

we are now talking about, the Samsung lawsuits
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580