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

Filing 1369

Unredacted Declaration of Karl Kramer in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion for Summary Judgment re 1256 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, (Dkt. No. 1013) by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3, # 2 Exhibit 4, # 3 Exhibit 5, # 4 Exhibit 10)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit 8
(Submitted Under Seal)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
7
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
14 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

20

SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES (No. 2)

21

Plaintiff,
vs.

22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
25
Defendant.
26

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
UNDER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1

INTERROGATORIES

2 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
2
3
3

For each of the Asserted Claims, set forth in detail Samsung’s bases for asserting the

4 defense of non-infringement, including a claim chart indicating whether each element of the claim
4
5 is present or absent in each of the Products at Issue and, if Samsung contends that an element is
5
6 absent, the detailed basis for that contention.
6
7 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
7
8
8

Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to

9 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
9
10 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
10
11 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
11
12 Apple’s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous insofar as it
12
13 includes the undefined categories of “any similar products” and “any products that Apple accuses
13
14 of infringing its intellectual property in this litigation.” Samsung further objects to this
14
15 interrogatory as vague since Apple has failed to provide a detailed explanation in its Disclosure of
15
16 Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions of the bases for its claims that Samsung allegedly
16
17 infringes the Asserted Claims. Furthermore, Samsung is presently unable to provide more detailed
17
18 non-infringement positions because Apple has not served its expert reports identifying how
18
19 Samsung’s products allegedly infringe Apple’s asserted patents. Samsung further objects to this
19
20 interrogatory to the extent it prematurely calls for contentions at this stage of litigation. Samsung
20
21 will provide such contentions in accordance with the Court’s Minute Order and Case Management
21
22 Order, dated August 25, 2011.
22
23
23

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and without waiver of Samsung’s

24 rights to seek relief from the Court based on any of the foregoing objections, Samsung responds as
24
25 follows:
25
26
26

U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (“the ‘828 patent”)

27
27

Samsung has not directly infringed, induced infringement of, or contributed to

28 infringement of the ’828 Patent. Apple’s infringement contentions fail to demonstrate direct or
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1 Products are capable of substantial noninfringing uses, whether the Accused Products were
2 especially made or especially adapted for infringing use, and how others have supposedly directly
2
3 infringed the ‘381 patent.
3
4
4

The Accused Products do not practice claims 1-20, either literally or under the doctrine of

5 equivalents, for at least the following reasons. Apple has not shown or provided any evidence
5
6 demonstrating that any Accused Product (i) translates the electronic document in the first direction
6
7 while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display and an edge of the electronic
7
8 document is reached while translating the electronic document in the same first direction; (ii)
8
9 display an area beyond the edge of the electronic document; (iii) the second direction is opposite
9
10 the first direction; (iv) translating in the first direction is in accordance with a simulation of an
10
11 equation of motion having friction; (v) translating the document in the second direction is a
11
12 damped motion; (vi) the second associated translating speed is slower than the first associated
12
13 translating speed, where the first associated translating speed corresponds to a speed of movement
13
14 of the object prior to reaching the edge and displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic
14
15 document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction for a second
15
16 associated translating speed; and (vii) contains instructions required by claims 19 and 20.
16
17
17

Furthermore, Apple has not provided evidence that the Accused Products meet the

18 limitations of the ‘381 patent claims under the interpretation of those claims in J. Koh’s December
18
19 2, 2011 order on Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
19
20
20

Samsung also incorporates by reference the Declaration of Jeffrey Johnson in Support of

21 Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 174) and
21
22 Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 181a).
22
23
23

U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 (“the ‘915 patent”)

24
24

Samsung has not directly infringed, induced infringement of, or contributed to

25 infringement of the ‘915 patent. Apple’s infringement contentions fail to demonstrate direct or
25
26 indirect infringement of the ‘915 patent by Samsung. Apple’s contentions also fail to allege any
26
27 facts to support its allegations of indirect infringement, including with respect to the critical issues
27
28 of whether Samsung intended to induce others to infringe the ‘915 patent, whether the Accused
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1 Products are capable of substantial noninfringing uses, whether the Accused Products were
2 especially made or especially adapted for infringing use, and how others have supposedly directly
2
3 infringed the ‘915 patent. The Accused Products do not practice claims 1 through 21, either
3
4 literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the following reasons. Apple has not
4
5 shown or provided any evidence demonstrating that any Accused Product practices the following
5
6 limitations:
6
7
7

“determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation,” as “event

8 objects” are incapable of invoking operations.
8
9
9

“distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is

10 interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive
10
11 display that are interpreted as the gesture operation;” The Accused Products do not distinguish
11
12 “between a single input point . . . that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input
12
13 points . . . that are interpreted as the gesture operation.” The ‘915 specification conflates the
13
14 definitions of scroll operations and gesture operations, rendering all the claims indefinite and
14
15 therefore non-infringed.
15
16
16

“responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view

17 associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the scroll stopped at a
17
18 predetermined position in relation to the user input;” The Accused Products do not meet this
18
19 claim limitation under Samsung’s proposed construction of the disputed claim term “scrolling a
19
20 window having a view associated with the event object” as “sliding a window in a direction
20
21 corresponding to the direction of the user input over a view that is stationary relative to the
21
22 window.”
22
23
23

“rubberbanding a scrolling region displayed within the window by a predetermined

24 maximum displacement when the scrolling region exceeds a window edge based on the scroll,” as
24
25 the Accused Products do not meet this claim limitation. Furthermore, the ‘915 claims and
25
26 specification do not define the claim term “rubberbanding” and an inventor of the patent was
26
27 likewise unable to define it. (See Deposition Transcript of Andrew Platzer at 36-41.)
27
28
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-10SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1

“attaching scroll indicators to a content edge of the window” and “attaching scroll

2 indicators to the window edge.” The ‘915 patent specification and claims do not define the terms
2
3 “content edge” and “window edge,” rendering all the claims indefinite and therefore non3
4 infringed.
4
5
5

“determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation is based on

6 receiving a drag user input for a certain time period,” as “event objects” are incapable of invoking
6
7 operations.
7
8
8

“responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by rotating a view associated with the

9 event object based on receiving a plurality of input points in the form of the user input,” as the
9
10 ‘915 specification conflates the definitions of scroll operations and gesture operations, rendering
10
11 this claim indefinite and therefore non-infringed.
11
12
12

Apple also has failed to identify a function or associated structure for the means plus

13 function claims, namely claims 8-14 and 15-21. Nevertheless, Samsung does not meet these
13
14 means plus function claims for at least the reasons listed above.
14
15
15

U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891 (“the ‘891 patent”)

16
16

Samsung has not directly infringed, induced infringement of, or contributed to

17 infringement of the ‘891 patent. Apple’s infringement contentions fail to demonstrate direct or
17
18 indirect infringement of the ‘891 patent by Samsung. Apple’s contentions also fail to allege any
18
19 facts to support its allegations of indirect infringement, including with respect to the critical issues
19
20 of whether Samsung intended to induce others to infringe the ‘891 patent, whether the Accused
20
21 Products are capable of substantial noninfringing uses, whether the Accused Products were
21
22 especially made or especially adapted for infringing use, and how others have supposedly directly
22
23 infringed the ‘891 patent.
23
24
24

The Accused Products do not practice claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30-32, 39-46,

25 48, 49, 51-53, 55-57, 64-71, 73 & 74, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at
25
26 least the following reasons. Apple has not shown or provided any evidence demonstrating that any
26
27 Accused Product practices a method to display a user interface window for a digital processing
27
28 system, wherein the method comprises: (i) starts a timer, (ii) closing the window in response to a
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-11SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION
1 signal.” For example, Apple has not shown that any of the Accused Products have a modulated
2 Vcom signal.
2
3
3

Furthermore, for claims 21-22, Apple has failed to show that the Accused Products have a

4 second set of traces configured for being driven by low impedance driver outputs.” For claims 244
5 28, Apple has failed to show that in the Accused Products, “each of the drive traces is of a
5
6 substantially constant width.”
6
7
7

For all of the patents listed above, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

8 provide its non-infringement positions for the Asserted Claims in its expert report(s) to be
8
9 submitted in accordance with the Court’s Minute Order and Case Management Order, dated
9
10 August 25, 2011.
10
11 DATED: March 12, 2012
11

Respectfully submitted,

12
12

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20

By

/s/ Todd Briggs
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-15SAMSUNG’S SECOND SUPPL. OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES