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

Filing 1379

Unredacted Exhibits to Gray and Van Dam Decs ISO Samsung's MSJ 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, (Dkt. Nos. 931, 937 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 7 to Gray, # 2 Exhibit 8 to Gray, # 3 Exhibit 9 to Gray, # 4 Exhibit 10 to Gray, # 5 Exhibit 11 to Gray, # 6 Exhibit 12 to Gray, # 7 Exhibit 13 to Gray, # 8 Exhibit 14 to Gray, # 9 Exhibit 15 to Gray, # 10 Exhibit 2 to Van Dam)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 13
FILED UNDER SEAL

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

EXPERT REPORT OF KARAN
SINGH, PH.D. REGARDING
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
PATENTS NOS. 7,864,163,
7,844,915 AND 7,853,891

Defendants.

20
21
22

**CONFIDENTIAL – CONTAINS MATERIAL DESIGNATED AS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT
TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER**

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

316.

For example, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 receives user a user input with one input point

2

(one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display as illustrated above. I also note that the touch-

3

sensitive display is integrated into the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

4

317.

For example, the Galaxy S II receives a user input with one input point (one

5

finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display as shown above. The touch-sensitive display is

6

integrated into the Galaxy S II.

7

318.

Based on my observations of the Accused Products, as well as my analysis of the

8

source code for each major release of Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1,

9

2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that each Accused Product receives a user input, where the

10

user input is one or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with

11

the device. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in

12

Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

13

319.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

14

the doctrine of equivalents because each of the Accused Products perform steps insubstantially

15

different from machines receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied

16

to the touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the device, and accomplishes the same

17

function in the same way to achieve the same result.

18
19
20
21
22

320.

Claim 1 – Element [b] “creating an event object in response to the user

input.” In my opinion, each of the Accused Products performs this step of claim 1.
321.

Each of the Accused Products, via the Android platform on which they operate,

creates an event object in response to the user input.
322.

Under the public Android platform, a MotionEvent object is created in response to

23

a touch on the touch screen. (http://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/

24

MotionEvent.html.)

25

323.

I have confirmed the public Android code also appears in the Accused Products.

26

For example, in the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, which runs a version of Android 3.1, the user input is

27

processed by the device driver, which passes the input into user space and parses it into an event

28

object referred to as the “MotionEvent” object. This object is an event object created by the
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

85

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

method InputConsumer::populateMotionEvent(). (See

2

frameworks/base/libs/ui/inputTransport.cpp:683-712 [SAMNDCA-C000002822]; see also

3

frameworks/base/libs/ui/input.cpp:351-382 [SAMNDCA-C000002830 to -C000002831]

4

(MotionEvent::initialize() method)).

5

324.

Based on my observations of the Accused Products, as well as my analysis of the

6

source code for each major release of Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1,

7

2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that each Accused Product practices includes similar

8

computer code that creates an event object in response to user input. The claim chart in Exhibit

9

17 identifies analogous code that satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

10
11
12

325.

Furthermore, Ioi Lam confirmed at his 30(b)(6) deposition that the Android

Platform has “event objects.” See Ioi Lam Depo. Tr., Mar. 8, 2012 (75:17-76:23).
326.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

13

the doctrine of equivalents because each of the Accused Products perform steps insubstantially

14

different from creating an event object in response to the user input, and accomplishes the same

15

function in the same way to achieve the same result.

16

327.

Claim 1 – Element [c]: “determining whether the event object invokes a scroll

17

or gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-

18

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points

19

applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation” In my

20

opinion, each of the Accused Products performs this step of claim 1.

21

328.

The Accused Products determine whether an event object invokes a scroll or

22

gesture operation by distinguishing between a single input point (one finger) applied to the touch-

23

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points (more

24

than one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation.

25

329.

For example, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet distinguishes between a scroll operation

26

when one finger is applied to the touch-sensitive display and a gesture operation when two or

27

more fingers are applied to the touch-sensitive display.

28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

86

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Scroll operation when one input point is applied.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(Gesture operation when two or more input points are applied.)

16
17

330.

For example, the Galaxy S II phone distinguishes between a scroll operation when

18

one finger is applied to the touch-sensitive display and a gesture operation when two or more

19

fingers are applied to the touch-sensitive display, as illustrated below:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

87

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(Scroll operation when one input point is applied.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Gesture operation when two or more input points are applied.)

20
21
22
23
24

331.

For example, in the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, which runs Android 3.1, the WebView

25

class’s handleQueuedMotionEvent() method interprets the input points associated with the

26

MotionEvent object it processes. The handleQueueMotionEvent() method distinguishes between

27

a single input point (ev.getPointerCount

28

> 1). (See WebView.java:10281-10314 [SAMDNCA-C000002857].) If one input point is

1) and two or more input points (ev.getPointerCount

EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

88

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

detected, the contact is interpreted as a scroll operation in handleTouchEventCommon(). (See

2

WebView.java:10312 [SAMNDCA-C000002857].) If two or more input points are detected, the

3

contact is interpreted as a gesture operation via a call to handleMultiTouchInWebView(). (See

4

WebView.java:10302 [SAMNDCA-C000002857]; WebView.java:7887-7944 [SAMNDCA-

5

C000002858].)

6

332.

Based on my inspection of Samsung source code for each major release of

7

Android running on the Accused Products (Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1), I have determined that

8

each Accused Product includes similar computer code that distinguishes between a single input

9

point (one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation

10

and two or more input points (more than one finger) applied to the touch-sensitive display that are

11

interpreted as the gesture operation. The claim chart in Exhibit 17 identifies analogous code that

12

satisfies this element in Android 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

13

333.

To the extent that this limitation is not met literally, in my opinion it is met under

14

the doctrine of equivalents because each of the Accused Products perform steps insubstantially

15

different from determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by

16

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

17

interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive

18

display that are interpreted as the gesture operation, and accomplishes the same function in the

19

same way to achieve the same result.

20

334.

Claim 1 – Element [d]: “issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on

21

invoking the scroll or gesture operation.” Each of the Accused Products issues a scroll call or

22

a gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture operation.

23

335.

For example, as illustrated below, the Galaxy 10.1 tablet issues a scroll call when

24

the scroll operation is invoked. Alternatively, the tablet issues a gesture call when the gesture

25

operation is invoked.

26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

89

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Scroll call when scroll operation is invoked.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(Gesture call (scaling) when gesture operation is invoked.)

16
17
18

336.

For example, the Galaxy S 2 phone issues a scroll call when the scroll operation is

invoked.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

90

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

executed cause a data processing system to issue at least one scroll or gesture call based on

2

invoking the scroll or gesture operation, for the same reasons as explained with respect to claim 1.

3

390.

Claim 8 – Element [e] “responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by

4

scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object.” In my opinion, each of

5

the Accused Products includes a machine readable storage medium storing executable program

6

instructions which when executed cause a data processing system to respond to at least one scroll

7

call, if issued, by scrolling a window having a view associated with the event object.

8
9
10
11
12

391.

Each of the Accused Products responds to a scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a

window having a view associated with the event object based on an amount of a scroll with the
scroll stopped at a predetermined position in relation to the user input.
392.

For example, the Galaxy 10.1 tablet will respond to at least one scroll call by

scrolling a window having a view associated with the MotionEvent object, as illustrated below.

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

(Screenshot of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 scrolling an image.)

27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

108

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

equivalent to the corresponding structures described in the ’891 patent for performing the

2

functions in claim 74. Accordingly, these three Samsung Accused Products infringe claim 74.

3

VIII. CONCLUSION

4

593.

My opinions are subject to change based on additional opinions that Samsung’s

5

experts may present and information I may receive in the future or additional work I may

6

perform. I reserve the right to supplement this Report with new information and/or documents

7

that may be discovered or produced in this case, or to address any new claim constructions

8

offered by Samsung or ordered by the court. With this in mind, based on the analysis I have

9

conducted and for the reasons set forth above, I have preliminarily reached the conclusions and

10
11

opinions in this Report.
594.

In connection with my anticipated testimony in this action, I may use as exhibits

12

various documents produced in this Action that refer or relate to the matters discussed in this

13

Report. I have not yet selected the particular exhibits that might be used. In addition, I may

14

create or assist in the creation of certain demonstrative exhibits to assist in the presentation of my

15

testimony and opinions as described herein or to summarize the same or information cited in this

16

Report. Again, those exhibits have not yet been created.

17
18
19

Dated: March 22, 2012

/s/
Karan Singh

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF DR. KARAN SINGH REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’163, ’915 AND ’891 PATENTS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3123376

165