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

Filing 1382

Unredacted Exhibits to Arnold Declaration 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. 930, 944, 945) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20 to Arnold, # 2 Exhibit 23 to Arnold, # 3 Exhibit 31 to Arnold, # 4 Exhibit 36 to Arnold, # 5 Exhibit 38 to Arnold, # 6 Exhibit 39 to Arnold, # 7 Exhibit 40 to Arnold, # 8 Exhibit 41 to Arnold, # 9 Exhibit 42 to Arnold, # 10 Exhibit 43 to Arnold, # 11 Exhibit 44 to Arnold)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 41

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 1
1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California
corporation,

5
6
7
8

9

10

11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
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,
Defendants.
---------------------------------/

13
14
15
16
17

CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

18
19

20

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DUNCAN KERR
Redwood Shores, California
Wednesday, October 26, 2011

21
22

23
24

Reported by:
LORRIE L. MARCHANT, CSR No. 10523
RPR, CRR, CCRR, CLR
JOB NO. 42863

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 25
1

(indicating) which have three parallel lines.

2

MR. MONACH:

3

THE WITNESS:

Same objection.
So, again, I'm a designer.

4

I'm not a patent attorney.

5

those lines were put there to represent some legal

6

aspect of this document which I'm not aware of.

7
8

As a designer, my interpretation of that
would be that it's a reflective surface.

9
10

My assumption is that

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

Okay.

Do you have any understanding of

11

whether, in Figure 2, the lines that we're referring

12

to as a -- you identified as perhaps being

13

reflective surface are on the front or the back of

14

the device?

15
16

MR. MONACH:
foundation.

17

Objection.

Lack of

Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE WITNESS:

From my design interpretation

18

of these drawings, Figure 2 represents the rear

19

surface.

20
21
22

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

Do you understand Figure 1 to represent the

front surface?

23

MR. MONACH:

24

THE WITNESS:

Same objection.
Yes.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 26
1
2

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

Do you have any understanding of what the

3

sort of interior line that goes within the outline

4

of the front surface represents?

5

MR. MONACH:

6

THE WITNESS:

7

So this dot -- this dotted

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

10
11

Vague.

line (indicating)?

8
9

Same objection.

Yes.
MR. MONACH:

foundation.

12

Same objection.

Lack of

And calls for a legal conclusion.

THE WITNESS:

Again, as a designer, I would

13

be interpreting this patent drawing, which I would

14

understand that drawing to mean something for a

15

patent attorney.

16

interpretation of it as a designer.

17
18
19

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

MR. MONACH:
foundation.

22
23

Objection.

Lack of

Calls for a legal conclusion.

Continuing instruction not to reveal any
attorney-client communications, if you had them.

24
25

Do you have any understanding of what it

represents?

20
21

I would be making an

THE WITNESS:

It could be a number of

things.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 27
1
2

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

Which are?

3

MR. MONACH:

4

THE WITNESS:

Same objection.
Making the assumption that

5

this -- has a display visible from the front

6

surface, it could be the edge of the active area of

7

the display.

8
9

If this were a -- a display which had touch
sensing on it, it could be a demarcation of what's

10

active and what's inactive from a touch perspective.

11

It could be -- it could be some -- a design detail

12

on the front surface.

13

It could be -- presuming, again, that this

14

is a reflective material which is transparent, there

15

could be some detail on the back side of that

16

surface.

17

assembly, behind the transparent surface.

18
19

It could be some component inside the

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

In Figure 2, on the right-hand side of the

20

drawing, what looks to be the side edge of the

21

device tapers towards the rear of the drawing.

22
23
24

Do you see that?
A.

You mean -MR. MONACH:

Objection.

25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 28
1
2

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

3

Yes.
MR. MONACH:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

4

Objection to the extent it calls for a legal

5

conclusion.

6

THE WITNESS:

7

BY MS. CARUSO:

8

Q.

I see that tapering, yes.

Do you have an understanding of what that

9

tapering represents?

10

MR. MONACH:

11

Objection.

Vague.

Object to

the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.

12

THE WITNESS:

Again, I'm a designer, not a

13

patent attorney.

14

constraints or the -- what the goals of a patent

15

attorney drawing -- patent drawing are.

16
17

My design interpretation of that could be a
number of things.

18
19

I don't understand the -- the

BY MS. CARUSO:
Q.

Which are?

20

MR. MONACH:

21

THE WITNESS:

Same objection.
It could be an attempt at a

22

perspective representation of this object.

23

be that the shape of the -- the object, actually the

24

thickness of it, changes from one corner to the

25

other corner.

It could

It could be a combination of those.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 29
1

BY MS. CARUSO:

2

Q.

Do you recall creating a product at Apple

3

in which the thickness of a handheld tablet device

4

changed from one corner to the next?

5

A.

I don't recall.

6

Q.

Focusing on the upper right corner of

7

Figure 2, that tapering portion that we were

8

referring to earlier doesn't appear to go all the

9

way to the top edge of the product.

10

Do you see that?

11

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

12

in evidence.

13

Assumes facts not

legal conclusion from the witness.

14

Object to the extent it asks for a

THE WITNESS:

Again, it's difficult for me

15

to interpret this patent drawing.

16

on what lines on the patent drawing are supposed to

17

represent.

18

I'm not an expert

BY MS. CARUSO:

19

Q.

I'm not -- as a designer, how would you

20

interpret this drawing if someone presented it to

21

you?

22

MR. MONACH:

Objection.

Vague.

Incomplete

23

hypothetical.

24

legal conclusion since it's a patent drawing.

25

Object to the extent it calls for a

THE WITNESS:

I find it ambiguous from a

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580