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

Filing 1384

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, 945) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 46 to Arnold, # 2 Exhibit 47 to Arnold, # 3 Exhibit 48 to Arnold, # 4 Exhibit 49 to Arnold, # 5 Exhibit 50 to Arnold, # 6 Exhibit 51 to Arnold, # 7 Exhibit 52 to Arnold, # 8 Exhibit 54 to Arnold, # 9 Exhibit 55 to Arnold, # 10 Exhibit 56 to Arnold, # 11 Exhibit 57 to Arnold, # 12 Exhibit 58 to Arnold, # 13 Exhibit 60 to Arnold, # 14 Exhibit 63 to Arnold, # 15 Exhibit 64 to Arnold, # 16 Exhibit 66 to Arnold, # 17 Exhibit 68 to Arnold, # 18 Exhibit 69 to Arnold, # 19 Exhibit 71 to Arnold, # 20 Exhibit 73 to Arnold, # 21 Exhibit 74 to Arnold, # 22 Exhibit 75 to Arnold, # 23 Exhibit 76 to Arnold, # 24 Exhibit 77 to Arnold, # 25 Exhibit 78 to Arnold, # 26 Exhibit 79 to Arnold, # 27 Exhibit 80 to Arnold, # 28 Exhibit 81 to Arnold, # 29 Exhibit 82 to Arnold)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Confidential

Page 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4

APPLE, INC., a California
5

corporation,

6
7

Plaintiff,

8

-vs-

No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

9

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
10

a Korean business entity; et al.,

11

Defendants.
/

12
13

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF HAL PORET

14

CONFIDENTIAL

15

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

16

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012

17
18
19
20
21

Reported by: LOUISE MARIE SOUSOURES, CSR NO. 3575

22
23

Certified LiveNote Reporter
JOb 48723

24
25

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Confidential

Page 132
1

that there might be a distinction between owners and

13:28

2

purchasers of cellular telephones?

13:28

3

A.

Yes, I addressed that.

13:28

4

Q.

Why did you focus on owners as opposed to

13:29

5

purchasers?

13:29

6

A.

I didn't.

13:29

7

Q.

The survey -- you accepted results from

13:29

8
9
10

persons who owned who were not purchasers, right?
A.

I let people take the survey, but I didn't

use them in the secondary meaning universe.

13:29
13:29
13:29

11

Q.

They were excluded from that?

13:29

12

A.

It's just what you were asking me about

13:29

13

before, those people took the survey, but in the

13:29

14

analysis of the secondary meaning level, those people

13:29

15

weren't included in that universe.

13:29

16

Q.

Why did you let them take the survey if you

13:29

17

were not including them in the universe of people

13:29

18

whose responses would be considered for determining

13:30

19

secondary meaning?

13:30

20

A.

For a couple of reasons.

13:30

21

Number one, the most important one being that

13:30

22

since there was potentially a dilution aspect to this

13:30

23

case, and there was a general interest in finding out

13:30

24

how widely the iPhone trade dress was recognized even

13:30

25

outside of the narrower universe for secondary

13:30

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

Confidential

Page 133
1

meaning.

2

13:30
So including people who owned mobile phones

13:30

3

but don't fall within the narrower category of

13:30

4

secondary meaning universe being the recent purchasers

13:30

5

or the likely future purchasers gave us a broader base

13:30

6

of relevant consumers to see what the recognition

13:30

7

level of the trade dress was there.

13:30

8
9
10
11

Q.

Is it your testimony that the cellular

13:30

telephone survey you performed could be used both to

13:31

measure secondary meaning and in a dilution analysis?

13:31

A.

13:31

What I mean is this -- by including somewhat

12

No, that's not what I was saying.

13:31

13

of a broader audience at least there are some results

13:31

14

just as you were asking me before what would the

13:31

15

results have been among people who bought a phone more

13:31

16

than 12 months ago, we have those results.

13:31

17

So if somebody is interested in getting a

13:31

18

sense of is the iPhone trade dress recognized amongst

13:31

19

a broader audience there's data on that.

13:31

20

Anywhere in your report do you break out your

13:32

21

findings with respect to secondary meaning among just

13:32

22

the group of respondents who were likely to purchase a

13:32

23

cellular telephone in the coming 12 months?

13:32

24
25

Q.

A.

I don't think so.

I mean it's in the data

that's produced along with the report, but it's not

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

13:32
13:32

Confidential

Page 134
1

laid out like that in the body of the report.

13:32

2

Q.

Why not?

13:32

3

A.

Because I don't see the relevance of breaking

13:32

4

that out as a separate group to look at when that's

13:32

5

just one piece of the relevant universe.

13:32

6
7

Q.

among prospective purchasers is not relevant?

8
9

MR. BEARD:

THE WITNESS:

Q.

15

No, that's not what I said.

A.

I'm sorry, would you explain it again,

13:33

13:33

13:33
13:33

I just said the universe as I see it is --

consists of recent and likely future purchasers.

16

13:33

13:33

please?

14

13:33

13:33

BY MR. QUINTO:

12
13

Objection, misstates and

mischaracterizes prior testimony.

10
11

So in your view, looking at secondary meaning

So I don't see the reason for breaking out

13:33
13:33
13:33

17

the results based on only part of that being just the

13:33

18

future purchasers, but anybody who wants to do that,

13:33

19

it's in the data.

13:33

20

Q.

Do you intend to analyze your data further

13:33

21

between now and trial, your data for either the cell

13:34

22

phone or the tablet computer surveys?

13:34

23
24
25

A.

I don't know.

Only if there's some reason

to.

13:34
13:34

Q.

As you sit here today, you have no such

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

[phone]

13:34