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).

EXHIBIT 50

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

3

San Jose Division

4

Case No. 11-CV-846 LHK

5

_______________________________________

6

APPLE, INCORPORATED,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANIES,

)

et al,

)
Defendants.

15

H I G H L Y

C O N F I D E N T I A L

* ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY *

16
17

)

_______________________________________ )

13
14

)
)

11
12

)

DEPOSITION OF PETER BRESSLER

18
19

Washington, D.C.

20

April 24, 2012

21
22
23
24

Reported by:

25

Job No. 48797

Mary Ann Payonk, RDR-CRR

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 151
1

to be confused between Apple devices and

02:15

2

Samsung devices?

02:15

3

A.

I don't believe I've opined on

02:15

4

anything in -- about trade dress other than the

02:15

5

functionality of Apple's trade dress.

02:15

6

Q.

So if I understand you correctly, the

02:15

7

only expert opinion you're offering in this

02:15

8

case as it pertains to trade dress is the lack

02:15

9

of functionality of Apple's trade dress.

02:15

10
11

A.

I believe that's correct.

I can

check my report.

12

Q.

02:16
02:16

Please do, because I want to make

02:16

13

sure I have a full understanding of the scope

02:16

14

of your opinion on trade dress.

02:16

15

A.

I believe I have limited my opinions

02:17

16

to the -- to the functionality of Apple's trade

02:17

17

dress --

02:17

18

Q.

Are you offering --

02:17

19

A.

-- in the iPhones and the iPads.

02:17

20

Q.

I'm sorry.

02:18

21

I didn't mean to cut you

off.

02:18

22

A.

In the phones and the iPad.

02:18

23

Q.

Are you offering an expert opinion in

02:18

24

this case about similarity or claimed

02:18

25

similarity between Apple's claimed trade dress

02:18

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 152
1
2

in any Samsung devices?
I believe the

02:18

3

only opinion I have expressed in my report is

02:18

4

about the functionality or lack thereof of

02:18

5

Apple's trade dress.

02:18

6

A.

Q.

I do not believe so.

02:18

Then, focusing on your opinion as to

02:18

7

the lack of functionality of Apple's claimed

02:18

8

trade dress -- first let me ask you, Please

02:18

9

tell me what your understanding is of the

02:18

10

standard that you applied to determine whether

02:18

11

or not a trade dress or a trade dress element

02:18

12

was functional.

02:19

13

A.

In short form, I believe I reviewed

02:20

14

whether the design yields a utilitarian

02:20

15

advantage, whether alternative designs were

02:20

16

available, whether advertising touted

02:20

17

utilitarian advantages of the design, whether

02:20

18

the particular design resulted from a

02:20

19

comparatively simple or inexpensive method of

02:20

20

manufacture.

02:20

21

embodiment to determine if the visual elements

02:20

22

of trade dress were functional.

02:20

23

Q.

I also reviewed alternative

What do you mean by you reviewed

02:20

24

alternative embodiments to determine if the

02:20

25

visual elements of the trade dress were

02:20

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 153
1
2

functional?

02:20

A.

02:20

Meaning if there were alternative

3

designs that performed the same function, then

02:20

4

they would not be considered functional,

02:21

5

dictated by function.

02:21

6
7

Q.

Is that different than the

alternative design standard you mentioned?

02:21
02:21

8

A.

No.

02:21

9

Q.

It's the same thing?

02:21

10

A.

Same thing.

02:21

11

Q.

What did you do in order to determine

02:21

12

whether the claimed Apple trade dress or any

02:21

13

element of the claimed Apple trade dress

02:21

14

yielded a utilitarian advantage?

02:21

15

A.

I reviewed competitive phones to

02:21

16

determine whether there was anything in the

02:21

17

appearance and function of the phone that

02:21

18

was -- that had a utilitarian advantage over

02:21

19

other phones.

02:22

Q.

02:22

20
21

And did you do anything else to

determine that?

02:22

22

A.

No, I don't believe so.

02:22

23

Q.

Please tell me everything you did as

02:22

24

part of this review of competitive phones that

02:22

25

you just described.

02:22

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 154
1

A.

Throughout my report, I reviewed a

02:22

2

number of phones and compared their

02:23

3

functional -- the appearance of their

02:23

4

functionality.

02:23

5

16 and 17.

And in my report -- let's see,

6

02:23
In my report, I worked against the

02:24

7

various visual elements that were identified in

02:24

8

the Apple patents and compared them to existing

02:24

9

phones to determine whether there were

02:24

10

alternative appearances that performed similar

02:24

11

functions.

02:24

12
13
14

Q.

Did you do anything else as part of

this review we're discussing?
A.

02:24
02:24
02:24

I also reviewed the depositions of

15

I seem to have lost my place.

02:26

16

Apple designers in which they identified that

02:26

17

Apple had considered alternative designs and

02:26

18

were perfectly capable of executing them and

02:26

19

had decided upon the current design for

02:26

20

aesthetic reasons.

02:26

21

Q.

My question is:

Other than what

02:26

22

you've described, did you do anything else as

02:26

23

part of your review of competitive phones that

02:26

24

you talked about?

02:26

25

A.

I'm not sure I understand your
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

877-702-9580

02:26