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

Filing 1387

Objections and Counter Designations to Apple's Corrected Notice of Amended Deposition Designations by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) re 1294 Samsung's Objections and Counter Designations to Apple's Corrected Notice of Amended Deposition Designations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Samsung's Objections and Counter Designations to Apple's Corrected Notice of Amended Deposition Designations, # 2 Exhibit B to Samsung's Objections and Counter Designations to Apple's Corrected Notice of Amended Deposition Designations)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/26/2012) Modified text on 7/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT B

DESCRIPTION
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE 401/402
(IRRELEVANT)
LACKS FOUNDATION
CALLS FOR SPECULATION
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 602 (LACK OF
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE)
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 802 (HEARSAY)
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 403 (UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL, CONFUSING OR WASTE OF
TIME)
MISLEADING
BEST EVIDENCE
IMPROPER LAY OPINION / IMPROPER EXPERT
TESTIMONY BY NON-EXPERT
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 611(B) (BEYOND
SCOPE OF DESIGNATIONS)
NOT TESTIMONY
DESIGNATION INCOMPLETE /
INCOMPREHENSIBLE / INCOMPLETE
QUESTION / ANSWER
BEYOND SCOPE OF 30(B)(6) NOTICE /
QUESTIONS
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 105
VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS
ASKED AND ANSWERED
ARGUMENTATIVE
IMPROPER / INCOMPLETE HYPOTHETICAL
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 501 (PRIVILEGE)
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 611(C)
(LEADING)
COMPOUND
MISCHARACTERIZATION
CALLS FOR LEGAL CONCLUSION
ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
NON-RESPONSIVE
NARRATIVE
OVERLY BROAD
MISSTATES TESTIMONY
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 408
(COMPROMISE OFFERS AND NEGOTIATIONS)
OBJECTION TO TRANSLATION
LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR
COMPETENCY
IMPROPER TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESS

OBJECTIONS
402
lacks foundation
Speculation
602
802
403
Misleading
1002
701
beyond scope of designations
not testimony
Incomplete
beyond scope of 30(B)(6)
105
Ambiguous
asked and answered
argumentative
hypothetical
501
611c
Compound
mischaracterization
legal conclusion
assumes facts
non-responsive
Narrative
Overbroad
misstates testimony
408
translation
602
702/703

DESCRIPTION
IMPROPER INCLUSION OF MULTIPLE
DOCUMENTS AS ONE EXHIBIT/ VIOLATES
COURT’S LIMIT ON NUMBER OF EXHIBITS
MOTION # 1: EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR
ARGUMENT NOT TIED TO THE SPECIFIC IP
RIGHTS CLAIMED BY APPLE IN THIS ACTION
MOTION #2: EXCLUDE OUT-OF-COURT THIRDPARTY STATEMENTS ABOUT PURPORTED
SIMILARITIES OR PURPORTED CONFUSION
MOTION #3: EXCLUDE ACCUSED DEVICES,
CONTENTIONS, THEORIES, AND WITNESSES
NOT TIMELY DISCLOSED IN INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS OR INTERROGATORY
RESPONSES
MOTION #4: EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO
FINDINGS OR RULINGS IN OTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INVOLVING THE PATENTS
AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE
MOTION #5: EXCLUDE DISPUTES AND
RULINGS IN THIS ACTION, INCLUDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RULING
MOTION #6: EXCLUDE GENERALIZATIONS
REGARDING THE OPERATION OF ACCUSED
SAMSUNG PRODUCTS
MOTION # 7: EXCLUDE RESIZED OR ALTERED
PHOTOS OF SAMSUNG’S PRODUCTS IN SIDEBY-SIDE PRODUCT COMPARISONS
MOTION # 8: EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OF
PRE-FILING NOTICE OTHER THAN IDENTIFIED
IN APPLE’S INTERROGATORY RESPONSE AND
PROVISIONALLY EXCLUDE MR. MUSIKA’S
OPINIONS ON PRE-FILING DAMAGES UNLESS
AND UNTIL APPLE MAKES A PRIMA FACIE
SHOWING OF ENTITLEMENT TO SUCH
DAMAGES
MOTION #9: EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
SAMSUNG’S OVERALL REVENUES, PROFITS,
WEALTH AND VALUE AND EVIDENCE OR
ARGUMENT THAT SAMSUNG HAS PAID
LOWER TAXES THAN IT SHOULD HAVE
UNOPPOSED MOTION# 10: EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT THAT APPLE IS
PRESENTLY LICENSED TO THE DECLARED
ESSENTIAL PATENTS-IN-SUIT

OBJECTIONS
I
MIL 1
MIL 2
MIL 3

MIL 4

MIL 5

MIL 6
MIL 7
MIL 8

MIL 9

MIL 10