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

Filing 1454

OBJECTIONS to Apples Objections To Samsungs Proposed Cross Examination Exhibits And Materials For Christopher Stringer by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

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,

23
Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS
EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER
STRINGER

Trial:
Time:
Place:
JUDGE:

July 30, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
HON. LUCY H. KOH

24
25
26
27
28

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER STRINGER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3176407

1

Samsung’s proposed exhibits and materials for the cross examination of Christopher

2

Stringer include a variety of inadmissible documents. This includes materials that directly

3

contradict rulings by this Court and Judge Grewal or which Samsung reasonably could have

4

anticipated relying upon (and therefore included) on its list of 200 exhibits, and Apple objects to

5

the Samsung’s use or attempted admissions of such materials on those bases. Apple’s specific

6

objections to Samsung’s exhibits and other materials appear below.

7
8

Slide Number

Apple’s Objections

9

DX0504

This exhibit is irrelevant under Rule 402; Judge Grewal has already
struck Samsung’s theories based on this reference as not timely
disclosed during discovery. (Dkt. No. 1144.)

DX0511

This exhibit is not relevant as a primary reference under Rule 402.
On appeal from this Court’s preliminary injunction ruling, the
Federal Circuit explained that it was improper to ignore the “arched,
convex front of the ’638 reference,” as depicted in its side profile, in
making this comparison. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678
F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In light of the Federal Circuit’s
decision, a limiting instruction is required under Rule 105
instructing the jury not to consider this a primary reference if this
exhibit is introduced.

DX0562

Furthermore, Judge Grewal struck Samsung’s theories based on
supposed influence of Sony designs as not timely disclosed during
discovery. (Dkt. No. 1144.) Judge Grewal’s findings warrant the
exclusion of Samsung’s untimely contentions and related evidence
such as this at trial. Apple has already moved to enforce that order.
(Dkt. No. 1420.) This evidence is also irrelevant under Rule 402 and
403.

DX0623

The exhibit should be excluded for the same reasons provided for
DX562.

DX0624

Samsung’s theories based on supposed Braun design influence were
not timely disclosed in discovery. This evidence is also irrelevant
under Rule 402 and 403. Finally, this exhibit is an improper
summary of evidence under Rule 1006. The underlying evidence,
apparently a single article, is neither voluminous nor complex.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER STRINGER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3176407

1

1
2

Slide Number
DX0628

These slides depict entirely new non-infringement theories. These
theories were disclosed in neither Samsung’s non-infringement
contention interrogatory responses nor its expert reports. This
evidence is also irrelevant under Rule 402 and 403.

DX0649

This evidence is irrelevant under Rule 402 and 403.

DX0678

This exhibit is a transparent attempt to evade Judge Grewal’s order
striking Samsung’s theories concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,919,678.
(Dkt. No. 1144 at 11). In his order, Judge Grewal struck the
opinions of Samsung’s expert, Itay Sherman, concerning the ’678
patent because they had not been timely disclosed. Samsung now
attempts to make an end run around this ruling by relying on the
patent application that resulted in the stricken patent. The ’504
application was neither timely disclosed during discovery nor cited
in Mr. Sherman’s report.

DX0690

The exhibit should be excluded for the same reasons provided for
DX562.

DX0691

Samsung will be unable to establish a foundation to introduce this
exhibit during Mr. Stringer’s testimony. The exhibit is also hearsay
under Rule 802.

DX0708

Samsung will be unable to establish a foundation to introduce this
exhibit during Mr. Stringer’s testimony.

DX0740

Judge Grewal struck Samsung’s theories based on this prototype
because they were not timely disclosed during discovery. (Dkt. No.
1144.) Should the Court nevertheless admit this exhibit, limiting
instructions are required under Rule 105. First, as the Court has
previously ruled, it would be improper for the jury to consider this
evidence as limiting the scope of the D’889 design. (Dkt. No. 1170
at 6.) Second, Apple requests a limiting instruction pursuant to Rule
105 instructing the jury that the 035 prototype cannot be considered
prior art to the D’677 patent. Finally, Apple objects to these
photographs under Rule 1002.

DX0741

With the exception of its objection under Rule 1002, Apple repeats
its objections to DX0740 to DX0741.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Apple’s Objections

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER STRINGER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3176407

2

1
2

Slide Number

Apple’s Objections

DX0743

Samsung’s attempt to introduce this evidence is contrary to three
rulings. First, this Court’s ruling on Apple’s motion in limine #2
excluded references such as this one. (Dkt No. 1267 at 3.) Second,
invalidity contentions based on this reference were struck by Judge
Grewal (Dkt. No. 1144.) Third, this Court struck the expert report
of Nicolas Godici, the only place Samsung had disclosed this
evidence. (Dkt. No. 1157 at 5-6.)

JX1040

In granting Apple’s motion to strike certain of Samsung’s expert
opinions due to untimely raised theories (Dkt. No. 1144), Judge
Grewal struck Mr. Sherman’s attempt to rely on the D’889 patent as
alleged prior art to the D’677 patent. A limiting instruction pursuant
to Rule 105 thus is required that the D’889 patent cannot be
considered prior art to the D’677 patent.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

APL-ITC796-00000360

This Court’s ruling on Apple’s motion in limine #2 excluded
references such as this one. (Dkt No. 1267 at 3.)

APL-ITC796-00000442

This Court’s ruling on Apple’s motion in limine #2 excluded
references such as this one. (Dkt No. 1267 at 3.)

12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple’s Discovery
Responses

Samsung will be unable to establish a foundation to introduce these
documents during Mr. Stringer’s testimony.

ITC 796 Witness
Statement of Chris
Stringer

Mr. Stringer’s former testimony is inadmissible hearsay under Rule
804(b) because he is available to testify at trial. Also, this document
contains confidential business information pursuant to the protective
order in the 337-TA-796 ITC Investigation.

ITC Day 1 Hearing
Transcript

The exhibit should be excluded for the same reasons provided for
the ITC Witness Statement of Christopher Stringer.

ITC Exhibit RX-1894C

The exhibit should be excluded for the same reasons provided for
DX562.

Depositions of
Christopher Stringer

The exhibit should be excluded for the same reasons provided for
the ITC Witness Statement of Christopher Stringer.

Ex. 34 to the 2/15/2012
ITC Dep. of Christopher
Stringer

This exhibit is misleading as it omits the side views of the patent.
This evidence is also irrelevant under Rule 402 and 403.

5/2/2012 Deposition of
Shin Nishibori

This evidence is hearsay under Rules 801 and 802.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER STRINGER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3176407

3

1

Dated: July 29, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2
3

By:

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs________
Michael A. Jacobs

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED CROSS EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND
MATERIALS FOR CHRISTOPHER STRINGER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3176407

4