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

Filing 1455

ORDER re 1440 Samsung's Objections to Apple's Opening Slides. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/29/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S
OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING
SLIDES

18
Samsung has filed objections to Apple’s Opening Slides. See ECF No. 1440. Apple has
19
filed a response. See ECF No. 1444. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record
20
in this case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (“FRE
21
403”), the Court rules on Samsung’s objections as follows:
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. Objection No. 1: images of Steve Jobs [Slides 6, 7, 12, 16, and 29]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
6
Overruled. Image is relevant to Apple’s iPhone design patent and trade dress
claims and is not unduly prejudicial.
7
Overruled. Image is relevant to Apple’s iPhone design patent and trade dress
claims and is not unduly prejudicial.
12
Overruled. Image is relevant to Apple’s iPhone design patent and trade dress
claims and is not unduly prejudicial.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING SLIDES

1
2

16
29

Overruled. Image is relevant to Apple’s iPhone design patent and trade dress
claims and is not unduly prejudicial.
Overruled. Image is relevant to Apple’s iPad design patent and trade dress
claims and is not unduly prejudicial.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

2. Objection No. 2: newspaper articles and blogs [Slides 13, 14, 16, 27, 28, 30, and 32]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
13
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence of media coverage of the iPhone is relevant
to fame and secondary considerations of non-obviousness and is not unduly
prejudicial under FRE 403.
14
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence of media coverage of the iPhone is relevant
to fame and secondary considerations of non-obviousness and is not unduly
prejudicial under FRE 403.
16
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence of media coverage of the iPhone is relevant
to fame and secondary considerations of non-obviousness and is not unduly
prejudicial under FRE 403.
27
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence is relevant to infringement, consumer
confusion, and willfulness as to the iPhone, and is not unduly prejudicial under
FRE 403.
28
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence is relevant to infringement, consumer
confusion, and willfulness as to the iPhone, and is not unduly prejudicial under
FRE 403.
30
Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence of media coverage of the iPhone is relevant
to fame and secondary considerations of non-obviousness and is not unduly
prejudicial.
32
Sustained. Consistent with the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1
(ECF No. 1267 at 3-4), this evidence is relevant to infringement, consumer
confusion, and willfulness as to the iPad, and is not unduly prejudicial under FRE
403.

23
24
25
26
27
28

3. Objection No. 3: improper translations [Slides 18, 19, 58, and 67]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
18
Overruled. If the parties are unable to resolve this translation dispute in their
meet and confer efforts, Apple may introduce its translation during its opening
statement, and Samsung may offers its alternative translation during its opening
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING SLIDES

1
2
3

19

4
5

58

6

67

statement. Moreover, Samsung never provided its objections to PX34 to Apple
or discussed the exhibit during the parties’ meet and confer regarding trial exhibit
translations. The parties must meet and confer regarding all trial exhibit
translation disputes before filing an objection with the Court.
Sustained. Apart from the use of bright red, bolded, large font, Slide 19 is in all
other respects identical to Slide 18 and is thus needlessly cumulative under FRE
403.
Sustained. Apple offers no rebuttal to Samsung’s specific objections to the
accuracy of the translation.
Overruled. Samsung’s general objection to translation is vague and does not
identify a specific basis for the objection.

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

4. Objection No. 4 1: Galaxy S i9000 [Slides 26 and 49]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
26, 49
Overruled. The Court has already denied Samsung’s motion to exclude evidence
of the Galaxy S i9000. See ECF No. 1267 at 2.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5. Objection No. 5: PX 44 [Slides 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 67]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
33
Sustained. Evidence is not relevant to any of the asserted intellectual property in
this case and is excluded under the Court’s prior ruling on Samsung’s motion in
limine #1, see ECF No. 1267 at 3.
34
Sustained. Evidence is not relevant to any of the asserted intellectual property in
this case and is excluded under the Court’s prior ruling on Samsung’s motion in
limine #1, see ECF No. 1267 at 3.
35
Sustained. Evidence is not relevant to any of the asserted intellectual property in
this case and is excluded under the Court’s prior ruling on Samsung’s motion in
limine #1, see ECF No. 1267 at 3.
36
Sustained. Evidence is not relevant to any of the asserted intellectual property in
this case and is excluded under the Court’s prior ruling on Samsung’s motion in
limine #1, see ECF No. 1267 at 3.
37
Overruled. Evidence is relevant to alleged infringement of Apple’s icon design
patents and trade dress and to willfulness, and does not violate the Court’s prior
ruling on Samsung’s motion in limine #1.
67
Overruled. Evidence is relevant to alleged infringement of the ’163 patent and
willfulness and does not violate the Court’s prior ruling on Samsung’s motion in
limine #1.

27
1

28

Samsung’s numbering of its objections omits numbers 4 and 13. This Order numbers Samsung’s
objections sequentially.
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING SLIDES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

6. Objection No. 6: Justin Denison testimony [Slides 41 and 42]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
41-42
Overruled. Mr. Denison was Samsung’s 30(b)(6) witness on Samsung’s
“imitation, copying, or emulation of any Apple product” during the preliminary
injunction phase, and thus the quoted testimony is relevant at least to the four
products that were at issue in the preliminary injunction phase. Apple must
clarify that the testimony is limited to certain IP rights and to certain accused
products.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

7. Objection No. 7: Olympic torch [Slides 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, and 62]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
55, 56, 59, 60, Overruled. Apple’s decision to use the same photo on both phones is reasonable,
61, 62
as it focuses the jury’s attention on the functionality, and use of the same photos
will not mislead the jury under FRE 403.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

8. Objection No. 8: manipulated images of the phones at issue [Slides 26, 59-62, 6972, and 75-78]
Ruling

APPLE
SLIDE
NUMBER
26, 59-62, 6972, 75-78

Overruled. Consistent with the Court’s previous ruling denying Samsung’s
motion in limine #7 (ECF No. 1267 at 5), Apple is not required to use actual
products in its opening. The jury will have the physical products to consider and
compare during trial and deliberations, and thus use of the images during Apple’s
opening presentation is not unduly prejudicial under FRE 403.

21
22
23
24
25
26

9. Objection No. 9: misstatement of law on damages [Slide 85]
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
85
Sustained. Notwithstanding Apple’s explanation that it is seeking different forms
of damages for different products, the slide is at best misleading and at worst a
misrepresentation of the law on damages and is stricken under FRE 403.

27
28

10. Objection No. 10: Dr. Ahn’s testimony [Slides 92 and 98]
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING SLIDES

1
2
3

APPLE
SLIDE
NUMBER
92, 98

Ruling

Overruled. Samsung is free to counter-designate other testimony of Dr. Ahn or
to call Dr. Ahn live at trial using the procedures established by the Court.

4
5
6
7
8
9

11. Objection No. 11: Slides 99-102
APPLE
Ruling
SLIDE
NUMBER
99-102
Overruled. Apple’s use of these slides to illustrate the distinction between
“apps” and the claimed “modes” of the ’460 and ’893 patents in support of
Apple’s non-infringement position is reasonable and does not risk misleading the
jury into thinking Samsung is accusing third-party applications of infringement.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

12. Objection No. 12: all slides containing exhibits to which Samsung previously
objected

13

Samsung has not provided the slide numbers nor articulated the bases for Samsung’s catch-

14

all objection. See ECF No. 1440 at 8. Thus, it appears that Samsung’s catch-all objection does not

15

apply to any slides that Apple intends to use in its opening statement. Moreover, Apple does not

16

respond to Samsung’s catch-all objection. Therefore, the Court will not rule on this catch-all

17

objection. In the future, each party must articulate the bases for its objections rather than merely

18

vaguely incorporate by reference previous objections.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: July 29, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S OPENING SLIDES