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

Filing 1468

OBJECTIONS to Apple's Proposed Examination Exhibits and Materials For Second Day of Trial by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Kara M. Borden, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/30/2012)

EXHIBIT 1

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
14 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

20
21

vs.

22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
25
Defendant.
26

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S
NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION
OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD. RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Samsung Electronics Co.,

2 Ltd. (“Samsung”) hereby serves its objections to the Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of
3 Samsung Relating to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction served by Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
4 on August 26, 2011.
5
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Samsung makes the following general responses and objections (“General Objections”) to
each deposition topic listed in Apple’s notice of deposition. These General Objections are hereby
incorporated into each specific response. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional
objections or partial responses to the individual deposition topics does not waive any of
Samsung’s General Objections. Samsung reserves its right to object to any questions asked of any
deponent during a deposition.
1.

Samsung objects to the designation of Morrison & Foerster LLP’s San Francisco,

California, offices as the location for the deposition and to the deposition as “continu[ing] day-today until completed.” Samsung will confer with Apple on mutually-agreeable date(s), location(s),
and times for the deposition.
2.

Samsung objects to the “Definitions” contained in Apple’s Notice of Rule 30(B)(6)

Deposition of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Relating to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction to the extent they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.

Samsung objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and

“Defendants” as overly broad to the extent it requires Samsung to pursue information from
individuals no longer employed by Samsung whose data is not currently in the possession of
Samsung. Samsung further objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and
“Defendants” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous to the extent it does not define “affiliates,”
and also to the extent that it requires Samsung to potentially seek information from thousands of
people. Samsung will respond to interrogatories based on a reasonable inquiry of individuals
expected to possess the requested information.
4.

Samsung objects to Apple‘s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad and

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, insofar
2 as it seeks information about these products “as released anywhere in the world” and is not
3 limited to products sold in the United States.
4

5.

Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Hardware Design” as overly broad,

5 vague, and ambiguous insofar as it includes “all hardware, insignia or ornamentation thereon.”
6

6.

Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Relating,” and each and every

7 interrogatory that uses the term “Relating,” as overly broad, vague and ambiguous.
8

7.

Samsung further objects to this notice as improperly delayed. Apple has known

9 about the Court’s discovery schedule relating to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction since
10 July 18, 2011. While Apple had the opportunity to serve this notice at an earlier time, it waited
11 until the last possible date under the Court’s Order to serve this deposition notice, along with
12 interrogatories and over 60 additional document requests. This notice seeks information that
13 Apple could have requested at a much earlier date. None of the topics below are dependent on
14 any arguments raised in Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s preliminary injunction. Therefore,
15 Samsung objects to Apple’s bad faith in delaying service of this deposition notice.
16

Subject to the foregoing qualifications and General Objections and the specific objections

17 made below, Samsung objects and responds to Apple’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of
18 Samsung Relating to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as follows:
19

TOPICS

20 TOPIC NO. 1:
21

Samsung’s imitation, copying, or emulation of any Apple product in developing, creating,

22 or designing any of the Products at Issue.
23 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
24

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

25 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
26 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
27 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
28 objects to the topic as vague and ambiguous; for example, the terms “imitation, copying or
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 emulation” are vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks
2 information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably
3 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as
4 overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
5 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to this topic as oppressive
6 and harassing inasmuch as it improperly and without basis implies Samsung engaged in copying
7 and other such activity. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not limited
8 to any reasonable time period and seeks information from time periods not at issue in Apple’s
9 motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation.
10

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

11 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
12 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
13 preliminary injunction motion and relating only to the following “Apple product(s)”: the Apple
14 iPhone or iPad products.
15 TOPIC NO. 2:
16

The development and/or design of the Hardware Design of the Products at Issue.

17 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
18

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

19 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
20 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
21 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
22 objects to the topic as vague and ambiguous; for example, the terms “Hardware Design” is vague
23 and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
24 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
25 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
26 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
27 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

2 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
3 topic, limited to development or design activities relating to the features in the Products at Issue
4 that Apple has accused of infringement in its preliminary injunction motion .
5 TOPIC NO. 3:
6

The identity of the individuals involved in the development and/or design of the Hardware

7 Design of the Products at Issue and the roles and responsibilities of each.
8 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:
9

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

10 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
11 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
12 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
13 objects to the topic as vague and ambiguous; for example, the term “Hardware Design” is vague
14 and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
15 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
16 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
17 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
18 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
19

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

20 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
21 topic, limited to activities relating to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of
22 infringement in its preliminary injunction motion.
23 TOPIC NO. 4:
24

The identity of the individuals involved in marketing the Products at Issue and the roles

25 and responsibilities of each.
26 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
27

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

28 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
2 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
3 objects to the topic as vague and ambiguous; for example, the term “marketing” is vague and
4 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
5 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
6 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
7 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
8 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
9

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

10 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
11 topic, limited to identifying the primary individuals responsible for activities relating to the
12 Products at Issue.
13 TOPIC NO. 5:
14

The development and/or design of features in the Products at Issue relating to (1) the

15 functionality that allows for a list to be scrolled beyond its terminus or a document to be translated
16 beyond its edge until the list or document is partially displayed; and (2) functionality that allows
17 for a list that is scrolled beyond its terminus to scroll back or bounce back into place or for a
18 document that is translated beyond its edge to translate back or bounce back so that the list or
19 document returns to fill the screen.
20 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:
21

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

22 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
23 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
24 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
25 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, or overly broad with regard to the terms
26 “scrolled beyond its terminus” or “translated beyond its edge” or “translate back” or
27 “functionality.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
28 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
2 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
3 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
4

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

5 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
6 topic, limited to activities relating to the Products at Issue.
7 TOPIC NO. 6:
8

Aesthetic, functional, and cost considerations that affected, constrained, or altered the

9 Hardware Design of the Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
10 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:
11

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

12 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
14 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
15 this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with regard to the terms “aesthetic,
16 functional, and cost considerations” or “affected, constrained, or altered” or “Hardware Design.”
17 Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the
18 claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
19 admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks
20 information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s
21 motion for a preliminary injunction.
22

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

23 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
24 topic, limited to activities relating to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of
25 infringement in its preliminary injunction motion.
26 TOPIC NO. 7:
27

Alternative Hardware Designs considered by Samsung during the development of the

28 Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7:
2

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

3 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
4 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
5 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
6 this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “Hardware
7 Designs.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
8 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
9 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
10 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
11 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
12

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

13 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
14 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
15 preliminary injunction motion.
16 TOPIC NO. 8:
17

Alternative user interfaces considered by Samsung during the development of the Galaxy S

18 4G, Infuse 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab 10.1.
19 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
20

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

21 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
22 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
23 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
24 this Request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with regard to the term “user
25 interfaces.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
26 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
27 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-7SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
2 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
3

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

4 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
5 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
6 preliminary injunction motion.
7 TOPIC NO. 9:
8

Any reference to or consideration of an Apple product during the design of the Products at

9 Issue.
10 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 9:
11

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

12 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
14 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
15 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the terms
16 “reference to” or “consideration.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks
17 information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably
18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as
19 overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
20 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in
21 that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time
22 periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung
23 further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products released
24 outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
25

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

26 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
27 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-8SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 preliminary injunction motion and relating only to the following “Apple product(s)”: the Apple
2 iPhone or iPad products.
3 TOPIC NO. 10:
4

Your awareness of any of the Patents at Issue.

5 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
6

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

7 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
8 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
9 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
10 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the term
11 “awareness.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not
12 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
13 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is
14 not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at
15 issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation.
16

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

17 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will meet and confer with Apple regarding
18 what testimony Apple seeks with this topic, and how that testimony is relevant to Apple’s motion
19 for a preliminary injunction.
20 TOPIC NO. 11:
21

Your analysis, review, consideration, or copying of, or comparison against, any Apple

22 product or product feature with respect to any features of the Products at Issue, including (1) their
23 Hardware Design; (2) the functionality that allows for a list to be scrolled beyond its terminus or a
24 document to be translated beyond its edge until the list or document is partially displayed; and (3)
25 functionality that allows for a list that is scrolled beyond its terminus to scroll back or bounce back
26 into place or for a document that is translated beyond its edge to translate back or bounce back so
27 that the list or document returns to fill the screen.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 11:
2

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

3 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
4 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
5 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
6 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the terms
7 “analysis, review, consideration,” “Hardware Design,” “scrolled beyond its terminus,” “translated
8 beyond its edge,” or “functionality.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks
9 information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably
10 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as
11 overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
12 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to this topic as oppressive
13 and harassing inasmuch as it implies Samsung engaged in copying and other such activity.
14 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time
15 period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
16 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in
17 that it seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
18 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
19

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

20 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
21 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
22 preliminary injunction motionand relating only to the following “Apple product(s)”: the Apple
23 iPhone or iPad products.
24 TOPIC NO. 12:
25

Your communications with Apple relating to the Patents at Issue.

26 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 12:
27

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

28 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks information that are not relevant to the claims or
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-10SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
2 evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks communications equally or
3 more readily available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the topic as
4 overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks information from time
5 periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung
6 further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products released
7 outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
8

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

9 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
10 topic.
11 TOPIC NO. 13:
12

Your communications with Apple relating to the Products at Issue.

13 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:
14

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

15 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks information that are not relevant to the claims or
16 defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
17 evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information regarding
18 products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Samsung further objects to
19 the topic to the extent it seeks communications equally or more readily available to Apple than to
20 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not limited to any
21 reasonable time period and seeks information from time periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for
22 a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad
23 in that it seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue
24 in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
25

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

26 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
27 topic, limited to the features in the Products at Issue that Apple has accused of infringement in its
28 preliminary injunction motion.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-11SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 TOPIC NO. 14:
2

Any customer surveys, market studies, market analyses, or other investigations conducted

3 by Samsung or on behalf of Samsung relating to the Products at Issue.
4 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 14:
5

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

6 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
7 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
8 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
9 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the terms
10 “market studies” or “market analyses” or “investigations.” Samsung further objects to the topic to
11 the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not
12 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to
13 the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s
14 motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as
15 overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things
16 from time periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation.
17 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to
18 products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary
19 injunction.
20

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

21 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will meet and confer with Apple regarding
22 what testimony Apple seeks with this topic, and how that testimony is relevant to Apple’s motion
23 for a preliminary injunction.
24 TOPIC NO. 15:
25

Any reference to Apple or Apple products in advertising of the Products at Issue.

26 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 15:
27

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

28 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-12SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
2 evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining
3 to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation.
4 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time
5 period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
6 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it
7 seeks publicly available information equally or more readily available to Apple than to Samsung.
8 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to
9 products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary
10 injunction.
11

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

12 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will meet and confer with Apple regarding
13 what testimony Apple seeks with this topic, and how that testimony is relevant to Apple’s motion
14 for a preliminary injunction.
15 TOPIC NO. 16:
16

Your identification or analysis of the market or markets to which Samsung intends to sell

17 the Products at Issue.
18 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 16:
19

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

20 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
21 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
22 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
23 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the terms
24 “analysis” or “market or markets.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks
25 information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably
26 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as
27 overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
28 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-13SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time
2 periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung
3 further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products released
4 outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

6 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
7 topic.
8 TOPIC NO. 17:
9

Samsung’s smartphones [sic] and tablet computer market share.

10 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
11

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

12 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
14 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
15 objects to the topic to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses
16 of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
17 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to
18 products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation.
19 Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time
20 period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
21 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in
22 that it seeks information pertaining to products released outside the U.S., which are not at issue in
23 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
24

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

25 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
26 topic, limited to the Products at Issue.
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-14SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 TOPIC NO. 18:
2

Any instances of consumer confusion in which Samsung was made aware that a person

3 confused an Apple product for a Product at Issue, or a Product at Issue for an Apple product.
4 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
5

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

6 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
7 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
8 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
9 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the term
10 “customer confusion.” Samsung further objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks information
11 that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead
12 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that
13 it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary
14 injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it is not
15 limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at
16 issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further
17 objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products released
18 outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
19

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

20 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will meet and confer with Apple regarding
21 what testimony Apple seeks with this topic, and how that testimony is relevant to Apple’s motion
22 for a preliminary injunction.
23 TOPIC NO. 19:
24

Marketing and promotion of the Products at Issue.

25 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
26

In addition to its General Objections, which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung

27 objects to this topic to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
28 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-15SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
2 this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous or overly broad with regard to the terms
3 “marketing” or “promotion.” Samsung further objects to the topic to the extent it seeks
4 information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably
5 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the topic as
6 overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products not at issue in Apple’s motion for a
7 preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung further objects to the topic as overbroad in
8 that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time
9 periods not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and/or this litigation. Samsung
10 further objects to the topic as overbroad in that it seeks information pertaining to products released
11 outside the U.S., which are not at issue in Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
12

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

13 information responsive to the topic exists, Samsung will designate one or more witnesses on this
14 topic, limited to general marketing and promotion of the Products at Issue.
15 DATED: August 31, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

16

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

By /s/ Victoria Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-16SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 31, 2011, I caused SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO

3 APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
4 CO., LTD. RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to
5 be electronically served on the following via email:
6 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC.
7 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
[e-mail]
8 MICHAEL A. JACOBS
[e-mail]
9 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR
[e-mail]
10 ALISON M. TUCHER
[e-mail]
11 RICHARD S.J. HUNG
[e-mail]
12 JASON R. BARTLETT
[e-mail]
13 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
14 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
15 Facsimile: [phone]
16 WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
17 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
18 60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
19 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
20
MARK D. SELWYN
[e-mail]
21
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
22 AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
23 Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
24 Facsimile: [phone]
25
26

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in

27 Redwood Shores, California on August 31, 2011.
28

__/s/ Melissa N. Chan
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OBJ. TO APPLE’S NOTICE OF RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION