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

Filing 1473

NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) Samsung's Proffer of Evidence Regarding Shin Nishibori (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/30/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. 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 (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. 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
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S PROFFER OF TESTIMONY
OF SHIN NISHIBORI

vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4881596.4

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S PROFFER OF TESTIMONY OF SHIN NISHIBORI

1

Samsung respectfully makes a proffer of evidence regarding Shin Nishibori and his

2 involvement in the creation of the Sony-style model, which he testified changed the course of the
3 iPhone’s development.

This evidence is not being offered to prove that Apple’s design patents

4 are invalid under Section 102 or 103, but to rebut Apple’s allegations that Samsung copied designs
5 and design concepts that Apple claims are proprietary and unique to it.

Mr. Nishibori’s

6 testimony and the documentary evidence, such as the Sony-style CAD files and emails,
7 corroborate Samsung’s independent creation story that the design elements found in Samsung’s
8 phones were not taken from Apple, but were known to other designers in the field.

The Court’s

9 order on Apple’s MIL #3 explicitly stated that evidence going “to rebut an allegation of copying”
10 is independent from an invalidity theory.

(Dkt No. 1267 at 3.) By the same logic, this evidence

11 is relevant to rebutting Apple’s allegations of willfulness.

This evidence is not being asserted for

12 invalidity purposes, or to allege any kind of wrongdoing by Apple, but to rebut Apple’s factual
13 allegations of copying and to put them in their proper context in the industry of electronic device
14 design.

The Sony-related evidence is also relevant to issues of functionality, which Samsung has

15 been disclosing since the preliminary injunction phase.

The order by Magistrate Judge Grewal

16 striking various prior art references was not directed in any way to the functionality opinions
17 found in Samsung’s expert’s report.

In fact, Mr. Sherman included in his functionality section

18 images of the Sony-Style phone model, along with text from the email revealing that Apple
19 changed its phone design from the earlier extrudo model at least in part due to functional reasons.
20
21 DATED: July 30, 2012
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

28
02198.51855/4881596.4

-1-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S PROFFER OF TESTIMONY OF SHIN NISHIBORI