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

Filing 1474

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 Regarding Documents Demonstrating Independent Creation And That Rebut Allegations of Copying (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/30/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation,



Plaintiff,
vs.

 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,

Defendants.


CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S PROFFER REGARDING
DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING
INDEPENDENT CREATION AND THAT
REBUT ALLEGATIONS OF COPYING




02198.51855/4881304.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S PROFFER REGARDING DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING INDEPENDENT
CREATION AND THAT REBUT ALLEGATIONS OF COPYING

1

In its Order denying Apple’s Motion In Limine No. 3, this Court held that the very

2 documents in Samsung Opening slides 11-19 – images of Samsung’s internal 2006 phone and
3 internal designs contained in trial exhibits 526, 522, and 625 -- are admissible for purposes other
4 than as invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, including to “rebut an allegation of copying.”
5 Dkt. 1267, at 3.

The Court should again hold that this very same evidence may be used for

6 purposes of showing lack of copying and lack of willfulness.

Samsung has argued since the very

7 beginning of this case that its story showing its independent creation of its own designs is highly
8 relevant to rebut allegations of copying and willfulness.

In opposing Apple’s PI Motion,

9 Samsung argued that in December 2006, the month before the iPhone was first announced,
10 Samsung filed a design patent application in Korea for a phone with the same type of design
11 features Apple asserts here.

See Dkt. 172, ¶ 103; TX 1086.

Samsung discussed the design of

12 the F700 in its PI Opposition as evidence of Samsung’s independent creation.

Dkt. 181a, at 4.

13 Additional images of the F700 and Samsung’s related internal models for that design were timely
14 produced to Apple on February 3, 2012, and Apple deposed the F700’s principal designer,
15 Hyoung Shin Park, on February 29, 2012.

Apple questioned Ms. Park at length about the

16 development of the F700 design, including the time period in which F700 was developed, the
17 nature of the project, the inspiration for the phone designs, and the additional designs that were
18 created during the project. As this Court has recognized, Samsung’s evidence is relevant to
19 establish independent creation and to rebut allegations of copying:
20 from any non-infringement theory.1

purposes that are separate

Samsung opening Slides 11-19 are only offered for purposes

21 of proving its long-disclosed theories of independent creation, lack of copying and lack of
22 willfulness, and not for section 102 invalidity.
23
24
25
1

See, e.g., Goodyear Tire v. Hercules Tire, 162 F.3d 1113, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“Although Hercules does not deny that it intended to appropriate the general appearance of the
27 Goodyear tire, Hercules argues that it made changes sufficient to avoid infringement. The district
court agreed.”).
28
02198.51855/4881304.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-126

SAMSUNG’S PROFFER REGARDING DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING INDEPENDENT
CREATION AND THAT REBUT ALLEGATIONS OF COPYING

1 DATED: July 30, 2012
2
3
4
5
6
7

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

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4881304.1

-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S PROFFER REGARDING DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING INDEPENDENT
CREATION AND THAT REBUT ALLEGATIONS OF COPYING