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

Filing 1475

OBJECTIONS to re 1463 MOTION for Reconsideration re 1456 Order Samsung's Motion For Reconsideration and Offer of Proof by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

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

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
23

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,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RE OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES
20-22

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28

APPLE'S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES 20-22
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3176691

1

Samsung’s “proffer” does not set forth the evidence it intends to introduce, other than as

2

“Mr. Nishibori’s testimony and the documentary evidence, such as the Sony-style CAD files and

3

emails.” Absent a proper proffer, Samsung’s renewed motion for reconsideration should be

4

rejected.

5

Samsung instead argues theories for the admissibility of this evidence that have already

6

been rejected. First, Samsung argues the evidence is relevant to show “the design elements” in

7

Apple’s phones “were known to other designers in the field,” or that the intellectual property

8

Samsung is accused of infringing was not “proprietary and unique to” Apple. This is an

9

obviousness theory, which Judge Grewal has stricken.

10

Second, Samsung argues that this evidence “corroborate[s] Samsung’s independent

11

creation story,” “rebut[s] an allegation of copying,” and “rebut[s] Apple’s allegation of

12

willfulness.” This is three ways of arguing the same point, and it is a logical impossibility.

13

Evidence of how Apple came up with its iPhone designs (which is what Samsung claims this

14

evidence shows) is not probative of how Samsung came up with its designs for the accused

15

products. Because the evidence relating to Mr. Nishibori’s work is not relevant for this purpose

16

and is, under Judge Grewal’s order, not relevant to prove invalidity, Apple has moved to exclude

17

it as irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 403.

18

Should the Court decide to admit any evidence relating to Sony-style design and its

19

purported influence on Apple’s development of the iPhone, Apple respectfully requests that the

20

Court include the following limiting instruction: “You have heard evidence [or “statements from

21

counsel”] that during the development of the iPhone an Apple designer expressed the opinion that

22

a ‘Sony-style’ design had certain advantages. I am instructing you that you may not consider this

23

as evidence that Apple’s designs for the iPhone were not new and original, or that they came from

24

outside of Apple.”

25
26
27
28
APPLE'S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES 20-22
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3176691

1

1

Dated: July 30, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2
3

By:

4

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

5
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 RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RE OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES 20-22
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3176691

2