Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1480
RESPONSE to 1463 Samsung's MOTION for Reconsideration Regarding Opening Statement Slides 11-19 by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/30/2012) Modified text on 7/31/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
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
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING OPENING STATEMENT
SLIDES 11-19
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES 11-19
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3176766
1
As Samsung concedes, Samsung never disclosed its independent development theory
2
underlying the documents in slides 11-19 in response to Apple’s contention interrogatories. To
3
the extent these documents go to willful infringement, Samsung did not timely disclose this
4
theory. To the extent these documents go to copying, a secondary consideration of
5
nonobviousness, Samsung failed to disclose this theory, as Judge Grewal found. Furthermore,
6
when asked about the basis for Samsung’s denial of copying, Samsung’s corporate representative
7
on copying did not disclose these documents. (Sep. 21, 2011 J. Denison 30(b)(6) dep. at 155:10-
8
19.)1 Not only was the alleged independent development theory never disclosed during
9
discovery, these documents are not even related to the accused products. Samsung’s design
10
documents for an unaccused product – the F700 – are not relevant to the design of the accused
11
products. When asked whether the accused Galaxy S phone designs were based on the earlier
12
unaccused F700, Samsung’s head designer and sponsor of these documents, Minhyouk Lee, said
13
no: the accused Galaxy S phone designs were his own designs. (Mar. 2, 2012 M.H. Lee dep. at
14
71:20-72:10.) Another sponsor of these documents, Hyoung Shin Park, the alleged F700
15
designer, likewise denied having any knowledge that any other Samsung phone was based on the
16
F700 design. (Feb. 29, 2012 H.S. Park Dep. at 50:25-51:3.) Hence, Samsung’s theories
17
supporting the use of the documents in slides 11-19 are not only untimely, they are wholly
18
irrelevant to the accused products in this case.
19
20
Dated: July 30, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
21
By:
22
23
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
24
25
26
27
1
Apple requested, but Samsung did not provide Apple permission to unseal the
confidential deposition transcripts cited in this response.
28
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING OPENING STATEMENT SLIDES 11-19
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3176766
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?