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).

Download PDF
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?