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

Filing 1513

Supplemental Response to 1439 Objections to Chris Stringer Exhibits, 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 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE 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) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 11 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 18 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 19 20 v. 23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO CHRIS STRINGER EXHIBITS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 24 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) Defendants. 21 22 25 26 27 28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO CHRIS STRINGER EXHIBITS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) 1 As Apple explained in Docket No. 1444, Apple understood that Samsung had waived its 2 objections to Chris Stringer’s direct exhibits by not listing them in the parties’ confirming 3 correspondence after their first meet and confer session about objections. Based on that 4 understanding, Apple provided only a cursory statement rebutting Samsung’s previously raised 5 objections in Docket No. 1444. 6 Concurrently with Apple’s filing, Samsung served objections to Mr. Stringer’s direct 7 exhibits. In the parties’ subsequent meet and confers, it has become clear that the parties 8 misunderstood which disagreements they would be memorializing for briefing (i.e., all pending 9 objections to exhibits and the parties’ opening demonstratives, or just the latter). 10 11 12 13 14 In view of Samsung’s submission, Apple submits this short supplemental response to provide complete responses to Samsung’s objections to Mr. Stringer’s direct exhibits. 1. Samsung’s Objection That Apple Failed to Produce PX1, PX2, PX165– PX168, PX170, and PX171 Is Without Merit Samsung objects to these exhibits as irrelevant and prejudicial “because none of the 15 images shown in them were produced to Samsung at any time during this case.” (Dkt. No. 1439 16 at 2:7-9.) This is incorrect. These exhibits are compilations of photographs of product models 17 first made available for inspection on January 13, 2012 – two months before the fact discovery 18 close. These models continued to be available for more than two months thereafter. Samsung’s 19 prejudice objection over lack of access to the photographs lacks merit, as Samsung had ample 20 access to the subjects of such photographs – i.e., the product models themselves. Indeed, 21 Samsung inspected these models on multiple occasions. During these inspections, Samsung was 22 able to photograph these models for itself and in fact did so, having used a number of these 23 photographs during depositions in this case. Similarly, Samsung’s objection that the photographs 24 are irrelevant lacks merit because Samsung itself has contended that the subjects of such 25 photographs – i.e., the models – are relevant. (See Dkt. No. 603-0 at 10:12-14.) 26 Samsung’s objection that these exhibits are misleading is equally meritless. The exhibits 27 contain numerous high-quality photographs from multiple views. Consequently, there is no risk 28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO CHRIS STRINGER EXHIBITS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3176914 1 1 of the jury being confused or misled. Moreover, these summary exhibits are far more convenient 2 and accessible for the jury than if they were forced to examine and handle numerous models. 3 Finally, to help resolve this dispute, during Mr. Stringer’s examination, Apple will have 4 available in court the physical models depicted in Exhibits PX165–PX168, PX170, and PX171. 5 Apple will substitute the physical models for the photographs in these exhibits. 6 7 Samsung’s Objection That Mr. Stringer Is Not Competent to Testify Regarding the Evolution of Samsung’s Designs in the Marketplace Is Not Well Taken 8 Samsung objects that Mr. Stringer is not a proper sponsoring witness for PX3 or PX4. 9 2. These exhibits show the evolution of Samsung’s mobile phone and tablet designs. In particular, 10 these exhibits show clearly that, over time, Samsung’s designs came to more closely resemble 11 Apple’s designs. Exhibits PX3 and PX4 show only publicly available phones. Mr. Stringer, an 12 industrial designer at Apple for over a decade, is more than competent to testify regarding the 13 trends that he observed in the marketplace. 14 Samsung also objects that PX3 and PX4 are unfairly prejudicial in the selection of designs 15 that they depict. But, as documentary evidence will show, Samsung specifically designed its 16 mobile phone and tablet products to mimic Apple’s designs. Accordingly, the selection of 17 Samsung phones and tablets in Exhibits PX3 and PX4, respectively, fairly reflect the results of 18 these efforts, and its objection should be overruled. 19 20 21 3. Samsung’s Objection to PX157 as Lacking a Nexus to the Asserted Design Patents and Trade Dress Is Inapposite Samsung objects to PX157, which depicts awards that Apple received for its product 22 designs, as irrelevant, prejudicial, and hearsay. Samsung argues that there is no nexus between 23 this award and Apple’s asserted design patents and trade dress. Samsung’s argument is beside the 24 point. PX157 is relevant not only to secondary considerations of non-obviousness, but also to 25 Apple’s reputation for excellence in design, the irreparable harm caused by Samsung’s copying of 26 Apple’s proprietary designs. 27 28 Moreover, the premise of Samsung’s objection is mistaken. A nexus does exist between PX157 and Apple’s asserted design patents and trade dress, such that that exhibit is relevant to SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO CHRIS STRINGER EXHIBITS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3176914 2 1 secondary considerations of non-obviousness. As Mr. Stringer can testify, D&AD, the entity that 2 bestowed upon Apple the awards reflected in PX157, rewards excellence in design, not function. 3 Moreover, the D’889 patent claims the entire tablet, so that any awards for its embodiment’s 4 design are tied to the patented design. Likewise, the D’677 and D’087 patents claim the highly 5 visible front surface of the iPhone. Any praise for the iPhone’s design is directed at least in part 6 to the front surface. 7 Finally, Samsung’s hearsay objection is baseless. Apple is not offering PX157 to 8 establish the truth of any statement in the exhibit; rather, Apple is offering PX157 to illustrate 9 Mr. Stringer’s testimony regarding the awards he and Apple have received for their designs, 10 including those designs at issue in this case. 11 4. 12 Samsung objects to PX162 and PX164 – compilations of CAD drawings – as containing 13 material that was not timely produced during discovery. This objection is baseless. Apple made 14 the CAD files compiled in these exhibits available for inspection in July 2011 – approximately 15 eight months before discovery closed. Indeed, the parties specifically made use of an escrow 16 service for these inspections pursuant to Judge Grewal’s order. (See Dkt. No. 233 at 2:17-3:12.) 17 Moreover, Apple submitted CAD images from the same file set with its briefing in support of its 18 motion for a preliminary injunction in September. (See Dkt. No. 422 at Exh. 1.) Printouts from 19 the same group of CAD files as those contained in PX162 and PX164 were produced to Samsung 20 during Mr. Stringer’s deposition. Just as it had ample opportunity to inspect the models at issue 21 in Samsung’s first objection, Samsung had more than sufficient access to the documents reflected 22 in PX162 and PX164. Its objection therefore should be overruled. 23 Dated: July 31, 2012 Samsung’s Objection to PX162 and PX164 as Untimely Produced Is Baseless MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 24 25 26 27 By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs MICHAEL A. JACOBS Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 28 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO CHRIS STRINGER EXHIBITS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3176914 3

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?