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).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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]

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