Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1526
OBJECTIONS to re 1518 Objection Samsung's Response To Apple's Newly Disclosed Objections To Samsung's Exhibits For Cross Examination Of Peter Bressler And Update Regarding Justin Denison by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/31/2012)
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
th
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S
NEWLY DISCLOSED OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S EXHIBITS FOR CROSS
EXAMINATION OF PETER BRESSLER
AND UPDATE REGARDING JUSTIN
DENISON
02198.51855/4884733.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO BRESSLER CROSS EXHIBITS AND UPDATE RE:
DENISON
1 Samsung submits this supplement to address a number of objections to the cross examination
2 exhibits of Peter Bressler that Apple never disclosed to Samsung before its filing this morning.
3 Samsung believes these objections are waived as untimely. Samsung’s response to these newly
4 asserted objections is below. Samsung also provides the Court with a minor correction to its
5 earlier filing regarding the exhibits disclosed for use with Justin Denison.
15
Responses to Apple’s Newly Disclosed Objections to Bressler Cross Examination Exhibits
DX511 — [JP’638]
This exhibit is the JP’638 patent – prior art to D’087 and D’677.
Last night, Apple’s entire objection to this reference was that it was
―misleading and confusing.‖ This morning Apple added citations to
the Federal Circuit’s ruling on appeal and purported to characterize
that Court’s ruling as a basis for excluding the exhibit. While the
Federal Circuit took all views of the prior art into account, it did not
state that the prior art was too misleading or confusing for a jury. In
fact, the Federal Circuit made no ruling even as to whether the prior
art was a proper anticipating reference, limiting its opinion to stating
that it thought it would not likely be found an anticipating reference,
under the standard for entering a preliminary injunction. Apple v.
Samsung, 678 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That decision is
non-binding on a jury. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County,
372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (―decisions on preliminary
injunctions are just that—preliminary.‖); Jack Guttman, Inc. v.
Kopykake Enterprises, Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In any event the Court has already overruled Apple’s objections to
this exhibit. (Dkt 1517 at 2.)
16
DX727, DX728
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
DX740
23
24
25
JX1040
26
27
28
02198.51855/4884733.1
JX1074
These exhibits are prior art references KR’547 and JP’383, both
disclosed during the preliminary injunction phase as prior art to
D’677 and D’087. Last night, Apple’s objection was solely that
these references were ―not a primary or secondary reference.‖ This
morning, Apple has objected that Samsung has offered no evidence
or expert testimony to establish these facts. Apple’s expert analyzed
these patents in his reports and Apple has the burden to prove
infringement in light of the prior art under Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa
Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Also, Samsung has not
had an opportunity to put on its affirmative case, and Apple cites no
Rule that Samsung can only introduce prior art through its own
expert.
This exhibit is a collection of photos of the 035 model from the
official file history of the D’889 patent. Apple for the first time this
morning added an argument that a limiting instruction is necessary
for this exhibit. Earlier today, however the Court overruled Apple’s
objections to this exhibit without requiring such an instruction. (See
Dkt 1519 at 3)
JX1040 is the D’889 design patent. Apple did not disclose its
intention to request a limiting instruction when it notified Samsung of
its objections, so such a request is untimely. As with DX740, the
Court has already overruled Apple’s objections to this exhibit without
requiring such an instruction. (See Dkt 1519 at 3)
This is the Compaq TC1000, a prior art tablet device. Last night
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO BRESSLER CROSS EXHIBITS AND UPDATE RE:
DENISON
Apple’s objection in its entirety was ―Rules 402 and 403‖. This
morning Apple claims a host of new objections, including that the
device is not a proper secondary reference, that Samsung will not be
able to authenticate it, that it was not produced during discovery, and
that, if admitted, it should have a limiting instruction that it can be
considered an alternative design.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
JX1093
12
13
14
15
PX 60
16
17
To begin, it is the jury’s duty to decide whether prior art is or is not
anticipatory or invalidating as obvious. See Int’l Seaway v.
Walgreens, 589 F.3d 1233, 1240-42 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Also, any
ruling on the preliminary injunction is non-binding on the jury. See
supra. To the extent the device is not self-authenticating,
Samsung’s expert already authenticated it at the preliminary
injunction stage. (Dkt. 172 at 9 & Ex. L.) And even though
Apple’s expert analyzed and opined on his own sample of the device,
the sample in Samsung’s possession was made available for
inspection before the close of discovery at Quinn Emanuel’s Silicon
Valley office. Apple also gives no basis for a limiting instruction
about alternative designs. That is a decision the jury has a right to
make.
JX1093 is the LG Prada phone, prior art to the D’677 and D’087
patents. Apple did not disclose its intention to request a limiting
instruction when it notified Samsung of its objections last night, so
such a request is untimely. Moreover, an instruction about the
D’305 patent is not only unnecessary at this time, but wrong on the
facts because the relevant dates for those three patents are not all the
same.
Denison Cross Examination Exhibit
In Samsung’s Objections To Apple’s Proposed Examination Exhibits
and Materials for Third Day of Trial, Samsung listed PX 60 next to
its objection related to timeliness. This was a typographical error.
Samsung is not asserting a timeliness objection to PX 60. Samsung
maintains its request for a limiting instruction with respect to PX 60.
18
19
20
21
22
23
DATED: July 31, 2012
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Victoria F. Maroulis
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4884733.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO BRESSLER CROSS EXHIBITS AND UPDATE RE:
DENISON
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?