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

Filing 1556

OPPOSITION to ( 1414 JOINT MOTION, 1493 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , 1499 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PRIOR MOTIONS AND EXHIBITS THERETO, 1489 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Revised), 1328 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal /Non-Party Nokia Corporation's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 1396 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Third Party Confidential Information, 1390 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Non-Party Microsoft Corporation's Motion to Seal Terms of Confidential License Agreement, 1376 EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for a Limited Sealing Order, 1340 Administrative Motion to Partially File Under Seal, 1400 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Emergency Motion by Non-Party Motorola Mobility LLC to Seal Exhibits, Close Courtroom and Seal Portions of Transcript), 1495 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal APPLE'S MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL TRIAL EXHIBITS, 1506 First Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , 1488 MOTION to Seal Trial Exhibits , 1334 Emergency MOTION for an Order Closing the Courtroom and Sealing the Transcript During Discussion of InterDigital's Confidential Information, 1486 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Proposed Trial Exhibit 630, 1490 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Renewed Motion to Seal Dkt. Nos. 927, 991, 1013, 1022, 1060, 1206, 1481 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal , 1498 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Non-Party Siemens AG's Administrative Motion to Seal ) Third Party Reuters America LLC's Opposition to Motions to Seal Trial and Pretrial Evidence filed byReuters America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Denying Motions to Seal Trial and Pretrial Evidence, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Julie P. Samuels, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Amy Stevens, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Patent Professors)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/2/2012) Modified text on 8/6/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
)
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMIERCA, LLC, )
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

Case No.: 11-cv-01846 LHK
DECLARATION OF JULIE P.
SAMUELS OF ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JULIE P. SAMUELS
CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846 LHK

1

I, Julie P. Samuels, declare and state:

2

1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois and am a Staff

3

Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”). EFF is a nonprofit, membership-supported

4

civil liberties organization working to protect consumer interests, innovation and free expression in

5

the digital world. EFF and its nearly 20,000 dues-paying members have a strong interest in

6

assisting the courts and policy makers in striking the appropriate balance between intellectual

7

property and the public interest.

8

2.

I have knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon as a witness, I

9

could testify to them competently under oath. However, other than from certain public documents

10

and a limited review of the parties’ briefs, I do not have knowledge of the all of the facts of the

11

instant matter and my comments are based on a basic understanding of the types of materials at

12

issue here, rather than the specifics.

13

3.

At EFF, we work to promote patent policies that foster innovation and engender a

14

safe environment for creators to thrive. Consequently, we closely monitor patent litigation and

15

other legal developments in the field. As attorneys, we rely on publicly available data to understand

16

the current legal environment in which we work. As activists, we rely on publicly available data to

17

educate the public, our members, policy makers, and others about the problems and strengths of the

18

current patent system with an eye toward what changes may be needed (or resisted) in order to

19

have that system better serve the interests of consumers and innovators.

20

4.

Through this work, we have found that courts and parties to private actions often

21

overlook the important public interests at issue in intellectual property litigation. In patent cases,

22

those interests include: ensuring that innovators have robust access to technology, recognizing the

23

connection between the patent system and the tools and other technologies that ordinary people are

24

able to access and use and working to protect individuals from the overbroad application of

25

intellectual property laws. One crucial way to protect those interests is oversight of the litigation

26

process: monitoring how parties actually wield intellectual property law in court cases as a sword

27

to stave off competition.

28

1
DECLARATION OF JULIE P. SAMUELS
CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846 LHK

1

5.

In this case, some of material that the parties here request to keep under seal appears

2

crucial to our work protecting that very public interest. For example, the prevalence (and recent

3

uptick) in litigation surrounding software patents is of grave concern to many who work in the

4

high-tech industries, particularly to those who find themselves on the receiving end of licensing

5

demands or infringement complaints. It also matters to consumers, whose access to mobile devices

6

and tablets may turn on the injunctive relief or damages assessed in patent litigation. Knowing the

7

types of licensing surrounding the patents at issue in this case would help us educate and counsel

8

those individuals and small companies. Moreover, it would help our efforts at educating policy

9

makers and the public about the true scope and cost of modern software patent litigation, not just to

10
11

the parties, but to society as a whole.
6.

Similarly, financial data and market surveys surrounding the phones and tablets that

12

so many American consumers use and rely on everyday is relevant to protecting consumer

13

interests. The financial data surrounding their development, sale, and production provide powerful

14

tools to many groups, including EFF, who work diligently to ensure those consumers’ interests are

15

taken into account in manufacturing and pricing decisions. Market surveys indicate where

16

consumer interest and demand may be unmet due to the role of patent litigation in keeping items

17

from the marketplace or placing them at a price point that is too high for most consumers.

18

7.

Finally, Apple and Samsung came to this Court asking that it award damages

19

stretching into the billions of dollars. In doing so, each put its own finances at issue. They should

20

not now be allowed to hide behind protections from this Court—to the detriment of the public

21

interest—to keep that information shielded from public scrutiny. This matter may be a private

22

dispute, but it has wide-ranging public consequences.

23
24

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 2, 12 at San Francisco, California.

25
/s/ Julie P. Samuels
Julie P. Samuels

26
27
28

2
DECLARATION OF JULIE P. SAMUELS
CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846 LHK

1
2
3
4
5
6

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a
“conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
Dated: August 2, 2012
By:
/s/ Karl Olson
Karl Olson (SBN 104760)
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Reuters America LLC

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
DECLARATION OF JULIE P. SAMUELS
CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846 LHK