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

Filing 1570

Declaration of RICHARD S.J. HUNG in Support of 1569 MOTION for Reconsideration APPLES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING RULINGS ON OBJECTIONS TO BRESSLER, KARE, SCHILLER, DENISON & FORSTALL EXHIBITS (DKT. NO. 1563) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Related document(s) 1569 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W.
BRESSLER, FIDSA

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,
Defendants.

20
21
22

**CONFIDENTIAL – CONTAINS MATERIAL DESIGNATED AS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY PURSUANT TO A PROTECTIVE
ORDER**

23
24
25
26
27
28
EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3

I.

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3

4

II.

QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................................................... 3

III.

MATERIALS CONSIDERED.......................................................................................... 7

IV.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT ................... 7

6

V.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORDINARY OBSERVER ...................................... 9

7

VI.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ON TRADE DRESS
FUNCTIONALITY........................................................................................................... 9

8

VII.

BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTS AND APPLE’S ICONIC DESIGNS ................ 10

9

VIII.

APPLE’S ASSERTED DESIGNS .................................................................................. 16

5

A.

The D’889 Patent................................................................................................. 16

B.

No Element of the D’889 Patent Is Dictated by Function................................... 17

11

C.

The D’087 Patent................................................................................................. 20

12

D.

No Element of the D’087 Patent Is Dictated by Function................................... 21

E.

The D’677 Patent................................................................................................. 25

F.

No Element of the D’677 Patent Is Dictated by Function................................... 26

14

G.

The D’270 Patent................................................................................................. 29

15

H.

No Element of the D’270 Patent Is Dictated by Function................................... 30

10

13

IX.

MANY OF SAMSUNG’S DESIGNS HAVE BECOME
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO APPLE’S................................................................ 32

X.

SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE D’889 PATENT ........................................................... 34

16
17

A.
19

XI.

Identification of Infringing Products ................................................................... 34

B.

18

Comparison of the Prior Art ................................................................................ 36

SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE D’087 PATENT ........................................................... 47
A.

Identification of Infringing Products ................................................................... 47

B.

Comparison of the Prior Art ................................................................................ 48

C.

Samsung’s Galaxy S i9000 Infringes the D’087 Patent ...................................... 53

22

D.

Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G Infringes the D’087 Patent .......................................... 55

23

E.

Samsung’s Infuse 4G Infringes the D’087 Patent ............................................... 58

F.

Samsung’s Vibrant Infringes the D’087 Patent................................................... 60

G.

Samsung’s Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Infringes the D’087 Patent ................ 62

25

H.

Samsung’s Galaxy S II (AT&T) Infringes the D’087 Patent .............................. 65

26

I.

Samsung’s Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Infringes the D’087 Patent......................... 67

J.

Samsung’s Galaxy S II (i9100) Infringes the D’087 Patent................................ 70

20
21

24

27

XII.

28

SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE D’677 PATENT ........................................................... 72
A.

Identification of Infringing Products ................................................................... 72

EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER, FIDSA
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

1

1

97.

After the announcement of the iPhone in January 2007, Samsung began to

2

introduce smartphones with a reduced number of buttons on the front face, a more rectangular

3

shape, and rounder corners. While these phones appeared more similar to the iPhone than the

4

Samsung phones that came before the iPhone, these phones were not copies of the iPhone and the

5

designs of these phones were not substantially the same as the D’087, D’677 and/or D’270

6

Patents. The designs of Samsung’s phones were differentiated based on the overall shape of the

7

device; the proportion of the screen; the size, location, and shape of the buttons; the size, location,

8

and shape of the speaker slot; and/or the size and shape of the bezel, if one was present.

9

Moreover, the front surfaces of the devices were not flat and clear across the entire face to the

10

perimeter.

11

98.

Samsung’s Galaxy S i9000, released in the second quarter of 2010, was the first

12

Samsung smartphone that looked substantially similar to the iPhone. This phone contained all of

13

the patented features of the iPhone—with similar proportions—including the clear front surface

14

running from edge to edge of the front face of the device. Additionally, the design features of the

15

Galaxy S i9000 have a similar proportion and layout to the iPhone. The Galaxy S line has

16

included numerous smartphones released under product names including Vibrant, Mesmerize,

17

Fascinate, and others.

18

99.

Although Samsung has continued to manufacture and release products that are

19

clearly distinguishable from the iPhone, Samsung has also released numerous additional

20

smartphones, including the Accused Products, that, like the Galaxy S i9000, are substantially

21

similar to Apple’s iPhone.52

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

52

From left to right: Samsung Galaxy S 4G; Samsung Fascinate; Apple iPhone (original), Samsung
Vibrant; Samsung Infuse 4G.
EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER, FIDSA
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
100.

9
10
11
12
13

and third parties released beginning before the announcement of the iPhone and iPad and
extending through 2011. As can be seen from the timelines, at least as of the time of the
introduction of the iPhone and iPad, no other mobile phones and tablets, respectively, looked like
the iPhone and the iPad.
101.

14
15
16
17

I have also created timelines (Exhibits 26-27) of phones and tablets that Samsung

Moreover, as can be shown below, Samsung made and sold a very different

looking touch screen tablet before the iPad 2 was released. After the iPad 2 was released,
Samsung’s tablet, the Galaxy Tab 10.1, looked substantially similar to the iPad 2. Samsung’s Q1
tablet, Apple’s iPad 2, and Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 are shown below.

18
19
20
21
22
X.

SAMSUNG INFRINGES THE D’889 PATENT

23
A.

26
27

It is my opinion that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes the D’889 Patent.

103.

25

Identification of Infringing Products

102.

24

In forming this opinion, I reviewed the prosecution history of the D’889 Patent and

analyzed and familiarized myself with the prior art cited therein. I have also analyzed and
familiarized myself with the relevant portions of the prior art references Samsung cited in its

28
EXPERT REPORT OF PETER W. BRESSLER, FIDSA
Case No. 11 cv-01846-LHK

34

Exhibit 25

2005

i700
released
March, 2004

2006

i830
released
Q2, 2006

2008

F700
released
Dec, 2007

iPhone
released
June 29, 2007

iPod touch
released
Sept 5th, 2007

SCH-i760
released
Oct, 2007

D'270 Patent
Invention Date: Dec 13, 2006
Priority Date: Aug 31, 2007

iPhone
announced
Jan 9, 2007

2007

Blackjack i607
released
Nov, 2006

SPH-i325 Ace
released
Feb, 2008

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY

D'677 Patent
Invention Date: April 20, 2006
Priority Date: Jan 5, 2007

D'087 Patent
Invention Date: April 20, 2006
Priority Date: Jan 5, 2007

i730
released
Q3, 2005

iPhone Product Timeline
Apple & Samsung

iPhone 3G
released
July 11, 2008

2009

i8510 INNOV8
released
Sept, 2008

i900 Omnia
released
July, 2008

iPhone 3GS
released
June 19, 2009

Jet S8000
released
June, 2009

M7600 Beat DJ
i8910 Omnia HD
released
May, 2009

Galaxy S 4G T959V
Gem I100
released
Feb, 2011

2011

Mesmerize
i500
released
Oct, 2010

Vibrant T959
released
July, 2010

iPhone 4
released
June 24, 2010

Sunburst
A697
released
March, 2010

2010

i5700
Galaxy
Spica
released
Nov, 2009

I9000 Galaxy S
released
June, 2010

iPhone 4S
released
Oct 14, 2011

Galaxy S II
T989
released
Oct, 2011

Exhibit 27

2003

2004

D'889 Patent
Filed: March 17, 2004

2005–2010

iPad
April 3, 2010

Barnes & Noble
Nook Tablet
Nov, 2011

Sony
Tablet S
Sept, 2011

Acer
Iconia A500
April, 2011

iPad 2
March 11, 2011

2011

2002

Samsung
Q1
2006

2001

Fujitsu
Stylistic ST4000
2003

Samsung
Galaxy Tab 7.0
Nov, 2011

Motion
M1200
2003

Microsoft
Smart Display
2002

Compaq
Tablet
2001

Compaq
TC1000
2002

Vinci
Tablet
Aug, 2011

Samsung
Galaxy Tab 10.1
June , 2011

Electrovaya
Scribbler SC3000
2002

Tablet Product Trends
Apple, Samsung, & Others