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

Filing 1585

OBJECTIONS to re Exhibits To Be Used with Winer, Van Liere, Poret, and Balakrishnan by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Decl of Ketan Patel, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/6/2012)

EXHIBIT
E

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11
12

WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 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]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15
16

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

17

Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S FOURTH
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
1

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

INTERROGATORY NO. 70:
Separately for each APPLE TRADE DRESS, state fully and in detail all facts that
support YOUR contention that SAMSUNG is diluting or has diluted such trade dress.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 70
Apple objects to the phrase “fully and in detail” as vague and ambiguous. Apple objects

12

to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overbroad, and impracticable to the extent that it

13

requests Apple to state “all facts” supporting Apple’s contention “fully and in detail,” especially

14

given the late date in the discovery period at which this Interrogatory was propounded. Apple

15

further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that: (i) would require

16

Apple to draw a legal conclusion to respond; (ii) is outside of Apple’s possession, custody, or

17

control; (iii) can be obtained as easily by Samsung, is already in Samsung’s possession, or is

18

publicly available; or (iv) is subject to a confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement or governed

19

by a protective order preventing its production.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Subject to and incorporating its General Objections and its specific objections, Apple
responds as follows with respect to the Samsung products accused in Apple’s Amended
Complaint:
Samsung is diluting Apple’s Original iPhone Trade Dress, iPhone 3G Trade Dress,
iPhone 4 Trade Dress, iPhone Trade Dress, iPad Trade Dress, iPad 2 Trade Dress and the trade
dress registered in U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 3,470,983, 3,457,218, and 3,475,327 by
advertising and selling a wide variety of lookalike products, including without limitation Galaxy,

27
28
68

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Galaxy S, and Galaxy SII products such as Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G,
Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T
Edition, 4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch,
Galaxy S II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant,
Galaxy Tab 7.0, Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE. These
products were intentionally designed to look like Apple products in their hardware and user
interface design. By offering them for sale and selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted
and will continue to dilute the strength of Apple’s distinctive trade dress in its products.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the
Original iPhone Trade Dress, including at least the following: Captivate, Continuum, Droid
Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T
Edition, 4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch,
Galaxy S II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and
Vibrant. These products were intentionally designed to look like Apple products in their
hardware and user interface design. By offering them for sale and selling them in the U.S.,
Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of the Original iPhone Trade Dress.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the

19

iPhone 3G Trade Dress, including at least the following: Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge,

20

Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition,

21

4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S

22

II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. These

23

products were intentionally designed to look like Apple products in their hardware and user

24

interface design. By offering them for sale and selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted

25

and will continue to dilute the strength of the iPhone 3G Trade Dress.

26
27

Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the
iPhone Trade Dress, including at least the following: Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic

28
69

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G),
Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II
Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. These
products were intentionally designed to look like Apple products in their hardware and user
interface design. By offering them for sale and selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted
and will continue to dilute the strength of the iPhone Trade Dress.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the
trade dress registered in U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,470,983, including at least the following:
Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000),
Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile
edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase
(i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. These products were intentionally designed to look
like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design. By offering them for sale and
selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of the
registered trade dress.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the

18

trade dress registered in U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,457,218, including at least the following:

19

Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000),

20

Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile

21

edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase

22

(i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. These products were intentionally designed to look

23

like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design. By offering them for sale and

24

selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of the

25

registered trade dress.

26

Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the

27

trade dress registered in U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,475,327, including at least the following:

28
70

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000),
Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G), Galaxy S II (i9100), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile
edition), Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket (4G LTE), Galaxy S Showcase
(i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant. These products were intentionally designed to look
like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design. By offering them for sale and
selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of the
registered trade dress.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy phones embody a combination of several elements of the
iPhone 4 Trade Dress, including at least the following: Galaxy Ace. These products were
intentionally designed to look like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design.
By offering them for sale and selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to
dilute the strength of the iPhone 4 Trade Dress.
Many of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computers embody a combination of several elements
of the iPad Trade Dress, including at least the following: Galaxy Tab 7.0, Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus,
Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE. These products were intentionally designed to look
like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design. By offering them for sale and

18

selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of the iPad

19

Trade Dress.

20

Many of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computers embody a combination of several elements

21

of the iPad 2 Trade Dress, including at least the following: Galaxy Tab 7.0, Galaxy Tab 7.0

22

Plus, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE. These products were intentionally designed

23

to look like Apple products in their hardware and user interface design. By offering them for

24

sale and selling them in the U.S., Samsung has diluted and will continue to dilute the strength of

25

the iPad 2 Trade Dress.

26
27

Samsung threatens to dilute the distinctiveness of Apple’s highly distinctive designs by
producing and promoting lookalike products. Further, Apple’s reputation as an innovator in

28
71

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

design may be diminished if other companies are selling products with similar designs. Apple
has a well-established reputation of coming out with remarkable new products and designs that
look very different from what has come before. If consumers can buy products with similar
designs from other companies, Apple’s design will no longer stand out from the crowd of
competing products. Eventually design will no longer be a compelling strength for Apple.
Facts that support Apple’s contention that Samsung’s Galaxy, Galaxy S, and Galaxy SII
smartphone and tablet computer products have diluted and will continue to dilute the Apple trade
dress at issue in this lawsuit include, but are not limited to, facts relating to (i) the unique
appearance of the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad products, (ii) pre-launch publicity for the iPhone,
iPod touch, and iPad products, (iii) Apple’s extensive advertising of the iPhone, iPod touch, and
iPad products, (iv) unsolicited third-party press for the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad products,
including positive reviews and press accolades, (v) the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad products’
appearance in popular media, (vi) the widespread use of the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad
products by well known political, sports, and entertainment figures, (vii) design awards received
by Apple for the design of the iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad products, (viii) sales of the iPhone,
iPod touch, and iPad products, (ix) Samsung’s extensive advertisements of the Galaxy, Galaxy S,

18

and Galaxy SII smartphone and tablet computer products, (x) third-party reviews of Samsung’s

19

Galaxy, Galaxy S, and Galaxy SII smartphone and tablet computer products, including reviews

20

comparing Samsung’s smartphone and tablet computer products to Apple’s products, and

21

(xi) Samsung’s sales of the Galaxy, Galaxy S, and Galaxy SII smartphone and tablet computer

22

products.

23
24
25
26
27
28
72

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1

Dated: March 10, 2012

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
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]

2
3
4
5
6

William F. Lee (admitted pro hac vice)
([e-mail])
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

Harold J. McElhinny (SBN 66781)
([e-mail])
Michael A. Jacobs (SBN 111664)
([e-mail])
Richard S.J. Hung (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: ( 415) 268-7000
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
171

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

4

document has been served on March 10, 2012 by electronic mail upon the following:

5

Charles Kramer Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
([e-mail])
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
([e-mail])
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
([e-mail])
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Edward J. DeFranco (Cal. Bar No. 165596)
([e-mail])
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
([e-mail])
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

22
/s/ Mark. D Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn

23
24
25
26
27
28
172

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR