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

Filing 1588

Declaration of RICHARD S.J. HUNG in Support of 1587 Objection filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 1587 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/6/2012)

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

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,
v.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN
BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D.
REGARDING INFRINGEMENT
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381

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 RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

attempts to scroll the electronic document beyond its edge, the iPhone 4 displays an area beyond

2

the edge of the electronic document along with a third smaller portion of the electronic document.

3

When the user lifts his finger from the touch screen, the electronic document moves back into

4

place to fill the screen, and a fourth portion of the electronic document different from the first

5

portion is displayed.

6

49.

Based on my examination of the aforementioned Apple products, I conclude that

7

they practice the asserted apparatus and system claims of the ’381 patent, and their ordinary and

8

intended use practices the asserted method claims of the ’381 patent. I have examined portions of

9

the source code for Apple’s iOS version 4.1 operating system and confirmed the behavior I saw

10

on the iPhone 4 in the following source code modules: the UIScrollView class or subclass (for

11

example, UIWebBrowserView and UIWebDocumentView); the touch panel (e.g., Grape) driver;

12

UIKit classes; IOKit classes; SBHIDinterface.m; the SpringBoard application; and

13

UIPanGestureRecognizer class or subclasses.

14

50.

Moreover, my examination was further confirmed by the testimony of the inventor

15

of the ’381 patent, Bas Ording, who testified generally that certain applications on an iPhone 4

16

behaved in a manner consistent with his ideas in the ’381 patent. (Ording 8/9/11 Dep. Tr. at

17

198:6 – 201:3.)

18

D.

Samsung’s Emulation Of Apple And The Features Of The ’381 Patent

19

51.

I have also reviewed a number of documents produced by Samsung in this

20

litigation, including analyses of features in Apple products and email messages. Based on my

21

review of these documents, it appears that Samsung studied a number of Apple products that

22

embody the asserted claims of the ’381 patent, recognized the benefits of the ’381 patent, and

23

implemented the features of the ’381 patent in Samsung products.

24

52.

As just one example, in the document titled “Behold3 Usability Evaluation

25

Results” (SAMNDCA00508318 – 508411), Samsung evaluated its Behold3 phone against

26

Apple’s iPhone. (SAMNDCA00508331; see translations of excerpts in Apple’s Appendix of

27

Certified Translations in Support of Opening Expert Reports (“Translations App’x”).) This

28

evaluation concluded that Samsung’s “Behold3 [was] shown inferior to Apple’s iPhone in both
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

13

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1

the task success rate (68.5%) and satisfaction score (86).” (SAMNDCA00508333.) On a page

2

titled “Aesthetics_Browsing,” the document notes that the iPhone has “a ‘bouncing’ visual

3

effect,” which “generates fun for the user,” while the Behold3 has “no visual effect” when “a web

4

page is dragged to its endpoint.” (SAMNDCA00508383.) On that page, there is a side by side

5

comparison between the Behold3 and the iPhone, where the rubber-banding feature of the ’381

6

patent is being demonstrated on a web page displayed on the iPhone. (Id.) Specifically, the

7

displayed web page is being pulled to the upper right hand corner, revealing an area beyond the

8

edge of the web page to the left and below. (Id.) The caption notes that “If a web page is

9

dragged to the edge, and the hand is released, a ‘bouncing’ visual effect is provided.” At the

10

bottom of the page, following the column “Direction of Improvement,” is a direction to “Provide

11

a fun visual effect when dragging a web page.” (Id.) Based on the existence of this feature in the

12

Samsung devices I examined, it appears that this instruction was carried out.

13

53.

As another example, in the document titled “P5 Usability Evaluation Results”

14

(SAMNDCA00176053 – 176171; see translation of excerpts in Translations App’x), Samsung

15

evaluated a prototype of its “GT-P7300” (the Galaxy Tab 8.9) against Apple’s iPad 2.

16

(SAMNDCA00176053.) The document notes that the “GUI and Visual Effect are lacking in

17

comparison to iPad 2.” (SAMNDCA00176055.) Subsequently, the evaluation notes that when a

18

Browser application window is scrolled to the top or bottom, the P5 “lack[s] bounce effect,” and

19

that the Samsung’s product “Lacks Fun, Wow Effect.” (SAMNDCA00176071.) This issue

20

appears to have been designated “Critical,” with the direction that the “Bounce effect is scheduled

21

to be reviewed.” (Id.) Later in the evaluation, there is a side by side comparison between the P5

22

and the iPad 2, where the rubber-banding feature of the ’381 patent is being demonstrated on a

23

web page displayed on the iPad 2. (SAMNDCA00176125.) Specifically, the displayed web page

24

is being pulled to the lower right hand corner, revealing an area beyond the edge of the web page

25

to the left and above. (Id.) To the right, it states that “In case of iPad 2, there is a fun element

26

from a natural Bounce effect that follows hand gestures.” (Id.) Based on this statement, it

27

appears that Samsung understood at least part of the purpose and value of the rubber banding

28

feature of the ’381 patent, which were to provide a natural, intuitive experience for the user that
EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

14

Apple v. Samsung
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only

1
2

AA.

Supplementation

3

267.

I reserve the right to supplement this report with new information and/or

4

documents that may be discovered or produced in this case, or to address any new claim

5

constructions offered by Samsung or ordered by the Court.

6

268.

In connection with my anticipated testimony in this action, I may use as exhibits

7

various documents produced in this case that refer or relate to the matters discussed in this

8

report. In addition, I may have demonstrative exhibits prepared to assist in the presentation of my

9

testimony and opinions as set forth or cited in my report.

10
11
12

Dated: March 22, 2012
RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN

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

EXPERT REPORT OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘381 PATENT
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK