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

Filing 1607

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apple's Objections and Responses Re Singh Examination Materials filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS REGARDING PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR KARAN SINGH, # 2 Declaration OF JASON BARTLETT, # 3 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 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

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
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,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
REGARDING PROPOSED
EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR
KARAN SINGH
Trial:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

August 10, 2012
8:30 a.m.
Courtroom 1, 5th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OBJS AND RESP. RE: PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR SINGH
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

Apple objects to Samsung’s cross-examination materials for Karan Singh.

2

I.

3

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S CROSS-EXAMINATION
MATERIALS FOR DR. SINGH SHOULD BE SUSTAINED

DX2557. This video exhibit, which does not appear on Samsung’s exhibit list, is
4
improper because it contains footage of a Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE that contains a design-around for
5
the ’381 “bounce” patent. At approximately the :06 mark, the web page cannot be pulled down
6
further, resulting in a depiction of the “blue glow” design-around instead of displaying an area
7
beyond its edge (visible a: 27~:28 mark on second device). While the video’s poor lighting
8
leaves the “blue glow” effect subtle, it will be clear to the jury should they attempt to recreate this
9
action using the actual device. Judge Grewal’s orders have excluded evidence of design-arounds,
10
and the Court affirmed those orders. (Dkt. No. 898 at 9; Dkt. No. 1106; Dkt. No. 1545 at 10).
11
DX2557 should be excluded pursuant to those orders.
12
10/25/11 ITC-337-TA-796 Deposition Transcript. Samsung again seeks to undo the
13
Court’s orders regarding Samsung’s own Motions in Limine. Having had its motion in limine “to
14
exclude evidence or argument not tied to the specific IP rights claimed by Apple in this action”
15
granted (Dkt. No. 1267 at ¶ 11), Samsung cannot now claim that Dr. Singh’s testimony on claim
16
construction issues for different patents in an ITC investigation can be used here. In addition to
17
being irrelevant, this exhibit violates the spirit of the Court’s exclusion of “reference[s] to
18
findings or rulings in other proceedings” (Dkt. No. 1267 at ¶ 11), as discussion of arguments
19
made to the ITC may result in discussion of the disposition of those arguments. Finally, as the
20
Court found with Samsung’s attempt to use Dr. Balakrishnan’s claim construction from a
21
different ITC investigation, the high risk of jury confusion warrants exclusion under FRE 403.
22
23
24

II.

SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DIRECT-EXAMINATION
MATERIALS FOR DR. SINGH SHOULD BE OVERRULED

PDX29.1–PDX29.52. Ignoring the Court’s clear instructions (Hr’g Tr. at 915:21–917:5.)

25

Samsung asserts multiple categorical objections to each of the 52 demonstratives in Dr. Singh’s

26

direct examination. This improper categorical objection unfairly shifts the burden of identifying

27

the portions of Dr. Singh’s demonstratives subject to Samsung’s objection to the Court and to

28

Apple. These objections should be overruled on that basis alone.
APPLE’S OBJS AND RESP. RE: PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR SINGH
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

1

On the merits, Samsung’s objections that the slides in PDX29 lack foundation or exceed

2

the scope of Dr. Singh’s report are specious. Slides 3, 7-8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 25, 29-31, 33, 36, 38,

3

and 40 highlight text from the ’163 and ’915 patents, which Dr. Singh’s report discussed in detail.

4

(See, e.g., Singh Infringement Report (Decl. of J. Bartlett Exh. A, “Singh Report” or “Report”) ¶¶

5

14, 46-87, 231-51, 314-55, 386-98, Exhs. 4, 5, 16, 17 (element-by-element ’163 and ’915 claim

6

charts).)

7

Other slides in PDX29 specifically track the Singh Report. In particular, the iPhone

8

videos in slides 4 and 26 illustrate Dr. Singh’s opinions that certain Apple products practice the

9

’163 and ’915 patents. (Report ¶¶ 33-35, 295-98.) Slides 2, 20–24, and 41–45, which list

10

accused products and show videos demonstrating how they infringe the ’163 and ’915 patents,

11

correspond to the Singh Report’s identification of accused products (Report ¶¶ 38, 301) and of his

12

opinions that all identified products infringe claim 50 of the ’163 patent and claim 8 of the ’915

13

patent (Report ¶¶ 231-51, 384-98).1 Slides 47–49 feature Samsung internal documents discussed

14

in Dr. Singh’s Report. (Report ¶¶ 275-80.) PDX29 also contains an element-by-element analysis

15

of the same Galaxy S II product analyzed in Dr. Singh’s claim charts (Report Exhs. 5, 17), and

16

clips and stills from the videos of that product that were attached to his report. (Report Exhs.

17

11a, 19.)

18

Where PDX29 employs graphics to illustrate source code—as, for example, in slides 10,

19

and 12 through 14—it tracks the code flow laid out in the Singh Report’s claim charts. See

20

Report Exs. 4, 5, 16, & 17. For example, all of the method names and logical flow illustrated on

21

slides 12 and 13 appear in the ’915 smartphone claim chart’s treatment of those same claim

22

elements. Report Ex. 17 at 3-9. Likewise, the methods and logic shown on slide 14 are discussed

23

in equivalent detail in the tablet claim chart. Report Ex. 16 at 3-8. A similar correspondence

24

exists between all of the code illustrated in PDX29 and the Singh Report’s claim charts.

25

Because Dr. Singh’s infringement report provides explicit and identifiable support for

26

1

27

In his report, Dr. Singh explicitly reserved the right to create additional “demonstrative
exhibits to assist in the presentation of my testimony and opinions as described herein or to
summarize the same or information cited in this Report.”

28
APPLE’S OBJS AND RESP. RE: PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR SINGH
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1

every slide in PDX29, Samsung’s objections to PDX29 should be overruled.

2

PX49. Samsung’s objections to PX49, an internal Samsung document discussing

3

technical features of the ’163 patent, should be overruled. Samsung’s appreciation of the

4

technical benefits of the ’163 patent’s invention is probative of its copying and implementation of

5

the ’163 patent. As such, PX49 is relevant to Apple’s allegation of willful infringement. (Dkt.

6

No. 75 at ¶ 193.) PX49 is also probative of the Samsung’s understanding of the ’163 invention.2

7

Dr. Singh’s technical expertise will help elucidate how Samsung’s understanding as reflected in

8

PX49 corresponds to the technical elements and advances of the ’163 patent’s claim 50. This

9

same rationale supported the Court’s recent decision to overrule similar objections to PX46. (Dkt.

10
11

No. 1596 at 5.)
Because a technical description of a multitouch input system is precisely the sort of

12

information reasonably relied upon by user interface experts in forming opinions, Dr. Singh’s

13

testimony about PX49 is proper under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, which do not

14

require personal knowledge of the document at issue in order to base his opinion on it.

15

While PX49 does not appear in the Singh Report, this is due to Samsung’s own failure to

16

comply with discovery orders. Samsung only produced PX49 on April 10, 2012—more than a

17

month after the March 8, 2012 close of discovery, and after Dr. Singh’s report was served. In

18

fact, PX49 was only produced after the Court granted Apple’s motion to compel the deposition of

19

the document’s custodian, Gee Sung Choi (Dkt. No. 850), which Samsung had previously

20

blocked. Because Dr. Singh’s inability to include PX49 in his infringement report was the result

21

of Samsung’s late production, to exclude it now for exceeding the scope of Dr. Singh’s report

22

would reward Samsung for its abusive discovery tactics.

23
24
25
2

26
27

PX49 states, “Apple’s in-depth claims cover such matters as resizing text, scaling
documents, web pages and/or other programs in portrait or landscape modes; gesturing, tap
gestures, multiple tap gestures, swipe gestures with a finger or stylus, how documents are
associated with a ‘render tree’ and much, much more.” (PX49 at 30.)

28
APPLE’S OBJS AND RESP. RE: PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR SINGH
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

3

1

Dated: August 7, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2
3

By:

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OBJS AND RESP. RE: PROPOSED EXAMINATION MATERIALS FOR SINGH
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

4