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

Filing 1665

ORDER Re: Objections to John Hauser. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/10/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

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

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO HAUSER

18
After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the
19
considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Samsung’s objections
20
as follows:
21
A. Dr. John Hauser
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. Samsung’s Objections
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

WITNESS
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
Hauser: PX30. Overruled. Samsung objects specifically to the second slide of PX30, which
includes a list of file names in which “statistical calculations for [Dr. Hauser’s]
smartphone and tablet surveys were produced.” Samsung argues that Dr. Hauser
did not perform the calculations himself and cannot read the software code that
his associates wrote to perform the calculations, making any testimony by Dr.
Hauser hearsay under FRE 801. Under FRE 703, an expert may testify as to
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Hauser:
PDX33.4

inadmissible data “[i]f of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the
particular field in forming opinions.” Dr. Hauser reasonably relied on his
associates’ statistical calculations which were performed per Dr. Hauser’s
“instructions on how to analyze . . . the data.” Hutnyan Decl. Exh. I, Hauser
4/27/12 Dep. at 269:1-11. Accordingly, the files listed would be admissible
under FRE 703 and slide 2 of PX30 is an admissible summary under FRE 1006.
Sustained. PDX33.4 presents four descriptions of touchscreen attributes that
were used in the Hauser consumer survey. The description of “touchscreen
reliability” was included in the Hauser survey, even though the “touchscreen
reliability” patent (the’607 Patent) has been dropped from the case. As currently
depicted, however, the slide is confusing because it references “touchscreen
reliability” under the title “Survey Descriptions of Patented Features.” The jury
will likely be confused about this additional description which is no longer at
issue. Accordingly, Apple must either omit the “touchscreen reliability”
description if it wishes to introduce an amended version of PDX33.4 or clarify
that “touchscreen reliability” is not claimed by any patent at issue in the case.
2. Apple’s Objections
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

WITNESS
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
Hauser:
Sustained. Apple objects that SDX3920.001 is misleading. The Court finds that
SDX3920.001 the heading “Importance of Attributes in the Smartphone Purchase Decision,”
or .002
accurately represents the contents of the slide and is not misleading. The Court
finds that the ranked list of features on the left is not misleading. However, the
Court finds that the list of touchscreen features on the right of SDX3920.001 is
not included in the cited report, a January 2011 United States Smartphone Market
Study commissioned by Apple. Samsung has not cited to any other location in
the Hauser Report and Exhibits where the list of touchscreen features is
discussed. Accordingly, the Court sustains Apple’s objection. However,
Samsung may use SDX3920.002, which omits the list of touchscreen features.
Hauser:
Overruled. SDX3920.010 shows the dollar values that consumers place on
SDX3920.010 specific smartphone features (“partworths”). Apple objects that the partworths in
the slide were not included in Dr. Hauser’s expert report, and must have been
calculated by a Samsung expert. Samsung responds that these values were
actually calculated by Dr. Hauser, and provided to Samsung in computer files to
which the Hauser Report cites.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: August 10, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS