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

Filing 1715

ORDER Regarding Objections to Williams's Exhibits. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/13/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
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.
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO
WILLIAMS’S EXHIBITS

20
After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in this case, and balancing the

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (“FRE 403”), the Court rules on the
parties’ objections as follows:
1.

DR. TIM WILLIAMS

A. Samsung’s Objections
WITNESS
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
PX96 and
Sustained. PX96 and PX118 are Samsung patents that cover technology similar
PX188
to the ’941 Patent at issue in the case. PX96 is a U.S. patent that predates the
’941 Patent, covers similar technology to the ’941 Patent, and shares an inventor
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO WILLIAMS’S EXHIBITS

with the ’941 Patent. PX118 is the Japanese counterpart to the ’941 Patent.

1

Apple failed to timely disclose the PX96 and PX188 in response to Samsung‘s
Interrogatory #12 related to Apple’s bases for non-infringement. Apple also did
not disclose PX96 and PX188 until serving Dr. Knightly’s expert rebuttal report
on April 16, 2012, after the close of fact discovery and expert report deadlines.

2
3
4

Although Samsung should have produced PX96 and PX188 (Samsung does not
dispute that it failed to do so) to Apple, these documents are public. Apple’s
untimely disclosure of its intent to rely on PX96 and PX188 is not excused by
Samsung’s conduct.

5
6
7

Additionally, the relevance of these documents to establishing non-infringement
is not clear. Indeed, based on the briefing by the parties, it appears that the
evidence bears on the scope of the claim, an issue of claim construction, and not
on a question of infringement properly presented to the jury.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

B. Apple’s Objections
WITNESS
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
Williams:
Overruled. Apple objects that the theory that the claimed “first channel not
SDX3966.012 supporting HARQ” is the DPDCH channel, while the claimed “second channel
supporting HARQ” is the E-DPDCH channel. This theory was disclosed in
Samsung’s infringement contentions. See ECF No. 939, Ex. 1 at 14 (“Samsung
previously alleged that the ‘DPDCH channels’ are the claimed first channel not
supporting HARQ”) (citing Pernick Decl. Ex. 22 at 3 (Samsung's infringment
contentions)).

17

In his expert report, Dr. Williams, Samsung’s expert, presented a new theory that
the first channel included all non-E-DPDCH channels, including but not limited
to DPDCH channels. See ECF No. 939, Ex. 1 at 13-14. Apple objected to this
new theory and Judge Grewal struck ¶¶ 58, 65, 105, 110, 119, 173, and 198 of
Dr. Williams’s report which referenced this theory.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Williams:
SDX3966.013

Samsung now seeks to have Dr. Williams testify in support of Samsung’s
original theory: that the “first channel not supporting HARQ” includes DPDCH
channels only. The original theory disclosed in Samsung’s infringement
contentions also appeared in Dr. Williams’s report. Paragraph 84 of Dr.
William’s expert report reads, “The E-DPDCH channels support HARQ (see
3GPP[3] § 6.1; 7.3.6; 8) while the DPDCH channels do not.” Id. at § 7.3.6. This
is the exact language that Apple previously summarized as “the ‘DPDCH
channels’ are the claimed first channel not supporting HARQ.” See ECF No.
939, Ex. 1 at 14 (citing Pernick Decl. Ex. 22 at 3 (Samsung's infringment
contentions)). Accordingly, Samsung’s theory, initially disclosed in the
contention interrogatories and then disclosed in Dr. Williams’ expert report, was
properly disclosed to Apple.
Overruled. Claims 15 and 16 require “a controller for…determining if total
transmit power required for transmission of the channels exceeds the maximum
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO WILLIAMS’S EXHIBITS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

allowed power.” Apple objects to including the power of control channels (e.g,
E-DPCCH and DPCCH) as part of the “total transmit power.” In fact, the text of
the infringement contentions and the Williams report clearly contemplate
including the power of E-DPCCH and DPCCH as part of the total transmit
power. See, e.g., Hung Decl., Ex. 35 at 4 (Samsung’s infringement contentions)
(“the total UE transmit power (after applying DPCCH power adjustments and
gain factors)”) (quoting 3GPP[2] § 5.1.2.6.); see also id. at 3 (including EDPCCH power transmission in Figure 1C). The Williams expert report includes
identical language and citations at § VI(H)(2). Thus, Samsung disclosed its
theory that “total transmit power” includes channels other than E-DPDCH and
DPDCH in both its infringement contentions and the Williams expert report.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Apple’s objection to SDX3966.013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 13, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO WILLIAMS’S EXHIBITS