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

Filing 1808

ORDER Regarding Teece Objections. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/17/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
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,

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DAVID
TEECE
(re: dkt. #1781, 1782)

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

21
22

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

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

DAVID TEECE

A. Samsung’s Objections
WITNESS
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
PX2065/Rosen Sustained. As explained in the Court’s previous order, ECF No. 1798,
brock
Apple has not persuasively established that use of this deposition complies with
testimony
the requirements of Rule 32.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DAVID TEECE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

B. Apple’s Objections
WITNESS
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
SDX3975.005 Overruled. This slide shows the average disclosure delays with respect to ETSI
standards essential patents. Samsung offers this demonstrative to illustrate the
practice of other ETSI members with respect to the timing of the disclosure of
their intellectual property rights. This evidence is probative of Samsung’s
defense that Samsung’s disclosure did not violate ETSI rules and does not
constitute anticompetitive conduct. Moreover, this evidence is not unduly
prejudicial because it shows the practices of several ETSI members.
Accordingly, under FRE 403, the slide is admissible.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SDX3975.001

Although the Court previously excluded evidence of Apple patents not at issue in
this litigation, the evidence Samsung seeks to introduce here is directly tied to its
defense and relates to other disclosures made to ETSI, the standard setting body
relevant to Apple’s claims. The general practices of ETSI members is less likely
to lead to jury confusion or a waste of time than specific Apple patents that are
not at issue in this litigation.
Overruled. This slide shows the relative shares of subscribers as between the
CDMA and UMTS standards. Samsung’s theory is that competing technologies
could have been adopted by another standard, the CDMA2000. Samsung
explains that Dr. Teece’s testimony will rebut Apple’s theory that competing
technologies were excluded from the UMTS standard. Thus, Dr. Teece has
articulated a reason that reference to the CDMA standard is relevant to this slide.
Moreover, it is unlikely that this evidence would likely waste time or confuse the
jury and is admissible under FRE 403.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 17, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DAVID TEECE