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

Filing 1895

ORDER re 1872 Samsung's Objections to Apple's Closing Slides. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/21/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)

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 and Counterdefendant,
)
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 and Counterclaimants. )
)

18

I.

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S
OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S CLOSING
SLIDES

SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S CLOSING SLIDES

19
Samsung has filed objections to Apple’s Closing Slides. After reviewing the parties’
20
briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal
21
Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Samsung’s objections as follows:
22
23
24

SAMSUNG
SLIDE
NUMBER
6, 8, 9

25
26

7

27
28

10

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

Overruled. Samsung contests the quality of the photographs used to depict their
products. There is nothing misleading about the quality of the photo
reproduction Apple has used.
Overruled. Samsung claims that Mr. Musika admitted that this chart does not
reflect the market share of accused products. This chart is probative and
admissible under FRE 403.
Overruled in part, Sustained in part. Samsung’s objection regarding the quoted
1

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S CLOSING SLIDES

testimony from the Lee deposition is overruled. Lee’s testimony regarding the
meeting between the parties is relevant to notice, even though Mr. Lee does not
identify specific patents.

1
2
3
4
5

11

6
7

12

8
9

13-17

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
18-19
11
12
13

20-22

14
15

23

16
17

26

18
19

27

20
21

32, 34

22
23

36

24
25
26
27
28

37

Apple agreed to use the official jury book photograph of Mr. Lee in order to aid
the jury and to use ellipses in the deposition quotes to indicate the page spaces.
Apple’s concession moots these parts of Samsung’s objection.
Sustained in part, overruled in part. Mr. Ahn was a Samsung Electronics
executive that testified at trial through deposition, thus making Apple’s slide
misleading. Apple must change the title of the slide to accurately reflect the
record.
Overruled. This slide relates to the testimony and impeachment of Jeeyuen
Wang. Apple may argue that Ms. Wang was impeached by the documentary
evidence in her custody.
Overruled. Samsung contests the quality of the photographs used to depict their
products. There is nothing misleading about the quality of the photo
reproduction Apple has used.
Sustained in part, overruled in part. These slides demonstrate that Samsung did
not introduce its own design patent infringement expert. Apple may point this
out to the jury, and doing so is not improper. However, slide number 19, which
uses the Quinn Emmanuel logo to imply that cross-examination by attorneys is
an inappropriate method by which to challenge an expert’s opinion is improper.
Overruled. Samsung contests the quality of the photographs used to depict their
products. There is nothing misleading about the quality of the photo
reproduction Apple has used.
Overruled. These slides demonstrate that Samsung did not introduce its own
design patent infringement expert. Apple may point this out to the jury, and
doing so is not improperly misleading.
Overruled. Samsung objects to the title of the slide because Samsung claims that
the title misstates the test for infringement. However, the slide accurately states
the test for a primary reference in the context of obviousness.
Overruled. Samsung objects to slide 27 as a misstatement on the law of
secondary considerations. However, Apple’s statement of the law is not
incorrect: the jury is required to consider secondary considerations in its analysis.
Therefore, the slide is not misleading.
Overruled. These slides demonstrate that Samsung did not introduce its own
utility patent infringement experts related to Apple’s patents. Apple may point
this out to the jury, and doing so is not improperly misleading.
Overruled. This slide suggests that source code infringes on the ’915 Patent.
Samsung argues that this slide is misleading because it suggests that the source
code applies to all devices when it does not. However, Apple’s expert testified
that the code is representative of the accused smartphones. Apple’s argument is
not unduly misleading.
Sustained. Samsung objects that Slide 37 contains an argument rebutting
invalidity not previously disclosed and presents a theory not supported by
evidence in the record. Specifically, Samsung objects to the second bullet under
Patent ’915 which states: “No “distinguishing between a single input
point . . . interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points . . .
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S CLOSING SLIDES

1
2

42

3
4
5

44

6
7

45

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
46
11
12
13

49

14
15

52-53

16
17
18
19
20

Apple
Defensive
Slide 4
Apple
Defensive
Slide 10

interpreted as the gesture operation.” It appears that Apple never disclosed this
theory in any of the Singh expert reports. Therefore, this theory (and the second
bullet under the ’915 Patent) is excluded.
Overruled. Samsung objects that the $360 per unit revenue is not in evidence.
Apple has identified the source of the information in evidence, i.e. Samsung’s
total revenue divided by Samsung’s total units sold. Therefore, the objection is
overruled.
Overruled. Samsung objects that evidence of “indirect costs” is not the subject
of any testimony. Apple has identified testimony regarding this topic.
Therefore, the objection is overruled. Moreover, there is no indication that this
slide relates to reasonable royalty rates for Apple’s trade dress claim.
Overruled in part and sustained in part. Consistent with the Court’s previous
ruling, Apple’s reference to “Accuracy Questioned by Magistrate Judge” in a
demonstrative is unduly prejudicial. Apple was permitted to ask one question on
cross-examination and was not permitted to include the reference in a
demonstrative. Samsung’s objection regarding the use of the term “indirect
costs” is overruled for the reasons stated above.
Overruled. This slide shows Apple’s damages scenarios. There is nothing
unduly prejudicial or misleading about this slide. There is no indication that
Apple is arguing for reasonable royalties for its trade dress claims. Finally, to the
extent that Samsung objects to the use of the term “indirect costs,” Samsung’s
objection is overruled for the reasons stated above.
Overruled. This slide quotes parts of the jury instructions on the burden of proof
for patent damages. The modified quotation is not an unduly misleading
statement of the law.
Overruled. Samsung contests the quality of the photographs used to depict their
products. There is nothing misleading about the quality of the photo
reproduction Apple has used.
Overruled. Samsung objects that the slide is misleading because the application
date of the patent is irrelevant. Apple has revised the slide to call out the entire
header, emphasizing the disclosure date and addressing Samsung’s objection.
Overruled. This is a slide of the Agarwal prior art reference. There is nothing in
the slide that suggests that Apple intends to argue claim construction to the jury.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: August 21, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S CLOSING SLIDES