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

Filing 1896

ORDER ON APPLES OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNGS CLOSING SLIDES. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/21/2012. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)

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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
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,

I.

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S CLOSING SLIDES
(re: dkt. #1871)

APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S CLOSING SLIDES
Apple has filed objections to Samsung’s Closing Slides. After reviewing the parties’

briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal
Rules of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Apple’s objections as follows:
SAMSUNG
SLIDE
NUMBER
SDX5000.002

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

Overruled. Samsung stipulates to substituting slide 41 from Samsung’s opening
presentation. Samsung later used opening slide 41 again in its cross-examination
of Dr. Winer.
1

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

1
2
3
4

SDX5000.001002
SDX5007.003005
SDX5001.022025

5
6
7

SDX5001.035

8

SDX5001.036037
SDX5002.037
and video
labeled
SDX5002.052632.wmv
SDX5003.003

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Overruled. Samsung stipulates to substituting slides 41-42 from Samsung’s
opening presentation.
Overruled. Underlying document (SDX3973.009) is admitted into evidence as
DX900. This demonstrative goes to lack of copying.
Sustained-In-Part and Overruled-In-Part. Overruled as to SDX001.022, which
shows the F700. Sustained as to SDX001.023, a comparison for invalidity,
contrary to the Court’s limiting instruction. Sustained as to SDX001.023, a
comparison for non-infringement, contrary to the Court’s limiting instruction.
Overruled as to SDX001.025, which the Court has already admitted to show that
Apple compares its own products with others in the industry. See ECF No. 1749
at 6.
Overruled. Samsung may use this demonstrative, which contains a continuous
fragment of Mr. Bressler’s testimony.
Overruled. Samsung may show the asserted design patent and the accused
device. Moreover, Apple has withdrawn its objection SDX5001.037.
Sustained-In-Part and Overruled-In-Part. Overruled as to the SDX5002.037; the
Agnetta patent was admitted during trial as DX561. Sustained as to the Agnetta
video which was never presented to the jury during trial.

Overruled. Apple argues that this slide is misleading and irrelevant because it
discusses the iPhone 3G in relation to ’516 and ’941 high-speed patents, which
the iPhone 3G is not accused of infringing.

14
15
16

SDX5004.10

17
SDX5005.025
18
19
20

SDX5005.026

21
22
23

SDX5006.001
SDX5006.005

24
25

SDX5006.008

26
27
28

SDX5006.010.011,
SDX5006.017-

The significance of Samsung’s high-speed patents is at issue. Evidence that
Apple advertises phone speed is relevant.
Overruled. The slide lists Samsung licensing partners. The slide does not
specify whether these are past or present licensing partners, and therefore does
not misrepresent the evidence.
Sustained-In-Part and Overruled-In-Part. Sustained as to the first bullet.
Samsung must include the Court’s entire claim construction of applet. Overruled
as to the second and third bullets. Dr. Yang was permitted to testify about what
was in his expert report regarding applet.
Sustained. Samsung stipulates to amending the bullet to which Apple objects to
read, “Patent Office knew about the successor to the K700 – it considered the
K750 user manual – and still issued the ‘711.” This amendment is consistent
with Dr. Yang’s testimony at 3666:20-3667:9.
Sustained. The costs to build the Golden Gate, Transamerica Pyramid, etc., are
not in evidence.
Overruled. Although Apple is correct that Mr. Musika deducted the cost of
goods sold, Mr. Musika did not deduct sales expenses in his damages
calculations.
Sustained. The Court struck the design and trade dress apportionment analysis of
Samsung’s damages expert Mr. Wagner. Samsung may not now introduce
apportionment analysis without supporting expert testimony.
Overruled. Samsung’s proposed use of these slides to illustrate that Samsung’s
profits are available only for design and trade dress, and that Apple bears the
burden of proof on lost profits, is not misleading.
2

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

1

.018.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: August 21, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S CLOSING SLIDES