Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
2003
PARTIAL OPPOSITION to ( 1990 Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal And For An Order Prohibiting The Parties From Communicating With Jurors filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments:****EXHIBIT 1 FILED IN ERROR--SEE DOCKET #2004**** # 1 Declaration Sabri Decl, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/25/2012) Modified text on 9/26/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/27/2012 (mpb, COURT STAFF).
Exhibit E
Juror Recounts Deliberations that Brought Big Apple Win - WSJ.com#printMode
WSJ.com Law Page
Lexis Advance™
lexis.com®
Page 1 of 4
Lexis® for Microsoft® Office
Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the
Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com
See a sample reprint in PDF format.
TECHNOLOGY
Order a reprint of this article now
Updated August 27, 2012, 4:20 p.m. ET
Inside the Apple-Samsung Jury Room
By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
SAN JOSE, Calif.-- Just minutes after the nine jurors in the Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. patent trial began
deliberating last week, they were stuck. It was seven "yes" votes to two "no" votes on the first question they faced:
whether Samsung violated an Apple patent related to the bounceback action a touch-screen makes.
With the votes tallied on a white board, they decided to review the
evidence, recounted juror Manuel Ilagan in an interview. They
powered up a video of a computerized touchscreen tablet that had
been developed by Mitsubishi that Samsung asserted proved Apple
didn't come up with the idea first and that its patent should be
invalidated.
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Samsung's Galaxy S mobile phone (right) and Apple's
iPhone 3G at a shop in Seoul
The inside story of how the Apple and Samsung
patent verdict came down reveals a group divided on
some issues in an otherwise smooth 22 hours of
deliberations. Jessica Vascellaro reports on digits.
Photo: AP.
After the Verdict
Apple Wins Big in Samsung Patent Trial
They were huddled around a large oval table in a conference room at
the federal courthouse here. On one side there was a large white
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html
8/27/2012
Juror Recounts Deliberations that Brought Big Apple Win - WSJ.com#printMode
WSJ.com Law Page
Samsung Appeal May Take Several Tacks
Prepare for the Apple Tax
Victory Sends Fear Through Android
Ecosystem
Law Blog: Experts Say Apple, Samsung Face
Sky-High Legal Fees
Lexis Advance™
lexis.com®
Page 2 of 4
Lexis® for Microsoft® Office
board. On the other, a refrigerator and coffee machine.
Mr. Ilagan, who is 59, said they watched the video "very, very
carefully" but decided to move on when the two weren't swayed. "We
didn't want to get bogged down," said Mr. Ilagan, who works in
marketing for a company that makes circuit boards.
Completed Jury Form
The bounceback patent, which the jurors eventually decided
unanimously that Samsung infringed, was one of a handful of sticking
points in the otherwise smooth and surprisingly quick 22 hours of deliberations, according to Mr. Ilagan's account. The
seven men and two women--including a cycling enthusiast, an engineer and a social worker--found that Samsung
infringed all but one of Apple's asserted patents and exonerated Apple of any infringement of Samsung's.
Heard: Apple Technology is Forbidden Fruit
Count by Count: The Apple-Samsung
Verdict
They awarded Apple
$1.05 billion in
damages, one of the
highest awards in a
patent case on
record. Samsung has
vowed to appeal.
From the opening
moments, they
devised a system to
tackle the daunting
task before them. They remained focused, with jurors preventing
others from going off topic, Mr. Ilagan said. They discussed little else besides the case.
After deliberating for 21 hours, 37 minutes, the jury in
the Apple v. Samsung trial awarded Apple $1.05
billion in damages after Samsung was found to have
willfully infringed five of seven Apple patents. Mike
Isaac reports on the News Hub. Photo: Reuters.
Their mission: filling in some 300 fields of a 20-page verdict to determine whether 38 Samsung devices violated seven
Apple patents and whether Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch violated five of Samsung's.
Presiding juror Velvin Hogan, a video-compression expert the jurors called Vel, kept them on point going question by
question while AT&T product manager Peter Catherwood took up the task of polling the group when they got to a new
question, Mr. Ilagan said.
David Dunn, who worked in a cycling shop, organized the evidence, keeping tabs on the more than two dozen devices,
he added.
Messrs. Dunn, Catherwood and Hogan did not return requests for comment or couldn't be reached. Reached at home,
one juror Aarti Mathur, who used to work as a payroll administrator for IT startups, said "it was a wonderful
experience" and "a crazy case." She declined to comment further.
The outcome was a sweeping victory for Apple in the most high-profile patent case Silicon Valley has seen in decades.
At stake were key innovations in the smartphone industry and the broader issue of how closely competitors can follow
each other's designs.
Streaming
The outcome is already sending ripples through the industry-sparking a debate over whether handset costs could rise as patent
damages are passed to consumers or fewer competing devices are
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html
8/27/2012
Juror Recounts Deliberations that Brought Big Apple Win - WSJ.com#printMode
WSJ.com Law Page
Lexis Advance™
lexis.com®
Page 3 of 4
Lexis® for Microsoft® Office
introduced. Experts have also questioned whether such a strong
endorsement of Apple's patents will force competitors to radically
change their designs and features.
The inside story of how the landmark verdict came down reveals a
group divided on some issues. They include the complicated topic of
"trade dress" and one Samsung patent related to the photo gallery,
said Mr. Ilagan. He said that his wireless industry experience allowed
him to explain terms like "base station" to his fellow jurors, many of
whom work in the technology industry as well.
Journal Community
But overall most jurors were very receptive to Apple, swayed by the
arguments and evidence such as emails between Samsung executives
expressing admiration for Apple's designs, he said.
"The Apple lawyers were better at presenting their case," said Mr.
Ilagan. "I had an open mind but most of the time was on the Apple
side."
Mr. Ilagan said he was particularly persuaded by the changing
appearance of Samsung devices before and after the iPhone came out
in 2007, a point Apple's lawyers underscored over and over again with
slides. "It was obvious there was some copying going on," he said.
In contrast, he said some of the key arguments from Samsung--which argued that Apple's pre and post-2007 product
comparisons were misleading--fell short.
In particular, Mr. Ilagan said the jurors easily rejected Samsung's argument that Apple infringed two patents related to
data transmissions. Samsung argued that it deserved up to $399 million in royalties for the patents, which are part of
wireless standards.
But Mr. Ilagan said that the jurors unanimously agreed with Apple's defense. Apple argued that since Intel Corp. made
the chips for Apple and Samsung had given Intel a license for them, Apple couldn't be found to infringe them.
The existing license made him believe "what is the big deal?" he said. "That was an easy decision for us."
Since the start of the trial nearly a month ago, the question of whether a jury could tackle such a complicated case,
which began when Apple sued Samsung in April 2011, has loomed large.
Some have questioned whether a jury based miles away from Apple's Cupertino, Calif. headquarters could put any
favorable bias towards the technology giant aside. Mr. Ilagan said despite both companies being well known, the jurors
talked only about the facts, not the companies.
The case, one of several in Apple's global campaign to defend the designs of the iPhone and iPad worldwide, has
ignited a debate other whether the proliferation number of patent cases should be decided by regular men and woman
not legal experts.
Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court, spent hours reading aloud more than 100 pages
of jury instructions designed to explain to the jurors how to apply the law. Mr. Ilagan said the jurors stuck to the
instructions assiduously.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html
8/27/2012
Juror Recounts Deliberations that Brought Big Apple Win - WSJ.com#printMode
WSJ.com Law Page
Lexis Advance™
lexis.com®
Page 4 of 4
Lexis® for Microsoft® Office
"Judge Koh ran a tight ship," said Mr. Ilagan. They treated her repeated warnings not to talk to anyone about the case
as their "mantra," he said. "We wanted to do what we were supposed to do. We wanted to get it right."
They stayed focused on the facts, sometimes getting creative to resolve disputes among them.
To settle a debate over whether Samsung infringed an Apple patent related to the iPhone's array of icons, Mr. Dunn
held up the iPhone and a Samsung phone in the dark to determine whether they appeared similar when the colorful
rounded buttons were all you could see. The nine eventually agreed they did.
"In the end, even if the individual graphics inside those buttons were different, the overall look was the same," he said.
Mr. Ilagan said one of the biggest issues to stump the jury was trade dress, a term that refers to the overall appearance
of a device. Apple claimed Samsung had diluted its "registered" iPhone and iPad trade dress, which had been
registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the "unregistered" trade dresses which hadn't been.
He said he originally thought Samsung had diluted both the registered and unregistered because its devices looked
very similar. But he became convinced that the matter of the unregistered trade dress should be addressed by the
patent office not the jury. He joined the others in siding with Samsung on that point.
"If [Apple] wanted it protected, why did they come to us," Mr. Ilagan said. "They are the experts right?"
—John Letzing contributed to this article
Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright
law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
You Might Like
From Around the Web
The TED Takedown Everyone’s Talking About
Content from Sponsors What's this?
Playboy Pin-Up Sherlyn Chopra and India’s
Changing Morals
Apple and the $700 Club: Hard to Get In,
Hard to Stay In
U.S. Said to Push for Return of Fugitive
Executive
Apple Victory Shifts Power Balance
Always In Charge: How To Keep Your Mobile
Devices Charged Up (SheKnows.com)
Why Trump Is Dumping The Dollar: It’s
‘Going To Hell’ (Moneynews)
Apple Seeks to Block 8 Samsung Products
After Win at Jury Trial (PCWorld)
So Long, Stainless: Whirlpool Introduces a
New Finish For Premium Kitchens (Refrigerator
Info)
Best back to school apps (Digital Trends)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html
8/27/2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?