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

Filing 2126

Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of 2013 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, 2054 Brief, 2053 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to the Estrich Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2 to the Estrich Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3 to the Estrich Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 to the Estrich Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 to the Estrich Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 6 to the Estrich Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 7 to the Estrich Declaration, # 8 Exhibit 8 to the Estrich Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 9 to the Estrich Declaration, # 10 Exhibit 10 to the Estrich Declaration, # 11 Exhibit 11 to the Estrich Declaration, # 12 Exhibit 12 to the Estrich Declaration, # 13 Exhibit 13 to the Estrich Declaration, # 14 Exhibit 14 to the Estrich Declaration, # 15 Exhibit 15 to the Estrich Declaration, # 16 Exhibit 16 to the Estrich Declaration, # 17 Exhibit 17 to the Estrich Declaration, # 18 Exhibit 18 to the Estrich Declaration, # 19 Exhibit 19 to the Estrich Declaration, # 20 Exhibit 20 to the Estrich Declaration, # 21 Exhibit 21 to the Estrich Declaration, # 22 Exhibit 22 to the Estrich Declaration, # 23 Exhibit 23 to the Estrich Declaration, # 24 Exhibit 24 to the Estrich Declaration, # 25 Exhibit 25 to the Estrich Declaration, # 26 Exhibit 26 to the Estrich Declaration, # 27 Exhibit 27 to the Estrich Declaration, # 28 Exhibit 28 to the Estrich Declaration, # 29 Exhibit 29 to the Estrich Declaration, # 30 Exhibit 30 to the Estrich Declaration, # 31 Exhibit 31 to the Estrich Declaration)(Related document(s) 2013 , 2054 , 2053 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 11/9/2012)

Estrich Declaration
Exhibit 14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION
---------------------------

4

APPLE INC., a

)

5

California corporation,

)

6

Plaintiff,
vs.

)
) Case No.

7

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

) 11-cv-01846-LHK(PSG)

8

LTD., a Korean

) VOLUME II

9

corporation; SAMSUNG

)

10

ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

)

11

INC., a New York

)

12

corporation; and SAMSUNG

)

13

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

)

14

AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware

)

15

limited liability company, )

16

Defendants.

)

--------------------------17

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

18
19

Continued Videotaped Deposition of RUSSELL S.

20

WINER, taken at 51 Madison Avenue, New York,

21

New York, commencing at 12:31 p.m., Tuesday,

22

November 6, 2012, before Amy Klein Campion,

23

a shorthand reporter and Notary Public.

24

JOB No. 1554078

25

PAGES 353 - 521
Page 353
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2
3

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

4

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

5

BY:

6

MATTHEW AHN, ESQ.

7

425 Market Street

8

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

RICHARD S.J. HUNG, ESQ.

9
10
11

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

12

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

13

BY:

14

865 South Figueroa Street

15

10th Floor

16

Los Angeles, California

MICHAEL T. ZELLER, ESQ.

90017

17
18
19
20

ALSO PRESENT:
PETER COOPER, Videographer

21
22
23
24
25
Page 354
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

Yes.

12:34:17

2

Q.

Was it prepared by an attorney?

12:34:18

3

A.

No.

12:34:22

4

Q.

Who prepared the first draft?

12:34:22

5

A.

It was done by someone at

12:34:24

6

Cornerstone Research.

12:34:29

7

Q.

Who is that person?

12:34:29

8

A.

I don't know exactly who did it.

12:34:32

9

Q.

Do you have any knowledge or

12:34:34

10

information as to who did the first draft

12:34:35

11

of this declaration we've marked as

12:34:37

12

Exhibit 1678?

12:34:40

13

A.

It was done by a team of people

12:34:41

14

at Cornerstone, I believe, that I have

12:34:43

15

worked with on this case.

12:34:46

16

Q.

Can you tell me by name any of

12:34:49

17

the individuals who worked on this

12:34:54

18

declaration we marked as Exhibit 1678?

12:34:55

19

A.

I can't tell you that for sure.

12:34:58

20

Q.

Do you have any knowledge or

12:35:02

21

information as to any information they

12:35:05

22

relied upon in connection with the

12:35:07

23

preparation of this declaration we've

12:35:09

24

marked as Exhibit 1678?

12:35:11

25

A.

To the best of my knowledge, the

12:35:13
Page 359

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

basis for this declaration is my expert

12:35:15

2

report that was filed some time ago.

12:35:18

3

Q.

Anything else?

12:35:22

4

A.

No.

12:35:23

5

Q.

Did the individuals at

12:35:26

6

Cornerstone review the trial transcript in

12:35:30

7

this case?

12:35:33

8

A.

I do not know.

12:35:34

9

Q.

Did they review any of the trial

12:35:36

10

exhibits in this case?

12:35:39

11

A.

I do not know.

12:35:41

12

Q.

Did they review the Declaration

12:35:42

13

of Phil Schiller that was submitted in

12:35:46

14

connection with Apple's request for a

12:35:50

15

permanent injunction?

12:35:52

16

A.

I don't know.

12:35:53

17

Q.

Directing your attention to

12:35:57

18

paragraph 12 of Exhibit 1678 --

19
20

12:35:58

(The witness complies.)
Q.

12:36:02

-- you'll see that there's a

12:36:03

21

reference here to a U.S. -- a UBS

12:36:07

22

Investment Research report?

12:36:12

23

A.

Yes, I see that.

12:36:12

24

Q.

For the record, paragraph 12

12:36:14

25

begins:

"Industry observers agree on the

12:36:16
Page 360

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

question and answer the question.

2
3

(Requested portion of record
read.)

4

12:40:17
12:40:18
12:40:32

MR. HUNG:

Calls for

12:40:32

5

speculation, lacks foundation, asked

12:40:35

6

and answered.

12:40:36

7

A.

I don't know.

12:40:36

8

Q.

In connection with any of the

12:40:39

9
10

claims made in Exhibit 1678, did you

12:40:42

yourself talk to anyone at Apple?

12:40:44

11

A.

No, I did not.

12:40:46

12

Q.

Did you ask to?

12:40:47

13

A.

No, I did not.

12:40:48

14

Q.

Did you review the declaration

12:40:50

15

of Phil Schiller prior to the time that

12:40:51

16

you signed this declaration, Exhibit 1678?

12:40:54

17

A.

No, I did not.

12:40:56

18

Q.

Have you read it now?

12:40:59

19

A.

No, I have not.

12:41:01

20

Q.

Have you read Mr. Schiller's

12:41:02

21

deposition transcript from last week?

12:41:05

22

A.

No, I have not.

12:41:06

23

Q.

At any time up through today

12:41:17

24

have you reviewed the Federal Circuit's

12:41:18

25

decision reversing the District Court's

12:41:21
Page 365

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

grant of an injunction against the Galaxy

12:41:25

2

Nexus?

12:41:30

3

A.

No, I haven't.

12:41:30

4

Q.

Did you take any of the

12:41:31

5

pronouncements of the Federal Circuit into

12:41:33

6

account in offering your opinion in this

12:41:35

7

case?

12:41:37

8
9
10
11
12

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague and

12:41:38

compound.

12:41:40

A.

12:41:40

The only thing I've read is the

judgment after the trial in San Jose.
Q.

My question is about the Federal

12:41:49

13

Circuit opinion.

14

ensure that your opinions in this case are

12:41:53

15

consistent with the Federal Circuit's

12:41:55

16

decision reversing the preliminary

12:41:59

17

injunction that was granted by the

12:42:00

18

District Court with respect to the Galaxy

12:42:04

19

Nexus?

12:42:10

20

Did you do anything to

12:41:44

MR. HUNG:

Objection; assumes

12:41:51

12:42:10

21

facts.

12:42:12

22

A.

No.

12:42:13

23

Q.

So whether or not your opinions

12:42:17

24

meet the requirements of the Federal

12:42:19

25

Circuit is something you don't know about,

12:42:21
Page 366

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

right?

2

another?

3

You can't tell me one way or

12:42:23
12:42:25

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague and

12:42:26

4

compound.

12:42:28

5

A.

12:42:28

6
7

As I said before, I haven't read

that document you're referring to.
Q.

So whether or not your opinions

12:42:30
12:42:31

8

meet the standards set forth by the

12:42:33

9

Federal Circuit is something you don't

12:42:34

know, correct?

12:42:36

10
11

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague and

12:42:37

12

compound, asked and answered.

12:42:39

13

A.

I don't know.

12:42:40

14

Q.

Did you review any of the

12:42:41

15

briefing by the parties in connection with

12:42:44

16

that preliminary injunction appeal as it

12:42:47

17

pertains to the Galaxy Nexus?

12:42:50

18

MR. HUNG:

12:42:54

19
20

A.

Objection; vague.

No.
MR. ZELLER:

12:42:56
Let's please mark

12:43:13

21

as Exhibit 1679 a multipage document

12:43:16

22

bearing Bates numbers

12:43:21

23

APLITC7960000058721 through 736, and

12:43:27

24

it is a UBS Investment Research

12:43:33

25

report.

12:43:37
Page 367
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

(Exhibit 1679 marked for

12:43:37

2

identification, UBS Investment

12:43:37

3

Research report bearing Bates numbers

12:43:37

4

APLITC7960000058721 through 736.)

12:43:37

5
6
7

BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

12:43:58

Do you recognize what we've

marked as Exhibit 1679?

12:43:58
12:44:00

8

A.

I recognize this document.

12:44:02

9

Q.

Did you review it at about the

12:44:03

10

time you had signed the declaration we've

12:44:06

11

marked as Exhibit 1678?

12:44:09

12

A.

No.

12:44:11

13

Q.

When did you last review this

12:44:12

14

document that we've marked as Exhibit

12:44:15

15

1679?

12:44:17

16
17

(The witness reviews document.)
A.

12:44:20

Some time prior to when I

12:44:23

18

submitted my expert report which was dated

12:44:26

19

March 22nd, 2012.

12:44:29

20

Q.

And so you had not reviewed

12:44:32

21

Exhibit 1679 at any time after March of

12:44:34

22

this year, up through today?

12:44:42

23

A.

Well, I may have reviewed it in

12:44:44

24

preparation for both my prior deposition

12:44:46

25

as well as my testimony at trial.

12:44:51

But not

Page 368
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

since the trial.
Q.

12:44:53

And you didn't specifically

12:44:55

3

review it in connection with the

12:44:56

4

preparation of your declaration we've

12:44:59

5

marked as Exhibit 1678?

12:45:01

6

A.

No, I did not.

12:45:03

7

Q.

Did you do anything to satisfy

12:45:08

8

yourself that this UBS Investment Research

12:45:10

9

report which we've marked as Exhibit 1679

12:45:15

10

in fact supported the claim that was made

12:45:18

11

in paragraph 12 of your declaration?

12:45:20

12

A.

Yes, I have.

12:45:22

13

Q.

Well, I'm asking as of the time

12:45:23

14
15
16
17

you had signed your declaration.
A.

As I said already, I haven't

read it since my trial preparation.
Q.

So you didn't do anything to

12:45:27
12:45:28
12:45:30
12:45:33

18

determine whether the UBS Investment

12:45:35

19

Research report actually supported the

12:45:38

20

proposition that it is cited for in

12:45:41

21

paragraph 12 of your declaration prior to

12:45:43

22

the time you signed the declaration,

12:45:45

23

correct?

12:45:46

24
25

MR. HUNG:
A.

Objection; misstates.

Not in preparation specifically

12:45:47
12:45:51
Page 369

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

of this declaration.
Q.

12:45:53

At the time that you signed the

12:46:00

3

declaration were you aware of what the

12:46:03

4

date of this report was?

12:46:04

5

A.

Yes, I was.

12:46:05

6

Q.

And so when you signed the

12:46:05

7

declaration where it made the assertion

12:46:09

8

about the uniqueness and consistency of

12:46:11

9

Apple's user experience you were aware

12:46:16

10

that the UBS Investment Research report

12:46:19

11

was from December 12, 2006?

12:46:21

12

A.

13
14

12:46:24

THE WITNESS:

Excuse me, could

we close this door?

15
16

Yes.

MR. ZELLER:

12:46:29
Let's go off the

record for a second.

17

approximately 12:46 p.m.

19

The time is

the record.

We're off

(A recess was taken.)

21

THE VIDEO OPERATOR:

22

The time is approximately 12:48

25

12:46:34
12:46:35
12:46:37

20

24

12:46:31
12:46:33

THE VIDEO OPERATOR:

18

23

12:46:28

12:48:21
Stand by.

p.m.

12:49:10
12:49:12
12:49:16

We're back on the record.
BY MR. ZELLER:

12:49:17
12:49:17
Page 370

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

Q.

Focusing your attention on

12:49:20

2

Exhibit 1679, which is the UBS Investment

12:49:22

3

Research report relied upon in paragraph

12:49:25

4

12 of your declaration, we were discussing

12:49:28

5

the date of this report is December 2006,

12:49:33

6

correct?

12:49:36

7

A.

Correct.

12:49:37

8

Q.

That was prior to the time that

12:49:37

9

a single iPhone was sold, correct?

12:49:40

10

A.

Correct.

12:49:42

11

Q.

This was prior to the time that

12:49:43

12

the iPhone was announced, correct?

12:49:44

13

A.

Correct.

12:49:47

14

Q.

Does this proposition here

12:49:59

15

talking about the uniqueness and

12:50:00

16

consistency of Apple's user experience

12:50:03

17

that is discussed in this report relate to

12:50:09

18

the first iPhone or is it based on

12:50:13

19

something else?

12:50:15

20
21

MR. HUNG:
A.

Objection; compound.

It could be both.

Certainly the

12:50:16
12:50:18

22

iPhone was not announced until January of

12:50:21

23

2007.

12:50:23

24

in the investment community had some

12:50:26

25

advanced information about the iPhone.

12:50:28

However, it's possible that people

Page 371
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

But clearly the phones had not been

12:50:33

2

introduced to the market by that date.

12:50:35

3

Q.

Did the UBS analyst have actual

12:50:37

4

information about any iPhone at the time

12:50:41

5

that this report was written in December

12:50:44

6

of 2006 or earlier?

12:50:47

7

MR. HUNG:

Objection; calls for

12:50:49

8

speculation, lacks foundation.

12:50:51

9

A.

I don't know.

12:50:53

10

Q.

Did you undertake any

12:50:54

11

investigation to determine whether it did?

12:50:55

12

A.

No, I did not.

12:50:57

13

Q.

Can you point to me any actual

12:50:59

14

language in this report from UBS that

12:51:01

15

we've marked as Exhibit 1679 where it

12:51:05

16

talks specifically about the uniqueness

12:51:12

17

and consistency of Apple's user experience

12:51:16

18

for the first iPhone?

12:51:19

19

(The witness reviews document.)

12:51:36

20

A.

No.

12:51:48

21

Q.

Can you point to me any language

12:51:49

22

in this UBS report which we've marked as

12:51:51

23

Exhibit 1679 that you're relying upon in

12:51:55

24

paragraph 12 of your declaration where

12:51:59

25

there's any discussion about the

12:52:00
Page 372

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

uniqueness and consistency of Apple's user

12:52:03

2

experience as it relates to any generation

12:52:08

3

of iPhone?

12:52:10

4

MR. HUNG:

Objection; the

12:52:11

5

document speaks itself.

12:52:12

6

A.

No.

12:52:13

7

Q.

Or any generation of the iPad?

12:52:14

MR. HUNG:

12:52:22

8

Same objections.

9

A.

No.

12:52:23

10

Q.

Do you have any reason to think

12:52:24

11

this US report from December of 2006

12:52:25

12

provides any support about the uniqueness

12:52:28

13

and consistencies of Apple's user

12:52:32

14

experience for any generation of iPad?

12:52:35

15

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

12:52:38

16

answered.

12:52:40

17

A.

No.

12:52:42

18

Q.

Or for the iPhone 3G?

12:52:45

MR. HUNG:

12:52:49

19

Objection; asked and

20

answered.

12:52:50

21

A.

No.

12:52:50

22

Q.

Or for the iPhone 4?

12:52:51

MR. HUNG:

12:52:55

23

Same objection.

24

A.

No.

12:52:56

25

Q.

Or for the iPhone 5?

12:52:57
Page 373

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Same objection.

12:53:00

2

A.

No.

12:53:00

3

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:53:20

4

signed this declaration that we marked as

12:53:22

5

Exhibit 1678, did you do anything to

12:53:27

6

determine the reasons why consumers had

12:53:31

7

ever purchased the T-Mobile version of the

12:53:35

8

Galaxy S II?

12:53:38

9

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague.

12:53:42

10

A.

No.

12:53:45

11

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:53:47

12

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:53:49

13

Exhibit 1678, did you do anything to

12:53:51

14

determine why consumers purchased the AT&T

12:53:53

15

version of the Galaxy S II?

12:54:00

16

MR. HUNG:

Same objection.

12:54:04

17

A.

No.

12:54:07

18

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:54:08

19

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:54:09

20

Exhibit 1678, did you do anything to

12:54:12

21

determine why consumers had ever purchased

12:54:14

22

the Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch?

12:54:18

23

MR. HUNG:

Same objection.

12:54:23

24

A.

No.

12:54:24

25

Q.

Or the Galaxy S II Skyrocket?

12:54:24
Page 374

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

No.

12:54:29

2

Q.

Or the Droid Charge?

12:54:29

3

A.

No.

12:54:32

4

Q.

Or the Galaxy Prevail?

12:54:33

5

A.

No.

12:54:36

6

Q.

Or the Galaxy S IV?

12:54:36

MR. HUNG:

12:54:39

7

Same objection.

8

A.

No.

12:54:41

9

Q.

Or for the Showcase?

12:54:42

MR. HUNG:

12:54:46

10

Same objection.

11

A.

No.

12:54:47

12

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:54:49

13

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:54:50

14

Exhibit 1678, did you do anything to

12:54:52

15

determine why consumers purchased, at any

12:54:55

16

time, any Galaxy Tab device?

12:54:59

17

MR. HUNG:

Same objection.

12:55:02

18

A.

No.

12:55:04

19

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:55:07

20

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:55:09

21

Exhibit 1678, did you do anything to

12:55:10

22

determine why consumers purchased at any

12:55:13

23

time any specific Samsung device?

12:55:16

24
25

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

compound.

12:55:20
12:55:24
Page 375

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

No.

12:55:24

2

Q.

Do you have any direct, specific

12:55:27

3

and reliable data as to why consumers

12:55:32

4

purchased at any time the AT&T version of

12:55:36

5

the Galaxy S II?

12:55:40

6

A.

No.

12:55:45

7

Q.

Or the T-Mobile version of the

12:55:46

8

Galaxy S II?

12:55:49

9

A.

No.

12:55:52

10

Q.

Or the Galaxy S II Epic 4G

12:55:52

11

Touch?

12

A.

No.

12:55:58

13

Q.

Or the Galaxy S II Skyrocket?

12:55:58

14

A.

No.

12:56:02

15

Q.

Or the Droid Charge?

12:56:03

16

A.

No.

12:56:04

17

Q.

Or the Galaxy Prevail?

12:56:04

18

A.

No.

12:56:07

19

Q.

Or the Galaxy S 4G?

12:56:07

20

A.

No.

12:56:11

21

Q.

Or the Showcase?

12:56:11

22

A.

No.

12:56:13

23

Q.

At any time prior to the time

12:56:16

12:55:57

24

you signed this declaration we've marked

12:56:17

25

as Exhibit 1678, did you have in your

12:56:19
Page 376

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

possession any --

2
3
4
5

12:56:27

MR. ZELLER:

Strike that.

I'll

start again.

12:56:31

BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

12:56:30

12:56:32

Do you have any direct, specific

12:56:32

6

and reliable data showing the reasons why

12:56:36

7

consumers had purchased any Galaxy Tab

12:56:40

8

devices?

12:56:43

9

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague.

12:56:48

10

A.

No.

12:56:49

11

Q.

Do you have any direct, specific

12:56:49

12

and reliable data as to the reason why

12:56:52

13

consumers buy any Samsung devices?

12:56:55

14

A.

No.

12:57:00

15

Q.

Do you have any knowledge or

12:57:13

16

information as to why consumers had

12:57:15

17

purchased any particular Samsung devices?

12:57:20

18

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague.

12:57:23

19

Outside the scope.

12:57:25

20

A.

No.

12:57:27

21

Q.

Prior to the time that you

12:57:34

22

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:57:36

23

Exhibit 1678, did you undertake any

12:57:38

24

determination --

12:57:41

25

MR. ZELLER:

I'm sorry, let me

12:57:43
Page 377

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

start again.

Strike that.

BY MR. ZELLER:

3

Q.

12:57:44
12:57:46

Prior to the time that you

12:57:46

4

signed this declaration we've marked as

12:57:47

5

Exhibit 1678, did you undertake any

12:57:48

6

investigation to determine to what degree

12:57:51

7

the sale of any particular Samsung device

12:57:55

8

is a lost sale to Apple?

12:58:00

9

A.

No.

12:58:05

10

Q.

Do you have any knowledge or

12:58:08

11

information as to whether or not the sale

12:58:09

12

of any particular Samsung device results

12:58:12

13

in a lost sale to Apple?

12:58:16

14

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague.

12:58:19

15

Also to the extent it's outside the

12:58:21

16

scope.

12:58:24

17

A.

I think it's just a repeat of

12:58:24

18

what you just asked me, but the answer's

12:58:26

19

no.

12:58:29

20

Q.

22

12:58:29

Do you have any knowledge or

21

Well, I'm asking very generally:

12:58:31

information on that subject?

12:58:32

23

A.

I said no.

12:58:33

24

Q.

In those instances where

12:58:39

25

Apple -- I'm sorry, in those instances

12:58:46
Page 378

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

where Samsung has sold Galaxy S II AT&T

12:58:49

2

versions of its devices, has Apple lost

12:58:58

3

any sales?

12:59:02

4

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

12:59:04

5

foundation.

12:59:05

6

A.

12:59:08

I think that's kind of a general

7

question.

8

product?

9

Exactly what -- what are you referring to?

10
11

Q.

I mean, lost sales of what
Of phones?

Of Apple TV?

Well, I'm happy to make it more

specific.

12:59:12
12:59:14
12:59:18
12:59:20
12:59:22

12

A.

Please.

12:59:23

13

Q.

Has Apple lost any iPhone sales

12:59:24

14

as a result of the sale of the AT&T

12:59:28

15

version of the Galaxy S II?

12:59:33

16

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

12:59:35

Outside the scope.

12:59:36

17

foundation.

18

A.

I can't give you a number.

12:59:39

19

Q.

Can you tell me if it happens at

12:59:42

20

all?

12:59:45

21

A.

It could.

12:59:46

22

Q.

Does it happen?

12:59:49

23

A.

It could.

12:59:51

24

Q.

Please tell me for a fact as to

12:59:53

25

whether or not Apple lost any iPhone sales

12:59:59
Page 379

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

as a result of the AT&T version of the

01:00:05

2

Galaxy S II?

01:00:08

3

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:00:11

4

foundation, outside the scope, asked

01:00:12

5

and answered.

01:00:14

6

A.

01:00:14

7
8
9

It could, but I can't give you a

number, so I don't know.
Q.

I'm not even asking for a number

at this point.

10

I'll get to that.

Has Apple lost sales -- this is

01:00:16
01:00:16
01:00:18
01:00:20

11

a factual empirical question -- as a

01:00:28

12

result of Samsung's sale of the AT&T

01:00:31

13

version of the Galaxy S II?

01:00:35

14

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:00:37

15

A.

I -- I don't know.

01:00:39

16

Q.

If I asked you the same question

01:00:44

17

with respect to the T-Mobile version of

01:00:46

18

the Galaxy S II you would give me the same

01:00:49

19

answer?

01:00:54

20
21

MR. HUNG:
A.

Same objections.

If you plugged any model

01:00:55
01:00:56

22

number/name into that I would say I don't

01:01:01

23

know.

01:01:02

24
25

Q.

But do you know whether or not

Apple has lost any iPad sales to Samsung's

01:01:04
01:01:07
Page 380

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

sales of any Galaxy Tab devices?

2

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:01:15
01:01:19

3

outside the scope, foundation.

01:01:22

4

A.

I don't know.

01:01:25

5

Q.

Do you have any direct

01:01:41

6

information or any knowledge showing

01:01:44

7

whether consumers who purchased any

01:01:47

8

Samsung device would have bought an Apple

01:01:49

9

product if the AT&T version of the Galaxy

01:01:54

S II was not available?

01:02:01

10
11

MR. HUNG:

Objection; incomplete

01:02:02

12

hypothetical, vague, outside the

01:02:04

13

scope.

01:02:06

14
15
16
17

THE WITNESS:

Could you please

repeat the question for me?
BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

01:02:06
01:02:07
01:02:09
01:02:09

Do you know whether or not

18

Sure.

01:02:16

19

consumers who purchased any Samsung device

01:02:16

20

would have bought an Apple device if the

01:02:20

21

AT&T version of the Galaxy S II was not

01:02:25

22

available?

01:02:29

23

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:02:30

24

A.

I don't know.

01:02:30

25

Q.

And if I were to ask you about

01:02:33
Page 381

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

other versions of the Galaxy S II such as

01:02:36

2

the T-Mobile version and the Epic 4G Touch

01:02:40

3

version and the Skyrocket version, would

01:02:44

4

you give me the same answer?

01:02:47

5

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:02:48

6

A.

Yes, I would.

01:02:49

7

Q.

And if I asked you the same

01:02:50

8

question about the Droid Charge, would you

01:02:52

9

give me the same answer?

01:02:53

10

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:02:55

11

A.

Yes, I would.

01:02:56

12

Q.

In fact, if I asked you about

01:02:57

13

any Samsung phone or any Samsung tablet

01:02:59

14

device, you'd give me the same answer?

01:03:04

15

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:03:06

16

the scope.

01:03:09

17

A.

You have to ask me -- please ask

01:03:09

18

me the complete question that's associated

01:03:12

19

with that.

01:03:13

20

Q.

21

Sure.

Sure.

Do you have any information or

01:03:14
01:03:15

22

data showing that consumers would have

01:03:16

23

purchased an Apple device if any Samsung

01:03:21

24

smartphone or any Samsung Galaxy Tab

01:03:26

25

device was not available?

01:03:29
Page 382

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Objection; compound,

01:03:31

2

incomplete hypothetical.

01:03:36

3

A.

01:03:37

4

that.

5

I'm sorry, if any -- just repeat

that.

6

I'm getting confused at the end of

Q.

01:03:41
01:03:43

Sure.

Let me be a little bit

01:03:43

7

more specific and see if that helps.

01:03:46

8

Because we started off specific and

01:03:48

9

then -- so we'll backtrack a little bit.

01:03:52

10

Do you know whether consumers

01:03:54

11

would have purchased any Apple iPhone if

01:03:56

12

the Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch was not

01:04:02

13

available?

01:04:06

14

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:04:08

15

foundation, calls for speculation,

01:04:10

16

incomplete hypothetical.

01:04:12

17

A.

I don't know the answer to that.

01:04:13

18

Q.

Or if the Galaxy S II Skyrocket

01:04:14

19

was not available?

20

MR. HUNG:

01:04:18
Same objections.

01:04:19

21

A.

I don't know.

01:04:20

22

Q.

Or if the Droid Charge was not

01:04:21

23

available?

24
25

01:04:22
MR. HUNG:

A.

Same objections.

I don't know.

01:04:24
01:04:25
Page 383

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

Q.

2

available?

3

Or if the Galaxy Prevail was not

01:04:25
01:04:28

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:04:28

4

A.

I don't know.

01:04:29

5

Q.

Or if the Galaxy S 4G was not

01:04:29

6

available?

7

01:04:33
MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:04:33

8

A.

I don't know.

01:04:35

9

Q.

Or if the Showcase was not

01:04:35

10

available?

11

01:04:39
MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:04:39

12

A.

I don't know.

01:04:40

13

Q.

Do you know whether or not

01:04:40

14

consumers would have bought any Apple iPad

01:04:41

15

device if any Samsung Galaxy Tab device

01:04:45

16

was not available?

01:04:50

17

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:04:51

18

foundation, outside the scope,

01:04:52

19

incomplete hypothetical.

01:04:54

20

A.

I don't know.

01:04:55

21

Q.

Do you have any reason to think

01:05:00

22

that if any particular Samsung smartphone

01:05:02

23

was not available to consumers that those

01:05:08

24

consumers would purchase an iPhone product

01:05:12

25

as opposed to another android product that

01:05:17
Page 384

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

That's correct.

01:09:45

2

Q.

Or how it relates to Apple's

01:09:46

3

brand, right?

4

MR. HUNG:

5

A.

6

Q.

Objection; vague.

brand?

7

01:09:50

As to what relates to the Apple

01:09:52
01:09:54
01:09:57

Did you do any analysis, prior

01:09:57

8

to the time that you signed this

01:10:00

9

declaration, as to the impact that the

01:10:02

10

iPhone 5 had on Apple's brand as you use

01:10:07

11

that term in your declaration?

01:10:11

12

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:10:14

13

the scope.

01:10:17

14

A.

No.

01:10:17

15

Q.

So whether or not the launch of

01:10:21

16

the iPhone 5 helped the brand or damaged

01:10:22

17

the brand or diminished the brand of Apple

01:10:25

18

is something you don't have an opinion

01:10:28

19

about, correct?

01:10:31

20

A.

Correct.

01:10:32

21

Q.

And there's not any analysis

01:10:32

22

that you've done?

Right?

01:10:35

23

A.

Correct.

01:10:39

24

Q.

Were you asked to undertake such

01:10:40

25

analysis?

01:10:42
Page 389
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

No, I was not.

01:10:43

2

Q.

Were you the one who made the

01:10:48

3

decision not to include the launch and the

01:10:51

4

circumstances surrounding the launch of

01:10:57

5

the iPhone 5 into account for purposes of

01:10:59

6

rendering your opinions offered in Exhibit

01:11:01

7

1678?

01:11:04

8
9

MR. HUNG:

Objection; assumes

facts.

01:11:06
01:11:07

10

A.

No.

01:11:10

11

Q.

Why was it excluded?

01:11:12

MR. HUNG:

01:11:15

12

Objection; lacks

13

foundation, assumes facts.

01:11:17

14

A.

01:11:19

I was asked to develop a

15

declaration that was based on my prior

01:11:21

16

expert report and at the time of that

01:11:25

17

expert report the iPhone 5 had not been

01:11:27

18

introduced.

01:11:30

19
20

Q.

Has the iPhone 5 had any impact

of any kind on the Apple brand?

21

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:11:35
01:11:38
01:11:41

22

the scope.

01:11:43

23

A.

01:11:43

24
25

I haven't studied it, so I don't

know.
Q.

01:11:45
Do you think it's likely that it

01:11:46
Page 390

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

has?

01:11:48

2

MR. HUNG:

Objection; calls for

01:11:49

3

speculation.

01:11:51

4

A.

01:11:52

All I can say is that it sold

5

well.

I have no research evidence on the

01:11:55

6

brand equity of Apple since the launch of

01:11:58

7

the iPhone 5.

01:12:02

8
9

Q.

At the time that you signed your

01:12:07

declaration that we've marked as Exhibit

01:12:09

10

1678, the iPhone 5 had been announced,

01:12:11

11

right?

01:12:14

12

MR. HUNG:

Objection; lacks

01:12:16

13

foundation.

01:12:18

14

A.

I believe so, yes.

01:12:18

15

Q.

And it had been -- the sales of

01:12:19

16
17

it had actually begun, correct?
A.

I don't recall the exact dates

01:12:22
01:12:25

18

the iPhone 5 was launched, but given

01:12:26

19

Apple's typical calendar, the answer is

01:12:29

20

likely to be yes, there were some units

01:12:33

21

sold.

01:12:37

22

Q.

And I take it you didn't

01:12:41

23

analyze -- that is, actually look at an

01:12:44

24

iPhone 5 -- for purposes of preparing your

01:12:45

25

opinions offered in your declaration,

01:12:49
Page 391

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

iPhone 3G or 3GS units does Apple

01:15:02

2

currently have?

01:15:07

3

MR. HUNG:

Objection; lacks

01:15:08

4

foundation, outside the scope.

01:15:09

5

A.

I have no idea.

01:15:11

6

Q.

Is Apple manufacturing today any

01:15:12

7

units of the iPhone 3G or 3GS?

8

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:15:14
01:15:18

9

A.

I don't know that.

01:15:19

10

Q.

How long is any vendor going to

01:15:20

11

be selling the iPhone 3G or 3GS?

12

MR. HUNG:

Objection; lacks

01:15:25
01:15:29

13

foundation, outside the scope, calls

01:15:30

14

for speculation.

01:15:32

15

A.

I don't know the answer to that.

01:15:33

16

Q.

Is it going to be more than a

01:15:35

17

month, less than a month from now?

18
19

MR. HUNG:
A.

Same objections.

I have no idea what their

01:15:39
01:15:41
01:15:42

20

inventory levels are like or what their

01:15:44

21

rate of sales is, so I don't know.

01:15:48

22

Q.

When you rendered your opinions

01:15:50

23

here that are reflected in Exhibit 1678 as

01:15:53

24

to the Apple brand, did you take into

01:15:56

25

account the anticipated discontinuance of

01:16:01
Page 394

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

the iPhone 3G and 3GS?

01:16:05

2

A.

No, I did not.

01:16:10

3

Q.

As of the time that you signed

01:16:12

4

your declaration were you aware that there

01:16:14

5

was the planned discontinuance of the

01:16:17

6

iPhone 3 and 3GS?

01:16:22

7

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:16:25

8

assumes facts.

01:16:26

9

A.

No.

01:16:27

10

Q.

Does the discontinuance by Apple

01:16:31

11

of the iPhone 3 and 3GS have any effect on

01:16:36

12

Apple's brand?

01:16:42

13

MR. HUNG:

14

facts.

15

A.

Objection; assumes

01:16:44
01:16:46

First of all, you're going to

01:16:48

16

have to show me evidence that that has in

01:16:50

17

fact occurred.

01:16:54

18

of that.

19

Q.

I have not seen evidence

01:16:56
01:16:58

I want you to assume that Apple

20

Then I'll ask you this:

01:17:00

21

is discontinuing sales of the iPhone 3G

01:17:03

22

and 3GS.

01:17:08

23
24
25

In your view, does that have any
impact on Apple's brand?
A.

I don't know the answer to that.

01:17:11
01:17:13
01:17:27
Page 395

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

generally aware that as part of its iPhone

01:26:41

2

5 launch Apple reduced the price for the

01:26:45

3

iPhone 4S?

01:26:49

4
5

MR. HUNG:
A.

Yes.

Same objections.

But that's a natural

01:26:51
01:26:52

6

occurrence in the technology-based

01:26:55

7

markets, for the new technology that's

01:26:59

8

replacing an old one to be higher priced

01:27:01

9

and the old one price-reduced, to give

01:27:05

incentive for later adopters to buy it.

01:27:07

10
11

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of an

01:27:35

12

analysis to determine what impact reducing

01:27:38

13

the price for the iPhone 4S would have on

01:27:43

14

the Apple brand?

01:27:46

15

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague.

01:27:48

16

A.

No, I did not.

01:27:49

17

Q.

Directing your attention to

01:28:05

18

paragraph 14 of your declaration --

19
20

01:28:07

(The witness complies.)
Q.

01:28:10

-- which is Exhibit 1678, you

01:28:13

21

have a sentence here that says:

22

if Samsung continues to sell these

01:28:25

23

smartphones, the likelihood of dilution

01:28:27

24

will only increase."

01:28:30

25

"Indeed,

Do you see that?

01:28:23

01:28:31
Page 403

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

Yes.

01:28:32

2

Q.

Which smartphones is Samsung

01:28:32

3

continuing to sell today among the accused

01:28:36

4

phones?

01:28:41

5

A.

I don't know the answer.

01:28:41

6

Q.

Did you undertake any

01:28:42

7

investigation to determine which phones

01:28:44

8

Samsung was still selling among the

01:28:47

9

accused phones as of the time that you

01:28:50

signed this declaration?

01:28:52

10
11

A.

No.

01:28:54

12

Q.

Did anyone at Cornerstone?

01:28:56

MR. HUNG:

01:28:59

13

Objection;

14

foundation.

01:29:00

15

A.

I don't know.

01:29:00

16

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

01:29:05

17

analysis to determine whether Samsung's

01:29:07

18

sale or continued sale of the AT&T version

01:29:14

19

of the Galaxy S II caused any dilution to

01:29:18

20

Apple's brand?

01:29:22

21

A.

No, I did not.

01:29:26

22

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

01:29:29

23

analysis to determine whether or not

01:29:31

24

Samsung's sale or continued sale of the

01:29:34

25

T-Mobile version of the Galaxy S II has

01:29:39
Page 404

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

caused any dilution to Apple's brand?

2

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:29:42
01:29:46

3

compound.

01:29:49

4

A.

01:29:50

By "analysis" do you mean trying

5

to quantify what the sales loss would be?

01:29:52

6

Or just conceptually is there potential

01:29:55

7

damage to the brand?

01:29:57

8
9
10

Q.
one.

My question is a very specific
I'm focused first on a particular

phone that Samsung has sold.

01:29:58
01:30:01
01:30:03

11

A.

Okay.

01:30:05

12

Q.

And I'm also asking whether or

01:30:05

13

not you determined whether in fact

01:30:07

14

dilution occurred.

01:30:09

15
16
17

So with that framework in mind
let me restate the question.
Did you undertake any analysis

01:30:12
01:30:13
01:30:14

18

to determine whether or not Samsung's sale

01:30:16

19

of the T-Mobile version of the Galaxy S II

01:30:20

20

specifically has caused any dilution to

01:30:24

21

Apple's brand?

01:30:26

22
23
24
25

MR. HUNG:

Do you mean in

connection with his declaration?
MR. ZELLER:

Yes, that's all

I'm -- I mean, I'm asking about his

01:30:28
01:30:30
01:30:32
01:30:34
Page 405

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

opinions in connection with this

01:30:36

2

declaration.

01:30:38

3

other opinions he can tell me about

01:30:39

4

those.

01:30:41

5

BY MR. ZELLER:

01:30:41

6
7
8
9
10

Q.

13
14

But I assume that your opinions

are set forth in your declaration?
A.

My full set of opinions are set

01:30:41
01:30:43
01:30:46

forth in my expert report that was filed

01:30:49

some months ago.

01:30:52

11
12

I suppose if he has

As I told you before, this is a
subset of those opinions.
Q.

Let me be a little bit more

precise, then.

01:30:52
01:30:55
01:30:57
01:31:00

15

You understand that your

01:31:00

16

opinions as they relate to current

01:31:02

17

circumstances insofar as Apple is seeking

01:31:06

18

a permanent injunction in this case are

01:31:10

19

those that are set forth in Exhibit 1678?

01:31:12

20

A.

Yes.

01:31:15

21

Q.

So, then, focusing on your

01:31:17

22

opinions, did you do any analysis to

01:31:19

23

determine whether or not Samsung's sale of

01:31:24

24

the AT&T version of the Galaxy S II

01:31:29

25

specifically has caused dilution to

01:31:34
Page 406

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

Apple's brand or trade dress claim?

2

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:31:40
01:31:45

3

compound.

01:31:48

4

A.

Not in the intervening time

01:31:48

5

between the trial and the date of the

01:31:50

6

declaration.

01:31:52

7

Q.

Well, you previously undertook

01:31:56

8

an analysis specifically as to whether or

01:31:58

9

not the AT&T version of the Galaxy S II

01:32:01

10

caused actual dilution to Apple's brand or

01:32:06

11

claimed trade dresses?

01:32:10

12

A.

My prior analysis covered all of

01:32:11

13

the Samsung Galaxy phones and not

01:32:13

14

specifically any one carrier's version of

01:32:18

15

the phone.

01:32:22

16

Q.

And understand, I'm asking a

01:32:24

17

question all the way up until today, and

01:32:27

18

I'm asking specifically about particular

01:32:29

19

phones.

01:32:32

20

particular phones that distinguish those

01:32:35

21

phones from other phones, or even are

01:32:38

22

specifically about that phone, then I'd

01:32:40

23

like to hear it.

01:32:43

24
25

And if you have an analysis as to

But I'm trying to specifically
ascertain whether you did a specific

01:32:44
01:32:45
Page 407

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

analysis for particular devices.

2

So again, with that context in

01:32:47
01:32:49

3

mind, did you undertake an analysis to

01:32:51

4

determine whether or not the AT&T version

01:32:54

5

of the Galaxy S II has caused actual

01:32:58

6

dilution to Apple's brand or claimed trade

01:33:02

7

dresses?

01:33:06

8
9

MR. HUNG:

Objection; compound;

01:33:06

asked and answered.

01:33:09

10

A.

No.

01:33:10

11

Q.

Have you undertaken such

01:33:11

12

analysis with respect to the T-Mobile

01:33:13

13

version of the Galaxy S II?

01:33:17

14
15

MR. HUNG:

To be clear, the same

context?

16

MR. ZELLER:

17

MR. HUNG:

01:33:21
01:33:22

Correct.
Same objections.

01:33:24
01:33:25

18

A.

No.

01:33:26

19

Q.

Or the Galaxy S II Epic 4G

01:33:26

20

Touch?

21

01:33:31
MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:33:31

22

A.

No.

01:33:32

23

Q.

Or the Galaxy S II Skyrocket?

01:33:33

MR. HUNG:

01:33:36

24
25

A.

Same objections.

No.

01:33:37
Page 408

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

Q.

01:33:37

MR. HUNG:

2

Or the Droid Charge?

01:33:39

Same objections.

3

A.

No.

01:33:40

4

Q.

Or the Galaxy Prevail?

01:33:40

MR. HUNG:

01:33:43

5

Same objections.

6

A.

No.

01:33:44

7

Q.

Or the Galaxy S 4G?

01:33:44

MR. HUNG:

01:33:47

8

Same objections.

9

A.

No.

01:33:48

10

Q.

Or the Galaxy Showcase?

01:33:49

MR. HUNG:

01:33:51

11

Same objections.

12

A.

No.

01:33:53

13

Q.

Or any particular Samsung

01:33:53

14

smartphone?

15
16

01:33:58

MR. HUNG:
A.

Same objections.

By "particular" you mean

17

combination of model and carrier?

18

01:34:01

answer's no.

19

Q.

01:33:59

The

01:34:03
01:34:05

Did you undertake any analysis

01:34:11

20

to determine whether or not Samsung's

01:34:17

21

sales of any of the Galaxy Tab devices has

01:34:21

22

ever caused actual dilution to Apple's

01:34:28

23

brand or claimed trade dresses?

01:34:31

24
25

MR. HUNG:

Same contextual

clarification?

01:34:35
01:34:36
Page 409

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. ZELLER:

2

MR. HUNG:

Right.
Do you mean at any

01:34:37
01:34:38

3

time or in connection with this

01:34:39

4

declaration?

01:34:40

5
6
7
8
9

MR. ZELLER:

Well, I think it's

all the way up until today.
BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

So, yeah, the same context we're

MR. HUNG:

01:34:43
01:34:45

talking about.

10

01:34:41

01:34:45
01:34:47

Also, it's outside

01:34:49

11

the scope.

01:34:50

12

A.

01:34:51

And is it also a combination of

13

carrier, AT&T and Tab, T-Mobile, or for

01:34:53

14

the 3G devices; is that -- is that also

01:34:57

15

part of this question?

01:34:58

16
17

Q.

I'm talking about particular

models of any Galaxy Tab device.

18

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:34:59
01:35:01
01:35:05

19

A.

No.

01:35:06

20

Q.

Directing your attention to

01:35:32

21

paragraph 7 of your declaration --

22
23

01:35:34

(The witness complies.)
Q.

01:35:35

-- you say that "Apple's

01:35:36

24

distinctive iPhone designs significantly

01:35:40

25

contribute to Apple's brand identity and

01:35:43
Page 410

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

lacks foundation.

01:41:18

2

A.

I don't recall.

01:41:19

3

Q.

Do you recall any of them doing

01:41:23

4

that?

5
6
7
8
9

01:41:26
MR. HUNG:

A.

Same objections.

I don't recall if they did or if

they didn't.
Q.

01:41:27
01:41:28
01:41:30

Did any of those professional

01:41:32

opinions that you're relying upon

01:41:35

10

undertake any consumer research to

01:41:37

11

determine the reasons why consumers

01:41:43

12

purchased any Samsung device?

01:41:44

13

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

01:41:47

14

A.

I don't recall that either.

01:41:49

15

Q.

Do consumers purchase iPhones

01:41:51

16

for the same reasons as Samsung devices or

01:41:56

17

for different reasons?

01:42:00

18

MR. HUNG:

Objection; compound,

01:42:02

19

foundation.

01:42:05

20

A.

01:42:06

I think there are a variety of

21

reasons that consumers purchase iPhones --

01:42:08

22

I'm sorry, smartphones.

01:42:10

23

functional reasons and there are aesthetic

01:42:13

24

and emotional reasons.

01:42:16

25

particularly the functional reasons may be

There are

Some of them,

01:42:19
Page 416

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

similar between Samsung brand and Apple

01:42:22

2

brand phones.

01:42:25

3

Q.

Please tell me, what are the

01:42:25

4

functional reasons why consumers purchase

01:42:27

5

smartphones?

01:42:30

6

MR. HUNG:

Objection, outside

01:42:31

7

the scope, lacks foundation.

01:42:33

8

A.

01:42:35

9

Well, I think they use them for

the reasons we -- we buy these devices.

01:42:37

10

People want to make phone calls, they want

01:42:40

11

to browse the web, they want to use apps,

01:42:42

12

they want to look at stock prices.

01:42:46

13

kinds of things that people commonly

01:42:50

14

purchase these items for.

01:42:52

The

15

Q.

Any other functional reasons?

01:42:54

16

A.

Well, I'm sure there are a lot

01:42:57

17

more functional reasons.

18

that that was the complete list.

19
20

Q.

I didn't imply

Please tell me the other

reasons, the other functional reasons.

21

MR. HUNG:

Objection, outside

01:42:59
01:43:01
01:43:03
01:43:05
01:43:07

22

the scope, lacks foundation.

01:43:09

23

A.

Listen to music, for example.

01:43:11

Again, I can't enumerate the

01:43:16

24
25

whole list, and that list would vary by

01:43:18
Page 417

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

individual to individual.
Q.

01:43:21

Please tell me the ones that you

01:43:24

3

understand and believe are the most

01:43:26

4

important, in addition to the ones you've

01:43:28

5

already mentioned.

01:43:29

6

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:43:32

7

lacks foundation, outside the scope.

01:43:33

8

A.

01:43:35

9

I don't know which are the most

important, as I said before.

What I think

01:43:36

10

are the most important would be perhaps

01:43:39

11

different from what you think are the most

01:43:41

12

important.

01:43:42

13

Q.

You understand we're not here

14

about what I think, right?

15

find out about your opinions.

16

I'm trying to

So please tell me, in addition

01:43:46
01:43:49
01:43:51
01:43:53

17

to what you've mentioned, are there any

01:43:55

18

other functional reasons that you're aware

01:43:57

19

of as to why consumers purchase

01:43:59

20

smartphones?

01:44:01

21

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:44:02

22

the scope, lacks foundation.

01:44:03

23

A.

01:44:06

24
25

There aren't any that I'm going

to state right now.
Q.

That -- I'm sorry -- what?

01:44:09
01:44:13
Page 418

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

As I indicated before, there is

01:45:25

2

some Apple research that shows that the

01:45:27

3

appearance of the device was among the top

01:45:29

4

reasons that people chose iPhones.

01:45:31

5

I don't know and I didn't have

01:45:35

6

access to research on the Samsung

01:45:36

7

products.

01:45:39

8

reasons would be for purchasing those.

9

Q.

So I don't know what the

With respect to Samsung

01:45:40
01:45:44

10

products, you don't have an opinion and

01:45:47

11

you are not offering one as to whether or

01:45:50

12

not consumers believe how the phone works

01:45:53

13

is more important than how it looks for

01:45:56

14

purposes of their purchasing; is that

01:45:58

15

correct?

01:46:00

16

A.

That's correct.

01:46:01

17

Q.

Directing your attention to

01:46:08

18

paragraph 10 of your declaration --

19
20
21

01:46:09

(The witness complies.)

01:46:11

-- you mention something here

01:46:13

which is a phrase "eroded brand image."

01:46:15

Q.

22

Do you see that?

01:46:19

23

A.

Yes, I do.

01:46:20

24

Q.

You'll agree with me that there

01:46:21

25

are many factors that can go into the

01:46:22
Page 420

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

erosion of a brand image such as Apple's,

01:46:28

2

right?

01:46:30

3

A.

I would say that in general

01:46:31

4

there are a number of factors that can

01:46:33

5

cause any brand's image to be eroded.

01:46:35

6
7

Q.

Did you read about the riots at

one of the Foxconn plants?

8

MR. HUNG:

01:46:43
01:46:46

Objection.

01:46:49

9

A.

Yes.

Yes.

01:46:52

10

Q.

Are you aware that that plant

01:46:52

11

was closed down, at least according to

01:46:54

12

those reports?

01:46:56

13
14

MR. HUNG:
A.

Same objections.

I read about the riots.

I was

01:46:57
01:46:58

15

unaware -- or I am unaware that the plant

01:47:01

16

was closed down.

01:47:04

17

Q.

Did the riots hurt or erode

01:47:05

18

Apple's brand image, as you use the term

01:47:10

19

here?

01:47:13

20

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:47:14

21

the scope, lacks foundation.

01:47:15

22

A.

I haven't seen any research,

01:47:16

23

before and after, to indicate what the

01:47:18

24

effect on Apple's brand image has been

01:47:18

25

from the rioting.

01:47:21
Page 421

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

Q.

I take it that's not something

you've analyzed?

01:47:21
01:47:23

3

A.

That's correct.

01:47:24

4

Q.

Did you read the recent stories

01:47:25

5

about Apple's tax avoidance plans?

6

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:47:34
01:47:38

7

misleading.

01:47:39

8

Q.

And strategies?

01:47:41

MR. HUNG:

01:47:42

9

Objection; assumes

10

facts.

01:47:43

11

A.

No, I'm unfamiliar with that.

01:47:43

12

Q.

You've never read any publicity

01:47:45

13

surrounding Apple's payment, or call it

01:47:49

14

non-payment, of taxes?

01:47:52

15

MR. HUNG:

16

A.

17

story.

18

Q.

Same objections.

No, I'm not familiar with that

01:47:53
01:47:55
01:47:59

Did you do any analysis to

01:47:59

19

determine whether or not that publicity

01:48:01

20

caused any erosion or harm to Apple's

01:48:04

21

brand image?

01:48:06

22

MR. HUNG:

Objection; assumes

01:48:07

23

facts, incomplete hypothetical.

01:48:09

24

A.

01:48:10

25

Well, as I said before, I'm not

familiar with the story, so clearly it

01:48:12
Page 422

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

would imply that I haven't done any

01:48:14

2

research looking at its impact on Apple's

01:48:17

3

brand.

01:48:21

4

Q.

Are you aware of the criticism

01:48:25

5

for Apple's recent Maps function in the

01:48:27

6

iPhone 5?

01:48:32

7

A.

Yes, I am.

01:48:34

8

Q.

Do you believe that that hurts

01:48:35

9

Apple's brand image?

10

MR. HUNG:

01:48:38
Objection; outside

01:48:39

11

the scope.

01:48:41

12

A.

01:48:42

Same response as I gave before.

13

I haven't done an analysis or seen an

01:48:45

14

analysis of Apple's brand equity before

01:48:47

15

and after the problem with the Maps.

01:48:49

16
17

Q.

that subject?

18
19

You don't have any opinion on

MR. HUNG:
A.

01:48:59
01:49:01

Same objection.

As I said, I don't have any --

01:49:03
01:49:04

20

any research nor have I read anything

01:49:07

21

indicating that Apple's brand has been

01:49:09

22

eroded due to the problem with the Maps.

01:49:13

23

Q.

Did you read any of the press

01:49:16

24

reports and other media reports

01:49:19

25

criticizing Apple for lack of innovation

01:49:22
Page 423

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

in connection with the iPhone 5?

2

MR. HUNG:

3

facts.

4

A.

Objection; assumes

5
6
7

9

Yes, I've seen some of those

Did those reports hurt Apple's

01:49:32
01:49:34

MR. HUNG:
Q.

01:49:29
01:49:31

brand --

8

01:49:27
01:49:29

reports.
Q.

01:49:24

Objection --

01:49:36
01:49:37

MR. HUNG:

10

-- or erode it?

01:49:40

Objection; outside

11

the scope, compound.

01:49:41

12

A.

01:49:42

I have not seen any research,

13

before and after the reports, indicating

01:49:44

14

that Apple's brand has been affected one

01:49:45

15

way or the other.

01:49:47

16
17

Q.

Do you have any opinion or

knowledge on that?

18

MR. HUNG:

01:49:49
01:49:51

Same objections.

01:49:53

19

A.

No, I don't.

01:49:54

20

Q.

You're aware that there was a

01:50:00

21

lot of publicity surrounding Apple's

01:50:03

22

litigation in this case, right?

01:50:07

23
24
25

A.

Not just Apple's litigation.

Samsung's litigation as well.
Q.

Well, are you offering an

01:50:08
01:50:10
01:50:12
Page 424

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

opinion about Samsung's litigation in this

01:50:14

2

case?

01:50:16

3

A.

No, I'm not.

01:50:16

4

Q.

Well, then let's focus on your

01:50:17

5

opinions, sir.

6

Could you answer my

question?

01:50:20
01:50:22

7

A.

Could you restate it?

01:50:22

8

Q.

Was there some reason you didn't

01:50:24

9

answer my question before?

10

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:50:25
01:50:26

11

argumentative.

01:50:27

12

A.

I'd just like to hear it again.

01:50:28

13

Q.

It's not a matter of you hearing

01:50:30

14

it again.

15

you understand, are you here as an expert

01:50:35

16

or you want to be an advocate?

01:50:36

17

Why is it that you put it --

MR. HUNG:

Objection;

01:50:32

01:50:38

18

argumentative.

01:50:40

19

A.

I'm here as an expert.

01:50:40

20

Q.

My question is:

01:50:43

You're aware that there has been

01:50:45

21
22

publicity surrounding Apple's litigation

01:50:48

23

in this exact case, correct?

01:50:51

24
25

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

answered, outside the scope.

01:50:52
01:50:54
Page 425

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

Yes.

01:50:55

2

Q.

You're aware that there has been

01:50:55

3

negative publicity surrounding Apple's

01:50:58

4

litigation in this case, correct?

01:51:02

5

A.

No.

01:51:04

6

Q.

You've never seen that?

01:51:04

MR. HUNG:

01:51:05

7
8

facts.

9

A.

Objection; assumes

10
11

01:51:07
Can you be more precise what you

mean by "negative publicity"?
Q.

Have you seen any articles, or

01:51:07
01:51:09
01:51:12

12

any press accounts, or any comments,

01:51:15

13

public comments, criticizing Apple's

01:51:18

14

litigation in this case?

01:51:21

15

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:51:22

16

the scope, assumes facts.

01:51:27

17

A.

01:51:29

18
19

I may have seen some, but I

don't recall specific articles.
Q.

01:51:31

Did any of the publicity, the

01:51:33

20

negative publicity, surrounding Apple's

01:51:36

21

litigation in this case harm or erode

01:51:39

22

Apple's brand?

01:51:42

23

MR. HUNG:

Objection; assumes

01:51:46

24

facts, outside the scope.

01:51:48

25

A.

01:51:49

I don't have any evidence nor

Page 426
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

have I read any articles showing that

01:51:54

2

there's been a change in Apple's brand

01:51:56

3

equity before versus after.

01:52:01

4

Q.

01:52:03

MR. HUNG:

5

Do you know?

01:52:04

Same objections.

6

A.

No, I don't.

01:52:05

7

Q.

Did you read any of the

01:52:07

8

publicity surrounding Apple's violation of

01:52:08

9

the court's order in the United Kingdom in

01:52:10

the past 10 days?

01:52:14

10
11

A.

I'm unaware of that.

01:52:16

12

Q.

It was a national news story.

01:52:17

13

You didn't see it?

14

MR. HUNG:

01:52:20
Objection; asked and

01:52:21

15

answered.

01:52:22

16

A.

As I said, I'm unaware of it.

01:52:22

17

Q.

What, if anything, have you done

01:52:26

18

to try and determine whether or not

01:52:28

19

factors apart from Samsung have caused

01:52:32

20

erosion or damage to Apple's brand?

01:52:35

21

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

01:52:37

22

the scope.

01:52:39

23

A.

I haven't done any analysis.

01:52:40

24

Q.

And I take it you can't tell me

01:52:53

25

whether or not any or all of the other

01:52:55
Page 427

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

factors that can have an effect on Apple's

01:53:02

2

brand and cause erosion or damage to

01:53:06

3

Apple's brand are more important or less

01:53:10

4

important than Samsung's conduct, right?

01:53:14

5

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

01:53:19

6

compound, incomplete hypothetical.

01:53:21

7

A.

01:53:24

I haven't done any analysis so I

8

can't say that I know whether those

01:53:27

9

factors were more or less important than

01:53:30

Samsung's impact.

01:53:33

10
11
12
13
14
15

Q.

Is that the kind of analysis

that you could do?
A.

01:53:37

It's too late now, but it could

be done.
Q.

01:53:35

01:53:40
01:53:42

And I take it you can't give any

01:53:53

16

kind of quantification or tell us the

01:53:56

17

extent to which, in particular terms,

01:54:04

18

Samsung's activities have eroded or

01:54:09

19

damaged Apple's brand?

01:54:13

20
21

MR. HUNG:
Q.

22

Objection, vague --

Right?
MR. HUNG:

01:54:15
01:54:19

Objection; vague and

01:54:20

23

compound.

01:54:22

24

A.

Correct.

01:54:22

25

Q.

Directing your attention to

01:54:40
Page 428

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

paragraph 10 of your declaration.

01:54:42

2

(The witness complies.)

01:54:44

And this starts on page 2,

01:54:46

3

Q.

4

numbered 2 of your declaration, which is

01:54:53

5

Exhibit 1678, and right there at the

01:54:55

6

bottom of the page it starts:

"Reduced

01:54:58

7

brand awareness and lower brand loyalty

01:55:02

8

increases a company's marketing costs

01:55:04

9

and/or decreases a company's sales."

01:55:06

10

Do you see that?

01:55:09

11

A.

Yes, I do.

01:55:10

12

Q.

Have you undertaken any effort

01:55:11

13

to measure the degree to which Apple's

01:55:13

14

marketing costs have been increased as a

01:55:19

15

result of Samsung's activities?

01:55:21

16

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague as

01:55:26

17

to "Samsung's activities."

01:55:28

18

A.

No, I have not.

01:55:30

19

Q.

Have you undertaken any effort

01:55:32

20

to measure the degree to which Apple's

01:55:34

21

marketing costs have increased as a result

01:55:37

22

of Samsung's sales of any of its

01:55:39

23

smartphones?

01:55:43

24

A.

No, I have not.

01:55:45

25

Q.

Or any of its tablet computer

01:55:47
Page 429

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

devices?
A.

3

01:55:49
No.

01:55:52

MR. HUNG:

Mike, whenever you

01:55:59

4

get to a breaking point, I want to

01:56:01

5

give him one break, at least.

01:56:03

6

MR. ZELLER:

Let's take one now.

7

THE VIDEO OPERATOR:

8

approximately 1:55 p.m.

9

The time is
This is the

end of Media Number 1.

01:56:06
01:56:09
01:56:10
01:56:12

10

We're off the record.

01:56:14

11

(A recess was taken.)

01:56:19

12

THE VIDEO OPERATOR:

Stand by.

02:07:50

13

The time is approximately 2:07

02:07:51

14

p.m.

15
16
17
18

02:07:57
This is the beginning of Media

Number 2.

We're on the record.

BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

02:07:57
02:08:00
02:08:00

Directing your attention to

02:08:03

19

Exhibit 1678, which is your declaration,

02:08:04

20

specifically paragraph 7 --

02:08:09

21
22

(The witness complies.)
Q.

02:08:12

-- and on page numbered 2 there

02:08:13

23

on the corner of that -- of your

02:08:20

24

declaration it says:

02:08:25

25

known for its unique smartphone designs."

"Indeed, Apple is

02:08:28
Page 430

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

You understand that there's a

02:16:30

2

particular description of the iPhone 3G

02:16:36

3

trade dress that's been given in this case

02:16:38

4

by Apple and by you, right?

02:16:40

5

A.

Yes.

02:16:42

6

Q.

And that's a rectangular product

02:16:43

7

with four evenly rounded corners and so

02:16:46

8

on, correct?

02:16:48

9

A.

Correct.

02:16:49

10

Q.

It does not encompass all of the

02:16:49

11

external appearance of the iPhone,

02:16:52

12

correct?

02:16:55

13

A.

That's correct.

02:16:55

14

Q.

It's only elements of the iPhone

02:16:56

15
16
17
18

appearance, correct?
A.

It's -- it's a majority, but

it's not all the elements.
Q.

Was there any kind of study done

02:16:58
02:16:59
02:17:02
02:17:04

19

that you're relying upon that showed the

02:17:09

20

reasons why consumers purchased any iPhone

02:17:12

21

devices was because of any of the elements

02:17:16

22

that are claimed as the iPhone 3G trade

02:17:21

23

dress either individually or taken

02:17:23

24

together?

02:17:25

25

A.

I don't recall.

02:17:27
Page 437

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1
2

Q.

Are you aware of any kind of

study --

3

02:17:38
MR. ZELLER:

4

Q.

I'm sorry, strike

that.

5

02:17:35

02:17:41
02:17:42

Was there any kind of study that

02:17:43

6

you're relying upon that showed the reason

02:17:44

7

why consumers purchased any iPhone device

02:17:47

8

was because of the ornamental appearance

02:17:52

9

that was shown in the '677 design patent?

02:17:57

10
11

MR. HUNG:
lacks foundation.

12
13

Objection; vague,

02:18:05
02:18:08

Go ahead.
A.

02:18:09

The only question that I saw, as

02:18:09

14

I said, related to "design and

02:18:12

15

appearance."

02:18:17

16
17

It did not get into specific
elements of the trade dress.

02:18:17
02:18:19

18

Q.

Or the design patents?

02:18:22

19

A.

Or of the design patents.

02:18:24

20

Q.

Do you have any data or

02:18:29

21

empirical evidence showing that consumers

02:18:37

22

purchased any iPhone device because of the

02:18:42

23

appearance of what's shown in the '677

02:18:48

24

design patent?

02:18:51

25

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

02:18:56
Page 438

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

answered, lacks foundation.

02:18:57

2

A.

02:18:58

To the extent that the design

3

patent -- you know -- indicates what the

02:19:01

4

look and feel of the phone is, then that

02:19:06

5

is represented in the market research

02:19:10

6

question, "design and appearance."

02:19:12

7

As I said before, it does not --

02:19:15

8

the questions that I saw did not enumerate

02:19:17

9

or ask specifically about rounded corners,

02:19:20

10

colorful matrix of icons, et cetera, that

02:19:24

11

are part of the trade dress.

02:19:30

12
13

Q.

I want to make sure we're on the

same page here.

Step back for a moment?

02:19:31
02:19:33

14

A.

Okay.

02:19:35

15

Q.

You understand and agree that

02:19:35

16

the '677 design patent does not show the

02:19:38

17

entirety of the external appearance of an

02:19:41

18

electronic device but only part of it,

02:19:45

19

right?

02:19:48

20

A.

Yes.

02:19:48

21

Q.

So my question is:

02:19:51

Do you have any data or evidence

02:19:52

22
23

that shows that consumers purchased any

02:19:56

24

iPhone devices because of the feature that

02:20:00

25

is shown in the '677 design patent?

02:20:04
Page 439

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

02:20:07

2

answered.

02:20:08

3

A.

No.

02:20:08

4

Q.

Or of -- as the --

02:20:10

MR. ZELLER:

02:20:15

5
6
7
8

Sorry, strike that.

Start over.

02:20:17

BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

02:20:17

Do you have any data or evidence

02:20:17

9

that show consumers purchased any iPhone

02:20:19

10

devices because of the features shown in

02:20:22

11

the '087 design patent?

02:20:24

12

MR. HUNG:

Objection; lacks

02:20:28

13

foundation, vague, asked and answered.

02:20:29

14

A.

02:20:31

I don't recall what that patent

15

was, so I can't answer that.

If you could

16

show it to me I can give you an answer.

02:20:33
02:20:35

17

(Joint Trial Exhibit 1041

02:20:35

18

previously marked for identification,

02:21:11

19

copy of U.S. Patent D593,087, Issue

02:21:20

20

Date May 26, 2009.)

02:20:49

21

MR. ZELLER:

We've previously

02:20:49

22

marked it.

02:20:50

23

Q.

I'm showing you what was marked

02:21:03

24

as Joint Trial Exhibit Number 1041, which

02:21:06

25

is a copy of the United States Design

02:21:11
Page 440

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

Or the hardware appearance.

02:35:39

2

Q.

Right.

02:35:40

3

A.

Correct.

02:35:41

4

Q.

So my question is, is do you

02:35:42

5

have any empirical data or any hard

02:35:46

6

evidence showing that consumers have

02:35:49

7

purchased any iPhone devices because of

02:35:52

8

specifically the design intellectual

02:35:59

9

property that Apple has asserted in this

02:36:02

10

case, as opposed to the overall appearance

02:36:05

11

of the hardware and the software

02:36:07

12

altogether?

02:36:09

13

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague as

02:36:10

14

to "design intellectual property,"

02:36:13

15

asked and answered, compound.

02:36:17

16

A.

02:36:18

I have not conducted such a

17

study nor did I see one in the materials

02:36:20

18

that I've reviewed.

02:36:22

19

other experts for Apple who may have done

02:36:25

20

such a study.

02:36:29

21

Q.

There may have been

Your opinion that's reflected

02:36:32

22

here in the declaration is based on the

02:36:34

23

overall appearance of the iPhone devices

02:36:37

24

taken all together, including the hardware

02:36:41

25

and the software, all together; is that

02:36:44
Page 453

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

right?

2

A.

02:36:48
That's correct.

I've

02:36:49

3

consistently maintained that it's the sum

02:36:50

4

of the parts that create the overall

02:36:53

5

appearance and design of the iPhone that

02:36:55

6

makes it attractive to consumers.

02:36:58

7

Q.

And you have not offered

02:37:00

8

opinions specifically that separate out

02:37:04

9

that overall appearance and design of the

02:37:08

10

iPhone as distinguished from the subsets

02:37:10

11

of the appearance that are reflected in

02:37:15

12

the design patents and the trade dresses?

02:37:21

13

MR. HUNG:

Objection to the

02:37:23

14

extent it misstates, compound.

02:37:24

15

A.

I'll state again that my focus

02:37:27

16

has always been on the Gestalt; that sum

02:37:30

17

of all the hardware and software and trade

02:37:34

18

dress elements and how that impacts the

02:37:36

19

Apple brand.

02:37:38

20

Q.

And that's been the extent of

02:37:39

21

your opinion, as opposed to parsing it out

02:37:41

22

further, specifically as to the claim

02:37:45

23

trade dresses or the claim design patents?

02:37:48

24
25

MR. HUNG:
A.

Same objection.

Yes.

02:37:52
02:37:54
Page 454

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

(Discussion off the record.)

02:38:19

2

MR. ZELLER:

02:38:33

3

here indefinitely.

4

THE WITNESS:

Then we can stay

5

8
9
10

I'll double my

rates.

6
7

02:38:35

02:38:38
MR. ZELLER:

And, for the

record, we're joking.

02:38:39
02:38:40

BY MR. ZELLER:
Q.

02:38:36

02:38:41

Directing your attention to

Exhibit 1678, your declaration --

02:38:41
02:38:46

11

A.

Yes.

02:38:49

12

Q.

-- you have a sentence in

02:38:49

13

paragraph 10 that says:

"Reduced brand

02:38:54

14

awareness and lower brand loyalty

02:38:58

15

increases a company's marketing costs

02:38:59

16

and/or decreases a company's sales."

02:39:02

17

I apologize, I know I've asked

02:39:06

18

you at least a few questions about this,

02:39:09

19

and I had some more, but if I duplicate

02:39:12

20

any of them I apologize in advance.

02:39:14

21

But just to be clear, you didn't

02:39:16

22

do any specific research to determine

02:39:18

23

whether or not Apple's marketing costs

02:39:20

24

have been increased as a result of any

02:39:21

25

conduct by Samsung; is that right?

02:39:25
Page 455

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

02:39:27

2

asked and answered.

02:39:29

3

A.

No, I did not.

02:39:31

4

Q.

Did you do anything to determine

02:39:33

5

whether or not any of Samsung's conduct

02:39:36

6

had caused a decrease in Apple's sales?

02:39:42

7

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

02:39:45

8

answered.

02:39:46

9

A.

No, I did not.

02:39:48

10

Q.

The next sentence says:

"Lower

02:39:52

11

brand loyalty also leads to fewer

02:39:55

12

recommendations by consumers and negative

02:39:58

13

word of mouth."

02:40:00

14

Do you see that?

02:40:01

15

A.

Yes, I do.

02:40:02

16

Q.

Did you do anything to determine

02:40:03

17

whether or not this had in fact happened

02:40:05

18

to Apple as a result of anything Samsung

02:40:10

19

did?

02:40:13

20

A.

No.

21

Q.

The next sentence says:

02:40:15
"An

02:40:18

22

eroded brand image also means that the

02:40:21

23

brand no longer commands the same brand

02:40:23

24

image premium."

02:40:26

25

Do you see that?

02:40:27
Page 456

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

Yes, I do.

02:40:28

2

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

02:40:29

3

analysis to determine whether or not this

02:40:30

4

had actually happened to Apple as a result

02:40:32

5

of any conduct by Samsung?

02:40:35

6

A.

It's very difficult to do these

02:40:38

7

analyses, because you don't know what

02:40:40

8

would have happened had Samsung not

02:40:42

9

infringed on the trade dress and created

02:40:45

this brand dilution.

02:40:50

10
11
12
13

But the strict answer is that,
no.

02:40:52
02:40:54

Q.

Well, you say it's difficult.

02:40:58

14

But it is certainly possible to determine

02:41:00

15

whether or not a brand no longer commands

02:41:03

16

the same brand image premium, right?

02:41:06

17

MR. HUNG:

Objection; incomplete

02:41:09

18

hypothetical, calls for speculation.

02:41:11

19

A.

02:41:12

Well, one thing you could do is

20

take a look at the difference in prices

02:41:14

21

between, say, an equivalent Samsung tablet

02:41:16

22

or an equivalent Samsung phone and see if

02:41:20

23

that price has narrowed or decreased over

02:41:24

24

time.

02:41:26

25

There are multiple explanations

02:41:27
Page 457

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

for that beyond just an erosion of the

02:41:29

2

brand equity, but you could make an

02:41:32

3

empirical observation like that.

02:41:34

4
5

Q.

And that's exactly the kind of

question I'm asking here.

6

02:41:36
02:41:39

Did you undertake any analysis

02:41:40

7

to determine whether or not Apple's brand

02:41:42

8

no longer commands the same brand image

02:41:45

9

premium as a consequence of anything

02:41:47

Samsung did?

02:41:50

10
11

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

02:41:51

12

answered.

02:41:52

13

A.

No, I didn't.

02:41:57

MR. HUNG:

02:41:58

14

Go ahead.

15

A.

No.

02:41:58

16

Q.

The next sentence of paragraph

02:41:59

17

10 of your declaration says:

18

brand image may also affect the firm's

02:42:02

19

ability to invest in new products and

02:42:09

20

engage in product expansions."

02:42:09

21

"An eroded

02:42:00

Do you see that?

02:42:10

22

A.

Yes.

02:42:11

23

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

02:42:11

24

analysis to determine whether or not

02:42:12

25

anything Samsung did affected Apple's

02:42:15
Page 458

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

ability to invest in new products?

02:42:18

2

A.

No.

02:42:21

3

Q.

Or engage in product expansions?

02:42:22

4

A.

No.

02:42:25

5

Q.

The next sentence says, in

02:42:31

6

paragraph 10 of your declaration:

"It is

02:42:34

7

noteworthy that an eroded brand image not

02:42:36

8

only impacts the current sales of the

02:42:39

9

diluted and infringed products and other

02:42:42

10

branded products (including, but not

02:42:45

11

limited to or ancillary products), but may

02:42:48

12

also result in potential future lost sales

02:42:50

13

of products."

02:42:53

14

Do you see that language?

02:42:54

15

A.

Yes, I do.

02:42:55

16

Q.

Did you undertake any analysis

02:42:56

17

to determine whether or not anything

02:42:58

18

Samsung did had impacted the current sales

02:43:01

19

of Apple's products?

02:43:06

20

A.

No.

02:43:11

21

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

02:43:12

22

analysis to determine whether or not

02:43:14

23

anything Samsung did had impact on the

02:43:17

24

current sales of Apple's related or

02:43:20

25

ancillary products?

02:43:27
Page 459

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

No.

02:43:30

2

Q.

Did you do anything to determine

02:43:31

3

or analyze whether or not Samsung's

02:43:33

4

conduct has resulted in potential future

02:43:37

5

lost sales of products to Apple?

02:43:43

6

A.

Well, if you take a look at that

02:43:47

7

sentence -- that phrase, it's almost, by

02:43:49

8

definition, impossible to do that, right?

02:43:52

9

Because it's in the future.

02:43:54

10

I think that my point here is

02:43:55

11

that one of the impacts of brand damage is

02:43:57

12

that it could cost -- cause decreased

02:44:03

13

sales in the future.

02:44:06

14

measure that clearly because we're in the

02:44:10

15

present.

02:44:11

16

Q.

There's no way to

I'm trying to find out about

02:44:13

17

whether or not you did something specific

02:44:19

18

as it related to Apple and Samsung in

02:44:21

19

connection with this statement.

02:44:23

20

So let me try again.

02:44:25

21

Did you do anything to try and

02:44:26

22

determine whether or not anything Samsung

02:44:29

23

did has or is likely to result in

02:44:32

24

potential future lost sales of products to

02:44:36

25

Apple?

02:44:39
Page 460
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Objection; asked and

02:44:40

2

answered.

02:44:41

3

A.

No.

02:44:43

4

Q.

Directing your attention to

02:44:49

5

paragraph 11, starting on line 11, you

02:44:51

6

have a statement here:

02:44:58

7

consistent Apple user experience is very

02:45:00

8

important to Apple."

02:45:03

9

"In general, a

Do you see that?

02:45:04

10

A.

Yes, I do.

02:45:06

11

Q.

And then the next sentence

02:45:06

12

says:

13

an important part of its success in the

02:45:12

14

marketplace and sets Apple apart from

02:45:14

15

other companies."

02:45:17

16

"That consistent user experience is

02:45:08

Do you see that?

02:45:18

17

A.

Mm-hmm -- yes.

02:45:19

18

Q.

Did you do anything to try and

02:45:20

19

quantify or determine the extent to which

02:45:22

20

a consistent Apple user experience was

02:45:24

21

responsible for Apple product sales?

02:45:32

22

MR. HUNG:

Objection; compound.

02:45:38

23

A.

No.

02:45:41

24

Q.

You say it's an "important part

02:45:47

25

of its success."

02:45:49
Page 461

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

And that is consistent across

02:47:28

2

Apple TV, MacBook, iPods, iPads, iPhone,

02:47:31

3

the whole set and the whole range of Apple

02:47:38

4

products.

02:47:40

5

Q.

Can you tell me what the

02:47:50

6

features are that make up a consistent

02:47:52

7

Apple user experience?

02:47:54

8
9

A.

Well, I think since the products

02:47:56

are very different -- I mean, it's very

02:47:57

10

hard to compare an iPhone, you know,

02:47:59

11

feature to feature, to a MacBook.

02:48:02

12

think that, as I said before, the user

02:48:04

13

experience has to be thought of as sort of

02:48:07

14

a higher level kind of phenomenon than

02:48:09

15

kind of the actual usage of the product,

02:48:12

16

and that's why I said the higher level

02:48:14

17

aspects relate to ease of use, I mentioned

02:48:17

18

connectivity, ease of using wireless, you

02:48:21

19

know, a whole range of things that Apple

02:48:24

20

has become known for.

02:48:27

21

So I

I don't think you can do it

02:48:28

22

feature by feature across disparate

02:48:30

23

products.

02:48:34

24
25

Q.

What are the features of the

02:48:37

first iPhone that made up a consistent

02:48:40
Page 463

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

products, leads me to believe that that's

02:51:25

2

an important aspect of the consumer

02:51:27

3

decision process.

02:51:30

4

Q.

And is this "consistent Apple

02:51:38

5

user experience" that you're referring to

02:51:41

6

the totality of all of these various

02:51:44

7

products, combination of hardware and

02:51:47

8

software and how all of that works

02:51:51

9

together?

02:51:54

10

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

02:51:55

11

compound.

02:51:57

12

A.

02:51:58

13

I would say that that's the

case.

02:51:59

14

Q.

I'm sorry, you would say?

02:52:02

15

A.

I would say, yes.

02:52:06

16

Q.

At any time have you undertaken

02:52:28

17

any kind of analysis to determine whether

02:52:30

18

or not Apple's brand has actually eroded

02:52:35

19

or been diminished by any cause?

02:52:39

20

A.

No, I have not.

02:52:43

21

Q.

At any time have you undertaken

02:52:46

22

any kind of analysis to determine whether

02:52:49

23

or not any of Apple's claimed trade

02:52:51

24

dresses or the design shown in the design

02:52:53

25

patents have actually been eroded or

02:52:59
Page 466

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

damaged or diluted by any cause?

2

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague as

02:53:02
02:53:09

3

to time, compound.

02:53:10

4

Q.

At any time.

02:53:12

5

MR. HUNG:

02:53:14

6

MR. ZELLER:

7
8
9

A.

At any time?
Mm-hmm.

I have not done such an

analysis.
Q.

02:53:16
02:53:17
02:53:19

Have you seen any studies by

02:53:28

10

Apple or anyone else that you believe show

02:53:32

11

that Apple has actually had its brand or

02:53:38

12

its trade dress or the design shown in the

02:53:45

13

design patents actually eroded or actually

02:53:48

14

harmed in any way by any cause?

02:53:52

15

A.

I'm drawing on my 35 years of

02:53:56

16

marketing expertise to make these

02:53:59

17

assessments and based on other cases that

02:54:01

18

I've seen in the marketplace that damage

02:54:03

19

to brands can occur and they can have

02:54:05

20

long-term effects.

02:54:08

21

analyzed this case.

22

experience I know that it can happen.

23

Q.

I've not specifically
But based on my

And I'm trying to find out

24

something more specific.

Because I

25

certainly understand the opinions in your

02:54:11
02:54:14
02:54:16
02:54:18
02:54:20
Page 467

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

declaration.

2

something more specific about it.

3
4
5

A.

Now I'm trying to find out

I think I answered that, though,

in there, too.
Q.
record.

7

it this way.

8
9

02:54:24
02:54:28
02:54:30

Let's make sure I have a clear

6

02:54:22

I'd appreciate that.

Let me try

02:54:31
02:54:33
02:54:35

Have you seen any studies by

02:54:39

Apple or anyone else that you believe show

02:54:52

10

that Apple has actually had its brand or

02:54:55

11

its trade dresses or the designs that are

02:54:59

12

shown in the design patents actually

02:55:04

13

eroded or actually harmed by any cause?

02:55:07

14

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

02:55:11

15

compound.

02:55:12

16

A.

No.

02:55:14

17

Q.

Directing your attention to

02:55:35

18

paragraph 9 of your declaration, which is

02:55:36

19

Exhibit 1678 --

02:55:41

20
21

(The witness complies.)
Q.

02:55:43

-- and here you refer to:

02:55:46

22

"...Apple's 'coolness' factor that is

02:55:50

23

inherent in the look and feel of the

02:55:54

24

iPhone."

02:55:55

25

Do you see that?

02:55:56
Page 468

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

So -- and I don't know if it's

02:57:03

2

50/50, if you're going to push me to

02:57:05

3

75/25, I have no idea.

02:57:09

4

But this coolness and emotional

02:57:10

5

attachment people have, some of that is to

02:57:12

6

the Apple brand, some of that is to

02:57:14

7

individual products.

02:57:16

8
9

Q.

Did you undertake any kind of

02:57:19

analysis to determine whether or not

02:57:22

10

anything that Samsung has done has

02:57:26

11

actually caused any consumers or potential

02:57:29

12

consumers of Apple products to feel less

02:57:34

13

of an emotional attachment to Apple's

02:57:38

14

brand image?

02:57:41

15

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

02:57:42

16

compound.

02:57:44

17

A.

No.

02:57:45

18

Q.

And I take it that that's not

02:57:54

something you've attempted to quantify?

02:57:56

19
20

A.

No.

02:57:59

21

Q.

That's a correct statement?

02:58:00

22

A.

I have not attempted to quantify

02:58:03

23
24
25

that.
Q.
please.

02:58:05
If we can go back to 1679,
That's the UBS study.

02:58:22
02:58:28
Page 470

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

feature?

2

03:37:02
MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

03:37:03

3

the scope, lacks foundation.

03:37:05

4

A.

03:37:07

5
6

No, I haven't seen any such

research.
Q.

03:37:09
Have you undertaken any kind of

03:37:11

7

analysis or do you have any kind of hard

03:37:14

8

data concerning whether or not consumers

03:37:18

9

in their purchasing decisions have

03:37:22

10

considered the appearance of the iPhones

03:37:24

11

to be more important than the zooming

03:37:28

12

features of the iPhones?

03:37:35

13

MR. HUNG:

Objection; vague,

03:37:37

14

outside the scope, lacks foundation.

03:37:39

15

A.

No.

03:37:41

16

Q.

Do you have any reason to think

03:37:45

17

that consumers purchase Apple devices

03:37:47

18

because of the ability to have one finger

03:37:50

19

scrolling?

03:37:57

20

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

03:37:59

21

the scope, lacks foundation.

03:38:01

22

A.

No.

03:38:04

23

Q.

Do you have any reason to think

03:38:05

24

that consumers purchase Apple devices

03:38:07

25

because of the bounce-back feature?

03:38:10
Page 497

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

03:38:14

2

the scope, lacks foundation, calls for

03:38:16

3

speculation.

03:38:18

4

A.

No.

03:38:19

5

Q.

Or pinch to zoom?

03:38:20

MR. HUNG:

03:38:25

6

Same objections.

7

A.

No.

03:38:26

8

Q.

Or the ability to have a

03:38:26

9

two-finger gesture for zooming?

10

MR. HUNG:

Same objections.

03:38:30
03:38:33

11

A.

No.

03:38:34

12

Q.

Or having a double-tap gesture?

03:38:34

MR. HUNG:

03:38:42

13

Same objections.

14

A.

No.

03:38:43

15

Q.

Does Google Voice drive demand

03:38:47

16

for any Samsung phones?

17

MR. HUNG:

Objection; outside

03:38:50
03:38:53

18

the scope, lacks foundation, calls for

03:38:54

19

speculation.

03:38:56

20

A.

I have no idea.

03:38:57

21

Q.

Is it true that the Siri feature

03:39:05

22

is an important driver for consumer demand

03:39:12

23

for Apple iPhone devices?

03:39:17

24
25

MR. HUNG:

Objection; lacks

foundation, outside the scope.

03:39:23
03:39:26
Page 498

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

A.

I don't know.

03:39:28

2

Q.

I take it that you didn't take

03:39:31

3

into account, in rendering your opinions

03:39:32

4

in this case, statements that Apple had

03:39:35

5

made about the importance of Siri being an

03:39:39

6

important driver of consumer demand for

03:39:46

7

iPhones; is that correct?

03:39:52

8
9

MR. HUNG:

Objection; assumes

03:39:53

facts, lacks foundation, outside the

03:39:54

10

scope.

03:39:57

11

A.

That's correct.

03:40:00

12

Q.

I take it Apple never told you

03:40:03

13

that -- well, let me step back.

14

You're aware that there's more

03:40:05
03:40:08

15

than one lawsuit between Apple and

03:40:10

16

Samsung, right?

03:40:13

17

A.

Yes.

03:40:13

18

Q.

You're aware that there was

03:40:14

19

another case that Apple brought against

03:40:16

20

Samsung that also asserted additional

03:40:18

21

patents in the Northern District of

03:40:21

22

California?

03:40:22

23

A.

I know that there's another

03:40:24

24

patent case outside of the one that I've

03:40:25

25

been involved with.

03:40:28
Page 499

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

questions to follow up.

04:00:45

2

FURTHER EXAMINATION

04:00:45

3

BY MR. ZELLER:

04:00:45

4

Q.

You don't discuss the Galaxy Tab

04:00:47

5

10.1 at all in your declaration that's

04:00:50

6

been submitted in connection with the

04:00:53

7

permanent injunction?

04:00:55

8

MR. HUNG:

Asked and answered.

04:00:58

9

A.

Yes.

04:00:58

10

Q.

As far as you understood it

04:00:59

11

you're not offering any opinions in this

04:01:01

12

case as it relates to Apple's request for

04:01:02

13

a permanent injunction as it pertains to

04:01:06

14

the Galaxy Tab 10.1?

04:01:09

15

A.

That's correct.

04:01:12

16

Q.

Or, for that matter, any other

04:01:13

17
18

version of any Galaxy Tab?
A.

04:01:16

Correct.

04:01:20

19

MR. ZELLER:

That's all I have.

20

THE WITNESS:

21

THE VIDEO OPERATOR:

Okay.

04:01:26
04:01:27

The time is

22

approximately 4:01 p.m.

23

concludes this Media Number 3 as well

04:01:32

24

as today's deposition.

04:01:39

25

This

04:01:29

We're off the record.

04:01:30

04:01:39
Page 516

Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

CERTIFICATION

2
3

I, AMY KLEIN CAMPION, a Notary Public

4

for and within the State of New York, do

5

hereby certify:

6

That the witness whose testimony as

7

herein set forth, was duly sworn by me;

8

and that the within transcript is a true

9

record of the testimony given by said

10

witness.

11

I further certify that I am not

12

related to any of the parties to this

13

action by blood or marriage, and that I am

14

in no way interested in the outcome of

15

this matter.

16

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto

17

set my hand this 6th day of November,

18

2012.

19
20
21
22

_______________________

23

AMY KLEIN CAMPION

24
25
Page 519
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

I N D E X

2
3

WITNESS

EXAMINATION BY

4

R.S. WINER

MR. ZELLER

5

MR. HUNG

PAGE
357, 516
511

6
7
8
9
10

DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
NUMBER

FOR ID.

11
12

Exhibit 1678 marked for

13

identification, Declaration of

14

Russell S. Winer in Support of

15

Apple's Motion For Permanent

16

357

Injunction.

17
18

Exhibit 1679 marked for

19

identification, UBS Investment

20

Research report bearing Bates

21

numbers APLITC7960000058721

22

368

through 736.

23
24
25
Page 520
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

1

Joint Trial Exhibit 1041

2

previously marked for

3

identification, copy of U.S.

4

Patent D593,087, Issue Date May

5

440

26, 2009.

6

Joint Trial Exhibit 1042

7

previously marked for

8

identification, copy of U.S.

9

445

Patent D604,305, Issue Date

10
11

November 17, 2009.
Exhibit 1677 previously marked

12

for identification, Declaration

13

of Philip W. Schiller In Support

14

Of Apple's Motion For A

15

501

Permanent Injunction.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 521
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127