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

Filing 223

DECLARATION of Jason R. Bartlett in Support of Opposition to #205 MOTION to Compel Request for Production No. 1 and Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, and 6 (Public Redacted Version) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J)(Related document(s) #205 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/12/2011) Modified text on 9/13/2011 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit G The Mysterious Case of the ‘iPad 2′ Cases - China Real Time Report - WSJ Page 1 of 2 DECEMBER 31, 2010, 7:17 PM HKT The Mysterious Case of the ‘iPad 2′ Cases Protective cases purportedly made for a new version of the iPad, posted for sale on Chinese e-commerce site, have fueled some of the latest speculation about the rumored sequel to Apple’s red-hot tablet computer. In fact, they drew enough attention that someone with pull appears to have objected to the listings. Apple has yet to publicly disclose any plans for an iPad 2. But gadget bloggers in the last week seized on pictures from, a trading platform for smaller businesses in and outside China, as evidence of the new features that a second-generation iPad might have. In particular, they said the cases proved that the iPad 2 will include a camera on its back surface, since circular holes were depicted on the backs of the mostly silicon cases in the Alibaba listings. The cases were priced at a few dollars or lower and available in colors including bright pink and green. But someone—it’s unclear who—doesn’t seem to appreciate all the attention: was asked to remove the listings. “We do not know whether these products are what they say they are, but we have received a legitimate takedown request and are removing the listings,” Alibaba Group spokesman John Spelich said Wednesday. Screenshot of a listing on offering protective cases purportedly for an Apple iPad 2. Mr. Spelich declined to comment on the source of the request, and Apple did not reply to a request for comment. Several listings for iPad 2 cases had been removed by Friday, but at least two were still accessible as of Friday afternoon in Beijing. Mr. Spelich said the company is in the process of removing all the listings. It’s unclear what the specific objection was to the listings on Alibaba, and who the overzealous merchants that posted them are. The companies listed southern China phone numbers in their profiles, suggesting they’re based there. A man who answered the phone at one of the companies, called Fullchance Industrial Co., claimed that it works with Hon Hai Precision Industry and said Fullchance possesses firsthand material regarding the features of a new iPad, making the design of their case “extremely accurate.” The man declined to give his name or to elaborate, saying the matter was “very serious.” Hon Hai, which assembles Apple’s iPhone and iPad, among other gadgets, is the world’s largest electronics contract manufacturer by revenue. The Taiwan-based company, whose main factories are in southern China, is known for carefully guarding its customers’ trade secrets. A spokesman for Hon Hai said he saw no connection between Hon Hai and the listings on A second Hon Hai spokesman called remarks such as those made by the man from Fullchance “hostile.” Asked how they knew the design details of the iPad 2, other merchants selling the cases on Alibaba declined to comment, or simply hung up immediately. 9/7/2011 The Mysterious Case of the ‘iPad 2′ Cases - China Real Time Report - WSJ Page 2 of 2 –Owen Fletcher Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit 9/7/2011

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?