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

Filing 235

DECLARATION of Cooper C. Woodring in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Exclude Ordinary Observer Opinions filed by Apple Inc.. (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/13/2011) Modified on 9/14/2011 cannot link entry-opposition not posted (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF COOPER C.
WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO
EXCLUDE ORDINARY
OBSERVER OPINIONS

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3044620

1

I, COOPER C. WOODRING, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an independent industrial designer and inventor. My background as an

3

industrial designer and my recent experience acting as an expert in design patent cases was

4

summarized in the Declaration of Cooper C. Woodring in Support of Apple’s Motion for a

5

Preliminary Injunction filed in this case.

6

2.

Since leaving my former position as the Manager of New Product Development

7

and Product Design at J.C. Penney, I have served as an expert witness in over 60 design patent

8

cases.

9

3.

Many of those cases settled prior to trial, but during that time my expert opinion

10

testimony has been admitted in at least 14 U.S. district court or ITC trials pertaining to design

11

patent infringement. I have also had my declarations considered in a number of summary

12

judgment motions, although I do not have complete or precise information about the number of

13

times my opinion testimony was considered in such proceedings.

14

4.

In the past five years, my testimony pertaining to design patent infringement has

15

been admitted at trial in the case of Nichia v. Seoul Semiconductor, No. 3:06-CV-162 (N.D. Cal.).

16

My testimony in that case related to the ordinary observer’s perception of patented designs and

17

accused products.

18

5.

Over 15 years ago, in the case of Arner v. Sharper Image Corp., I submitted a

19

declaration in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment that included an opinion

20

on whether the consumer would find the designs at issue substantially the same. In the context of

21

discussing likelihood of confusion for trade dress infringement, the court precluded that portion

22

of my opinion because it found that “an industrial design expert’s testimony regarding what an

23

‘ordinary purchaser’ would perceive is not helpful under Rule 702.” Arner v. Sharper Image

24

Corp., No. CV94-1713, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS21156, *27 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 1995). Nonetheless,

25

the court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion on the issue of likelihood of confusion

26

and all other issues. In the Arner case my declaration did not set forth my qualifications to opine

27

as to the perceptions of the ordinary observer, and the court did not conclude that I lacked the

28

expertise to offer an opinion on that issue.
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3044620

1