Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
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).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
DECLARATION OF COOPER C.
WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
I, COOPER C. WOODRING, declare as follows:
I am an independent industrial designer and inventor. My background as an
industrial designer and my recent experience acting as an expert in design patent cases was
summarized in the Declaration of Cooper C. Woodring in Support of Apple’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction filed in this case.
Since leaving my former position as the Manager of New Product Development
and Product Design at J.C. Penney, I have served as an expert witness in over 60 design patent
Many of those cases settled prior to trial, but during that time my expert opinion
testimony has been admitted in at least 14 U.S. district court or ITC trials pertaining to design
patent infringement. I have also had my declarations considered in a number of summary
judgment motions, although I do not have complete or precise information about the number of
times my opinion testimony was considered in such proceedings.
In the past five years, my testimony pertaining to design patent infringement has
been admitted at trial in the case of Nichia v. Seoul Semiconductor, No. 3:06-CV-162 (N.D. Cal.).
My testimony in that case related to the ordinary observer’s perception of patented designs and
Over 15 years ago, in the case of Arner v. Sharper Image Corp., I submitted a
declaration in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment that included an opinion
on whether the consumer would find the designs at issue substantially the same. In the context of
discussing likelihood of confusion for trade dress infringement, the court precluded that portion
of my opinion because it found that “an industrial design expert’s testimony regarding what an
‘ordinary purchaser’ would perceive is not helpful under Rule 702.” Arner v. Sharper Image
Corp., No. CV94-1713, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS21156, *27 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 1995). Nonetheless,
the court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion on the issue of likelihood of confusion
and all other issues. In the Arner case my declaration did not set forth my qualifications to opine
as to the perceptions of the ordinary observer, and the court did not conclude that I lacked the
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
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?