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).

Download PDF
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

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?