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

Filing 310

Declaration of Grant L. Kim in Support of Apple's Objections to Samsung's Untimely New Evidence, filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Notice of Manual Filing Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Notice of Manual Filing Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Notice of Manual Filing Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 10/17/2011) Modified on 10/18/2011. Cannot link entry. Ojections have not been efiled. NOTICES OF MANUAL FILING ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER NO. 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522

7
8
9

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF GRANT L.
KIM IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
UNTIMELY NEW EVIDENCE

1

I, Grant Kim, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record in

3

this action for Plaintiff Apple Inc. I submit this declaration in support of Apple’s Objections to

4

Samsung’s Untimely New Evidence. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of

5

the matters set forth below. If called as a witness I could and would testify competently as

6

follows.

7

2.

On the afternoon of October 14, 2011, I attended a meet-and-confer session with

8

Michael Jacobs and Victoria Maroulis, pursuant to the Court’s direction that the parties should

9

confer about any new evidence that either side proposed to submit. Before that session, Ms.

10

Maroulis provided us with a list of additional evidence that Samsung proposed to submit,

11

including deposition transcripts, documents, videos, and other materials. The list was long and

12

we did not have access to all of the materials at the time of the conference. Accordingly, we told

13

Ms. Maroulis that we would consider further after reviewing all of the materials, but that Apple

14

would likely object to the new alleged prior art that Samsung proposed to submit, which Samsung

15

had failed to submit to the Court by the August 22, 2011, deadline for Samsung’s Opposition to

16

Apple’s Preliminary Injunction Motion. As the same time, we stated that Apple may agree to

17

Samsung’s additional designations, provided that Apple was allowed to counter-designate

18

additional testimony from the same witnesses.

19

3.

In response to my follow-up requests, Samsung’s counsel provided us with copies

20

of videos and photos that they proposed to submit on the evening of October 14, as well as on

21

October 15 and 16, 2011. Samsung’s counsel also clarified the deposition exhibits that they

22

proposed to submit.

23

4.

At the end of the day on October 16, Samsung’s counsel provided a number of

24

photos of the mock-ups marked as Fidler Deposition Exhibits 267, 268, and 269. I replied a few

25

hours later by objecting to those photos as misleading or at best incomplete, as they were taken

26

from certain perspectives that did not reveal certain key features. We requested that Samsung

27

lodge the actual physical mock-ups with the Court. Samsung’s counsel declined to do so, stating

28

that the mock-ups were not located in their office.
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695

1

1

5.

On the morning of October 17, 2011, I informed Samsung’s counsel that Apple

2

would not object to Samsung’s designations of additional deposition testimony, provided that

3

Apple was allowed to counter-designate additional testimony from the same witnesses. I

4

provided Samsung’s counsel with a complete list of these counter-designations. I suggested that

5

the parties jointly submit the designated deposition testimony. I also confirmed that Apple was

6

objecting to Samsung’s new alleged prior art and certain other evidence, but was not objecting to

7

certain other new evidence.

8
9

6.

On the afternoon of October 17, Samsung’s counsel stated that it preferred to

submit deposition testimony excerpts separately. Samsung’s counsel also informed me that

10

Samsung objected to Apple’s counter-designations. In addition, Samsung stated that it sought to

11

submit images from alleged German prior art (Design No. 40301867), which it had not previously

12

identified.

13
14
15
16
17

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibits A to H are excerpts from various depositions. All of

these excerpts were counter-designated by Apple in response to Samsung’s recent designations.
8.

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Deposition of

Ravin Balakrishnan.
9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

18

Deposition of Justin Denison. These excerpts contain information that Samsung has designated

19

as confidential or highly confidential and should therefore be maintained under seal.

20
21
22
23
24

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

Deposition of Tracy Durkin.
11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

Deposition of Roger Fidler.
12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

25

Deposition of Chris Stringer. These excerpts contain information that Apple has designated as

26

confidential or highly confidential and should therefore be maintained under seal.

27
28

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

Deposition of Sissie Twiggs.
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695

2

1

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

2

Deposition of Michael Wagner. These excerpts contain information that Apple has designated as

3

confidential or highly confidential and should therefore be maintained under seal.

4
5
6

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

Deposition of Cooper Woodring.
16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of chart containing Apple’s

7

preliminary Rebuttal to Samsung’s Invalidity Chart for the alleged DiamondTouch prior art.

8

Apple is submitting this rebuttal chart on a contingent basis in the event that the Court decides to

9

consider Samsung’s DiamondTouch invalidity chart.

10
11
12
13

17.

Attached as Exhibit J hereto is a chart summarizing Samsung’s deposition

designations, and Apple’s counter-designations.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
Declaration was executed this 17th day of October, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

14
15

By:

16

/s/ Grant Kim
Grant Kim

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695

3

1
2

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, MICHAEL A. JACOBS, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to

3

file this Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Grant Kim

4

has concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: October 17, 2011

6

By:

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695

4