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

Filing 320

Declaration of Minn Chung in Support of #319 Apple's Motion to Compel Samsung to Produce Documents and Provide Responsive Answers to Propounded Discovery, filed by Apple Inc. (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 10/18/2011) Modified on 10/19/2011 linking entry to document #319 (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: [phone]

7
8
9

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

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21

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,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION TO
COMPEL SAMSUNG TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDE
RESPONSIVE ANSWERS TO
PROPOUNDED DISCOVERY
Date: October 25, 2011
Time: 10:00 am
Courtroom: 5, 4th Floor
Honorable Paul S. Grewal

Defendants.

22
23

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION

24
25
26
27
28
CHUNG DECL.IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3047116

1

I, MINN CHUNG, 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. (“Apple”). I submit this declaration in support of Apple’s

4

Motion to Compel Samsung to Produce Documents and Provide Responsive Answers to

5

Propounded Discovery. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the matters set

6

forth below. If called as a witness I could and would testify competently as follows:

7

2.

I am a native Korean speaker and proficient in written Korean language. I have a

8

Bachelor of Science degree in physics from M.I.T., and spent over 15 years developing

9

technology products, both hardware and software, before attending law school.

10
11

3.

Prior to and including September 12, 2011, Samsung made the following

productions of documents in response to Apple’s requests:

12

September 2, 2011: 21 documents, totaling 1,916 pages.

13

September 12, 2011: 2,955 documents, totaling 15,429 pages, one native video

14

file.

15

Thus, as of September 12, 2011, Samsung had produced 2,976 documents and 17,345 pages in

16

total in response to Apple’s requests.

17

4.

After September 12, 2011, Samsung produced the following documents:

18

September 13, 2011: 76 native CAD files, along with 76 pages of images

19

apparently rendered from those CAD files.

20

September 16, 2011: 1,967 documents, totaling 11,895 pages.

21

September 17, 2011: 773 documents, totaling 2,082 pages.

22
23

Thus, after September 12, 2011, Samsung produced 2,816 documents totaling 14,053 pages.
5.

Samsung’s production on September 2, 2011 was comprised of Apple’s patents,

24

the prosecution history of Apple’s patents, claim charts of Apple’s ’318 patent, Apple’s

25

Complaints from other cases, undertakings by Apple’s experts in various cases at the ITC, and

26

alleged prior art references to Apple’s patents.

27
28

6.

Samsung’s production on September 12, 2011 included 2,075 pages of Korean

documents out of 15,429 pages in total.
CHUNG DECL. IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

1
2
3

7.

Many of the September 12 documents were irrelevant images of furniture, cars,

and buildings.
8.

Nearly all of the design-related documents were tangential documents such as

4

manufacturing specifications for printing Samsung’s logo, or providing surface treatment on

5

Samsung’s phones after the design had been finalized. Similarly, there were overall product

6

specifications, mechanical specifications for placement of antenna, circuit boards, or batteries

7

within Samsung’s phones, and shock impact or acoustics designs for Samsung phones.

8

9.

Samsung’s production on September 12, 2011 included no document that reflects

9

the process of making design decisions regarding the accused Samsung products. Nor was there

10

any document in Samsung’s production describing the design history of the accused products. In

11

fact, almost no document appeared to have been authored by Samsung designers during the

12

development of the accused products. The only exception was a document authored by the

13

“Design Group” of Samsung regarding the packaging of Samsung products.

14

10.

While a handful of documents relating to products under development were

15

included in the production, they were overall product specifications that are only tangentially

16

relevant to the look and aesthetics design of the accused Samsung products.

17
18
19

11.

In addition, Samsung’s production included no document relating to the analysis

of Apple’s designs by Samsung designers.
12.

There were a total of 35 Korean emails in Samsung’s production of September 12,

20

2011, only 5 of which were from Samsung’s designers identified in Samsung’s Initial

21

Disclosures. None of these emails discussed design considerations for Samsung’s accused

22

products (with one possible exception that discussed the placement of Galaxy S logo on

23

Samsung’s phones). The emails were about sales and marketing and other items unrelated to the

24

determination of the initial design of the products.

25

13.

Starting on the evening of September 16, 2011 and continuing on September 17,

26

Samsung produced approximately 1,200 emails in Korean. Nearly all of these emails were

27

unrelated to design of Samsung products. There were approximately a dozen emails that related

28
CHUNG DECL. IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1

to the placement of Samsung’s logo or other markings on Samsung products. However, none

2

related to deciding the design parameters for the accused products.

3

14.

Another a dozen or so emails concerned making Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1

4

much slimmer to match the iPad 2 design following the launch of Apple’s new product.

5

However, these were all emails from Samsung’s marketing or product development people, not

6

designers.

7

15.

In fact, there were no emails among the approximately 1,200 emails from the

8

following designers identified in Samsung’s Initial Disclosures as having information regarding

9

the design of Samsung products: Minhyouk Lee, Yunjung Lee, Jin Soo Kim, and Hyoung Shin

10
11

Park.
16.

Furthermore, while there were a few emails from Lee Don-Joo, an executive of

12

Samsung’s marketing department, emphasizing the need to redesign Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1

13

following the launch of Apple’s iPad 2, there were no documents from Samsung designers

14

relating to the executive’s directives.

15

17.

Similar to the previous productions, Samsung’s productions after September 12,

16

2011, lacked design documents that contain discussions of design decisions by Samsung’s

17

designers during the development of process that led to the final designs of Samsung products.

18

To the extent that design documents exist in Samsung’s productions, they are about the design of

19

the finished product itself, not about the development of the designs or the aesthetic

20

considerations contemplated or discussed by Samsung designers during the development of

21

Samsung products. In fact, no documents among the over 10,000 Korean language materials

22

produced by Samsung appear to relate to the design history of the accused products.

23
24
25

18.

Furthermore, Samsung’s productions continue to lack documents relating to

analysis of Apple designs by Samsung designers.
19.

Also similar to the previous productions, Samsung’s post-September-12

26

productions included a large number of nonresponsive documents such as manufacturing

27

specifications for printing Samsung’s logo or providing surface treatment on Samsung’s phones,

28

overall product specifications, mechanical or structural specifications for placement of antenna,
CHUNG DECL. IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

3

1

circuit boards, or batteries within Samsung’s phones, and shock impact or acoustics designs for

2

Samsung phones.

3

20.

4
5

Samsung’s productions after September 12 continued to include a large number of

irrelevant documents such as images of furniture, lightings, and art gallery.
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that

6

the forgoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed this 20th day of September,

7

2011, at San Francisco, California.

8
9

By: /s/ Minn Chung________________
Minn Chung

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CHUNG DECL. IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

4

1
2
3

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, JASON R. BARTLETT, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to

4

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

5

has concurred in this filing.

6

Dated: September 20, 2011

7

By: /s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CHUNG DECL. IN SUPT. OF MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

5