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

Filing 387

Declaration of Melissa Chan in Support of #258 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 10, #10 Exhibit 11, #11 Exhibit 12, #12 Exhibit 13, #13 Exhibit 14, #14 Exhibit 15, #15 Exhibit 16, #16 Exhibit 17, #17 Exhibit 18, #18 Exhibit 19, #19 Exhibit 20, #20 Exhibit 21, #21 Exhibit 22)(Related document(s) #258 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

EXHIBIT 14

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

September 15, 2011
VIA E-MAIL
Jason Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Jason:
I write to respond to your September 14, 2011 letter. We do not agree with your characterization
of our discussions and meet and confer conferences in various respects, but in the interests of
time, I write only to address the questions you pose in your letter.
Interrogatory No. 1
Samsung will serve its supplemental response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 1 as soon as possible,
but no later than Monday, September 19, 2011. Included in that response will be a description of
any analysis, review, consideration, or copying of, or comparison against, an iPhone or iPad or
iPod Touch product or product feature in designing or developing, or implementing a feature on,
Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, Droid Charge, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1, if such activities
occurred. In previous correspondence, I have already explained our objections and limitations to
our response regarding the accused functionalities and geographic scope. The supplemental
response will also identify persons with knowledge.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone]

FAX (213)

443-3100

NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone]

FAX (312)

705-7401

LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

Request for Production No. 1
Request for Production No. 1 covers “[d]ocuments relating to your analysis, review,
consideration, or copying of, or comparison against, any Apple product or product feature in
designing, developing, or implementing any feature of the Products at Issue, including (1) their
Exterior Design; (2) functionality that allows for an image, list, or webpage to be scrolled
beyond its edge until it is partially displayed; and (3) functionality that allows for an image, list,
or webpage that is scrolled beyond its edge to scroll back or bounce back into place so that it
returns to fill the screen.” Samsung has produced any responsive documents that might exist,
after a reasonable search. Samsung’s investigation is continuing, and to the extent we locate any
additional documents, Samsung will produce them.
As for your request for design and development documents, those don’t appear responsive to
Request for Production No. 1. However, to the extent you are asking about Request for
Production No. 158, Samsung has produced responsive documents that might exist, after a
reasonable search. Samsung’s investigation is continuing, and Samsung further intends to make
a supplemental production of documents on Friday, September 15, 2011.
As for your inquiry regarding the number of Korean documents, we have confirmed that there
has been no hold-back of Korean-language documents, and we have produced the relevant and
responsive documents that we have located, without regard to what language those documents
are written in.
With regard to your specific questions:
• We have addressed (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of your letter in the paragraphs above.
• Regarding (3), no relevant CAD design documents were withheld. Samsung is
continuing to investigate whether more responsive CAD design documents exist.
In response to your inquiry regarding the Galaxy S, we do not intend to withhold documents
relating to the Galaxy S. Samsung’s investigation is continuing, and we will ensure that any
additional, non-privileged, responsive and relevant documents will be produced.
For the four custodians, we have confirmed that documents have been pulled and searched for
Jin Soo Kim. Documents from or to Minhyouk Lee, Yunjung Lee and Hyoung Shin Park also
have been searched and pulled; we are still confirming the extent of that collection.
Request for Production No. 166
As we stated on the meet and confer call regarding the Lee Don-Joo documents, we are checking
with the client on this request.
Customer Surveys
I believe Rachel has emailed you separately about the customer surveys, and what information
we need in order to narrow that request; your response that customer surveys “are relevant to
2

irreparable harm, potential market share that Samsung has taken from Apple due to its copying,
and other issues” does not provide us with a practical way of identifying a reasonable subset of
documents that are relevant to irreparable harm, market share, or “other issues” related to the
preliminary injunction motion. That said, we are continuing our investigation and will
supplement our production if we can identify additional relevant, responsive documents.
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
As we stated on the call, our 30(b)(6) witness will be prepared to talk about the design and
development of the accused functionalities of the Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, Droid Charge, and the
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (as detailed and limited in our objections and my Sept. 8, 2011 letter). We also
stated that to the extent the witness refers to predecessor products, the witness will be prepared to
the best of his ability to testify on those issues, and will not be “cut off” unless it is clear that
Apple’s attorney intends to probe a broader universe of predecessor products.
I have already provided Diana Kruze with the name of the deponent and informed her that a
translator will not be necessary.
Finally, we have already stated our position in response to Apple’s letter to Judge Grewal on
September 12, 2011. Since this was not a topic of our meet and confer yesterday, and has
already been addressed in earlier correspondence, we see no need to reiterate our position.

Very truly yours,
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
/s/
Melissa N. Chan
Cc: Rachel Herrick Kassabian

3