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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 7 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 10 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 11 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 14 INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 19 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 20 21 vs. 22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG 24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 25 Defendant. 26 CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE (NO. 1) AND TWO (NOS. 10-14) 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Samsung 2 Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications 3 America, LLC, (“Samsung”) submit the following objections to Plaintiff Apple Inc’s (“Apple’s”) 4 Interrogatories to Defendants Relating to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 5 Samsung expressly incorporates the following General Objections as though set forth fully 6 in response to each of the following individual interrogatories and, to the extent that they are not 7 raised in any particular response, Samsung does not waive those objections. 8 9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following general objections apply to each and every interrogatory propounded by 10 Plaintiff, and are incorporated into each of the following responses by reference as if set forth fully 11 therein: 12 1. Samsung objects to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” contained in Apple’s 13 Second Set of Interrogatories to the extent they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure. 15 2. Samsung objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 16 “Defendants” as overly broad to the extent it requires Samsung to pursue information from 17 individuals no longer employed by Samsung whose data is not currently in the possession of 18 Samsung. Samsung further objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 19 “Defendants” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous to the extent it does not define “affiliates,” 20 and also to the extent that it requires Samsung to potentially seek information from thousands of 21 people. Samsung will respond to interrogatories based on a reasonable inquiry of individuals 22 expected to possess the requested information. 23 3. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad and 24 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, insofar 25 as it seeks information about these products “as released anywhere in the world.” 26 4. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Hardware Design” as overly broad, 27 vague, and ambiguous insofar as it includes “all hardware, insignia or ornamentation thereon.” 28 5. Samsung objects to these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous to the extent Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 they include terms that are undefined. Samsung in its responses will identify any terms it believes 2 are vague and ambiguous and will assume a reasonable meaning for each such term. 3 6. Samsung objects generally to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit 4 information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product 5 doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable 6 privilege or immunity. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be deemed a 7 waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable 8 privilege or immunity recognized by statute or case law. Samsung will exchange with Apple a 9 log of withheld documents at a time agreed to by counsel for the parties. Samsung objects 10 generally to the logging of privileged documents that were created on or after the date of filing of 11 the original Complaint (on April 15, 2011). Samsung will not log privileged documents that were 12 created on or after April 15, 2011. 13 7. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek 14 information from outside a reasonable time period or from a point other than a reasonable time, or 15 seek information about products outside the United States. 16 8. Samsung objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek to compel 17 Samsung to generate or create information and/or documents that do not already exist. 18 9. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they prematurely 19 call for contentions, identification of prior art, or identification of witnesses at this stage of the 20 litigation. 21 10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative or cumulative 22 of another interrogatory. 23 11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is compound and comprises 24 discrete subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 25 12. Samsung expressly reserves the right to respond to any or all of the interrogatories 26 by specifying documents wherein the responsive information may be ascertained pursuant to Rule 27 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 13. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 confidential proprietary or trade secret information of third parties. Samsung will endeavor to 2 work with third parties to obtain their consent, if necessary, before identifying or producing such 3 information and/or documents. 4 14. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories on the grounds that they are 5 overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 6 discovery of admissible evidence. 7 15. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the ground that they are overly broad, 8 unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent they purport to require Samsung to search its 9 facilities and inquire of their employees other than those facilities and employees that would 10 reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Samsung’s responses are based upon (1) 11 a reasonable search and investigation of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to 12 contain responsive information, and (2) inquiries of Samsung’s employees and/or representatives 13 who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information. 14 16. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds that they seek information 15 already in the possession of Apple, publicly available, or as readily available to Apple as it is to 16 Samsung. 17 17. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that they 18 seek legal conclusions or call for expert testimony. Samsung’s responses should not be construed 19 to provide legal conclusions. 20 18. Samsung further objects to interrogatories Nos. 10-14 as improperly delayed. 21 Apple has known about the Court’s discovery schedule relating to Apple’s motion for a 22 preliminary injunction since July 18, 2011. While Apple had the opportunity to serve these 23 interrogatories at an earlier time, it waited until the last possible date under the Court’s Order to 24 serve these discovery requests, along with over 60 additional document requests. These 25 interrogatories seek information that Apple could have requested at a much earlier date. None of 26 these interrogatories are dependent on any arguments raised in Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s 27 preliminary injunction. Therefore, Samsung objects to Apple’s bad faith in delaying service of 28 these requests. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, Samsung objects as 2 follows: 3 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 5 For each of the Products at Issue, describe any analysis, review, consideration, or copying 6 of, or comparison against, any Apple product or product feature in designing or developing, or 7 implementing a feature on, the Product at Issue, and identify all documents and things relating to 8 your response, and any persons with knowledge regarding your response. 9 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 10 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 11 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and 12 protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense 13 privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 14 Samsung further objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to 15 the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the Interrogatory as 16 overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited to the features of the Products at Issue that Apple has 17 alleged of infringement in its preliminary injunction motion. Samsung further objects to the 18 Interrogatory as oppressive and harassing inasmuch as it implies Samsung engaged in copying and 19 other such activity. 20 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 21 Describe the circumstances surrounding the development and/or design of the Hardware 22 Design of the Products at Issue, including dates of conception of the design of the Hardware 23 Design, the persons who were involved, and the tools or software used to create or model the 24 design of the Hardware Design. 25 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 26 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 27 Samsung objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with regard to 28 the terms “Hardware Design.” Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -5SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney 2 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other 3 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad in 4 that it is not reasonably limited to the features of the Products at Issue that Apple has alleged of 5 infringement in its preliminary injunction motion. Samsung further objects to this discovery 6 because Apple has delayed serving this interrogatory, despite Apple’s earlier knowledge of the 7 issues raised in the interrogatory and despite the fact that Apple has known about the Court’s 8 Order governing discovery relating to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction since July 18, 9 2011. 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 11 Describe the circumstances surrounding the development and/or design of features in the 12 Products at Issue relating to: (1) the functionality that allows for a list to be scrolled beyond its 13 terminus or a document to be translated beyond its edge until the list or document is partially 14 displayed and (2) functionality that allows for a list that is scrolled beyond its terminus to scroll 15 back or bounce back into place or for a document that is translated beyond its edge to translate 16 back or bounce back so that the list or document returns to fill the screen, including dates of 17 conception of the design of the functionalities and the persons who were involved. 18 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: 19 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 20 Samsung objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with regard to 21 the terms “scrolled beyond its terminus” or “translated beyond its edge.” Samsung further objects 22 to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 23 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 24 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further 25 objects to this discovery because Apple has delayed serving this interrogatory, despite Apple’s 26 earlier knowledge of the issues raised in the interrogatory and despite the fact that Apple has 27 known about the Court’s Order governing discovery relating to Apple’s motion for a preliminary 28 injunction since July 18, 2011. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -6SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 2 Identify the date(s) on which Samsung first became aware of each of the Patents in Suit, 3 the persons at Samsung who first became aware of the aforementioned patents, and the 4 circumstances surrounding those individuals’ awareness of the aforementioned patents. 5 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 6 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 7 Samsung objects to this interrogatory, to the extent that it is neither relevant nor reasonably 8 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to Apple’s motion for a 9 preliminary injunction. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to 10 elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work11 product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other 12 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to this discovery because Apple has 13 delayed serving this interrogatory, despite Apple’s earlier knowledge of the issues raised in the 14 interrogatory and despite the fact that Apple has known about the Court’s Order governing 15 discovery relating to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction since July 18, 2011. 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 17 Identify and describe any surveys, focus groups, or market research relating to actual or 18 prospective smartphone or tablet computer customers. 19 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 20 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 21 Samsung objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, and 22 overbroad to the extent that it seeks information beyond the Products at Issue in the United States, 23 that are the subject of Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Samsung objects to this 24 interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 25 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 26 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further 27 objects to this discovery because Apple has delayed serving this interrogatory, despite Apple’s 28 earlier knowledge of the issues raised in the interrogatory and despite the fact that Apple has Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -7SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 known about the Court’s Order governing discovery relating to Apple’s motion for a preliminary 2 injunction since July 18, 2011. 3 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 4 Describe any instances of consumer confusion in which Samsung was made aware that a 5 person confused an Apple product for a Product at Issue, or a Product at Issue for an Apple 6 product. 7 OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: 8 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 9 Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and 10 protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense 11 privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 12 Samsung further objects to the Interrogatory as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited to the 13 features of the Products at Issue that Apple has alleged of infringement in its preliminary 14 injunction motion. Samsung further objects to this discovery because Apple has delayed serving 15 this interrogatory, despite Apple’s earlier knowledge of the issues raised in the interrogatory and 16 despite the fact that Apple has known about the Court’s Order governing discovery relating to 17 Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction since July 18, 2011. 18 19 DATED: August 31, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 20 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By /s/ Victoria Maroulis Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -8SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 31, 2011, I caused SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO 3 APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION 4 FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO to be electronically served 5 on the following via email: 6 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC. 7 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY hmcelhinny@mofo.com 8 MICHAEL A. JACOBS mjacobs@mofo.com 9 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR jtaylor@mofo.com 10 ALISON M. TUCHER atucher@mofo.com 11 RICHARD S.J. HUNG rhung@mofo.com 12 JASON R. BARTLETT jasonbartlett@mofo.com 13 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 14 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 15 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 16 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com 17 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 18 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 19 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 20 MARK D. SELWYN 21 mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 22 AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road 23 Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 24 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 25 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in 26 Redwood Shores, California on August 31, 2011. 27 __/s/ Melissa N. Chan 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -9SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - SETS ONE AND TWO

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?