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

Filing 427

Declaration of Cooper C. Woodring in Support of #86 Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Apple Inc.. (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 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42-1, #43 Exhibit 42-2, #44 Exhibit 42-3, #45 Exhibit 43, #46 Exhibit 44-1, #47 Exhibit 44-2, #48 Exhibit 44-3, #49 Exhibit 44-4, #50 Exhibit 45, #51 Exhibit 46, #52 Exhibit 47, #53 Exhibit 48, #54 Exhibit 49, #55 Exhibit 50, #56 Exhibit 51, #57 Exhibit 52, #58 Exhibit 53, #59 Exhibit 54, #60 Exhibit 55, #61 Exhibit 56, #62 Exhibit 57, #63 Exhibit 58, #64 Exhibit 59, #65 Exhibit 60, #66 Exhibit 61, #67 Exhibit 62, #68 Exhibit 63, #69 Exhibit 64, #70 Exhibit 65, #71 Exhibit 66, #72 Exhibit 67, #73 Exhibit 68, #74 Exhibit 69, #75 Exhibit 70, #76 Exhibit 71, #77 Exhibit 72)(Related document(s) #424 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 11/28/2011) Modified text on 11/29/2011 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
WOODRING EXHIBIT 41 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 1 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA --o0o-APPLE INC., a California corporation, 5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 7 8 9 10 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, 11 12 Defendants. _____________________________/ 13 14 15 16 17 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF COOPER WOODRING Redwood Shores, California Friday, August 5, 2011 (HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY PORTIONS BOUND SEPARATELY) 18 19 Reported By: CAROL S. NYGARD, CSR No. 4018 Registered Merit Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 82 1 and in -- in a category like cell phones it's -- just a 2 terribly influential factor. 3 4 Q. bring to your opinions in this case; right? 5 6 MR. MONACH: Object to the form of the question. 7 8 And that's an assumption that -- that you THE WITNESS: You can characterize it as "an assumption" if you want. 9 I think it's based on decades of experience 10 working in the retail environment for a company like 11 J.C. Penney, where we did a lot of studies of how and 12 why people buy what they do based on the appearance of 13 products and importance of design. 14 BY MR. ZELLER: 15 Q. In other words, that's a viewpoint that you've 16 developed over the years based upon your work in the 17 field, and that's something that's the kind of 18 information and view that you bring to this case when 19 you offer your opinion; right? 20 A. I would agree with that. 21 Q. Did you ever ask Apple for any of their 22 internal research as to why consumers purchase iPhones? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Is there a reason why you didn't ask? 25 A. I thought it was self-evident why. TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 224 1 question. 2 Let me try and rephrase it. 3 Let's first focus on the 087 design patent. 4 And I understand you testified that there's 5 certain things about the 67 design patent or the design 6 there that you can't -- you can't necessarily tell, but 7 even assuming that those are different, I want you to 8 assume that those are still differences. 9 In terms of the overall design that's depicted 10 here in Exhibit 67 in your view is it substantially the 11 same as the 087 design in the eyes and from the 12 perspective of the ordinary observer or -- or purchaser? 13 MR. MONACH: 14 Hang on a second. 15 Vague and ambiguous. Vague and -- Improper request for 16 opinion based on incomplete hypothetical, lacking 17 foundation, and calling for speculation in light of what 18 you told him and in light of the witness' prior 19 testimony. 20 THE WITNESS: So my answer would have to be 21 it's impossible to make that determination because 22 you're asking me to ignore the fact that the 087 is 23 claiming a flat surface with an inset rectangular 24 display screen and things like that, and I've already 25 testified I can't tell those things about this Exhibit TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 225 1 67, so how can I possibly arrive at a conclusion that 2 the ordinary observer would think the designs are 3 substantially the same? 4 5 I simply can't ignore claimed elements of the 087 to -- to -- 6 What you're doing is you're eliminating from 7 the 087 the differences between it and the Exhibit 67 8 and then asking me, well, isn't what's left over the 9 same? 10 11 Well, sure what's left over is the same, but what's left over is not what's claimed. 12 13 MR. ZELLER: You're, again, not following my question. 14 THE WITNESS: 15 MR. MONACH: 16 Counsel, please don't argue with the witness. 17 I mean, you said you had a couple more 18 19 20 I'm trying. Counsel -- follow-up questions. MR. ZELLER: I'm trying to understand his answer, and he's not -- 21 I think he's not answering my question. 22 MR. MONACH: 23 24 25 The answer is quite clear, even though you don't like it. MR. ZELLER: It has nothing to do with like. It has everything to do with the fact he's not answering TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 227 1 insufficient evidence. 2 3 Calling for speculation given the lack of foundation. 4 5 THE WITNESS: more time. 6 7 8 9 Repeat the question just one I just want to get it clear, and I -BY MR. ZELLER: Q. I've been trying to find out if you think that the design that's in Exhibit 67 is substantially the 10 same in the eyes of the ordinary observer and purchaser 11 to the 677 design patent; right? 12 MR. MONACH: Objection. 13 MR. ZELLER: You're following along so far? 14 MR. MONACH: Objection. 15 You're asking that question -- it's been asked 16 and answered multiple times. 17 18 19 Asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I understood what you said. BY MR. ZELLER: Q. So my question is, that -- and you've 20 testified so far that you're not certain as to whether 21 or not the 67 -- the Exhibit 67 design has a -- is flat, 22 clear, black-colored, and whether the rectangular 23 display screen is inset; right? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Is it true that if those four elements are not TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 228 1 present in the design that we marked as Exhibit 67, it 2 would no longer be substantially the same as the 677 3 design patent to the ordinary observer? 4 5 6 MR. MONACH: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. BY MR. ZELLER: Q. Or would it still be substantially the same? 7 MR. MONACH: 8 Incomplete hypothetical. 9 10 Misstates prior substantially the same. Calling for improper opinion testimony without adequate factual basis being provided. 13 14 Vague and ambiguous. testimony to the extent you said it would still be 11 12 Objection. THE WITNESS: May I repeat your question in my answer to be sure that I have it straight? 15 MR. ZELLER: 16 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. You're asking me if Exhibit 17 67 -- if the design depicted in Exhibit 67 would be 18 substantially the same as the 677 design if it were not 19 flat, not clear, not black-colored, and did not have an 20 inset rectangular display screen? 21 Q. 22 23 24 25 Right. In other words, it still has a rectangular display screen, but just not inset. A. And the answer is I don't know, and the reason for the answer is, if it weren't flat, but it were -TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580 Contains Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only Portions Page 305 1 I, CAROL S. NYGARD, a Certified Shorthand 2 Reporter of the State of California, duly authorized to 3 administer oaths, do hereby certify: 4 That the foregoing proceedings were taken 5 before me at the time and place herein set forth; that 6 any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to 7 testifying, were duly sworn; that a record of the 8 proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand which 9 was thereafter transcribed under my direction; that the 10 foregoing transcript is a true record of the testimony 11 given. 12 Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the 13 original transcript of a deposition in a Federal Case, 14 before completion of the proceedings review of the 15 transcript was not requested. 16 I further certify I am neither financially 17 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of 18 any attorney or party to this action. 19 20 21 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my name: Dated: August 6th, 2011 22 23 _______________________________ 24 CAROL S. NYGARD, CSR #4018 25 TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580

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?