Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
441
OBJECTIONS to Samsung's Untimely New Evidence Regarding Preliminary Injunction Motion by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Grant Kim Declaration (Public Redacted Version), #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E (Redacted), #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G (Redacted), #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/30/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
7
8
9
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
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,
Case No.
11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF GRANT L.
KIM IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
UNTIMELY NEW EVIDENCE
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
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
25
EXHIBITS E and G REDACTED
26
27
28
DECL. OF GRANT KIM ISO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3059695
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
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?