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

Filing 462

Declaration of DEOK KEUN Matthew Ahn IN SUPPORT OF #461 APPLES OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF PURSUANT TO PATENT L.R. 4-5 filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B Part 1, #3 Exhibit B Part 2, #4 Exhibit C Part 1, #5 Exhibit C Part 2, #6 Exhibit D Part 1, #7 Exhibit D Part 2, #8 Exhibit D Part 3, #9 Exhibit D Part 4, #10 Exhibit E Part 1, #11 Exhibit E Part 2, #12 Exhibit F, #13 Exhibit G, #14 Exhibit H, #15 Exhibit I, #16 Exhibit J, #17 Exhibit K, #18 Exhibit L, #19 Exhibit M Part 1, #20 Exhibit M Part 2, #21 Exhibit N, #22 Exhibit O, #23 Exhibit P, #24 Exhibit Q)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/8/2011) Modified on 12/9/2011 linking entry to document #461 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit K

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document278

Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
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,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

REPLY DECLARATION OF
RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D.
IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document278

Filed09/30/11 Page5 of 22

1

panning within the document, which have a different purpose than the ’381 patent. Because these

2

references are not concerned with what should happen when the edge of the document is reached,

3

they still embody the main problem that the ’381 patent solved. Users either are not allowed to

4

scroll past the edge (i.e. they hit a “hard stop”) or are allowed to scroll endlessly into empty areas

5

devoid of any content.

6

12.

In an attempt to dismiss these key differences, Samsung arbitrarily treats the lines

7

within the boundaries of a document in the same manner as external “edges.” It also sets up a

8

demonstration to simulate supposed edge-responsive behavior with software that in fact is merely

9

re-centering items. While that may be easy to do with the ’381 patent already in hand, a person of

10

skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have recognized the edge-responsive

11

advantages of the ’381 patent in Samsung’s prior art.

12

13.

My declaration begins by showing that Samsung’s alleged prior art was trying to

13

solve a different problem than the ’381 patent, and that it still suffers from the principal

14

limitations and constraints that the ’381 patent was designed to solve. Next, I discuss the faults

15

and shortcomings in Dr. Van Dam’s invalidity and inequitable conduct opinions, concluding that

16

the references he cites do not disclose key elements of the asserted claims or render them obvious.

17

Finally, I address Dr. Johnson’s infringement analysis, which is based on strained claim

18

interpretations that defy common sense.

19

B.

20
21

Invalidity and Inequitable Conduct
1.

14.

Summary of Opinion

The ’381 patent provides an elegant and visually intuitive solution to a discrete

22

issue: what to do when a user scrolls to the edge of an electronic document. In the prior art, when

23

a user scrolled to the edge of a document, one of two scenarios would play out. Either she would

24

scroll continuously past the edge of the document into nothingness (i.e. beyond a place where

25

there was any meaningful content), or she would hit a “hard stop” and not be allowed to scroll

26

any further.

27
28

15.

Each of these scenarios has its own disadvantages. Allowing a user to move

through virtual space going absolutely anywhere, including beyond a place that has any

REPLY DECLARATION OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

4

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document278
1

53.

Filed09/30/11 Page22 of 22

I have reviewed the portions of the specification cited by Dr. Johnson. (Johnson

2

Decl. (D.I. 174) at ¶ 38.) In general, they simply state that a touch screen can display images. A

3

person of skill in the art would understand that such images may or may not contain black. These

4

passages do not show that the inventors adopted an uncommon definition for the common word

5

“display.”

6

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

7

forgoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed this 29th day of September,

8

2011, at Washington, DC.

9
10
11

Dated: September 29, 2011

/s/
RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

REPLY DECLARATION OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 21
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK