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

Filing 467

*** EXHIBIT 8 and 14 FILED IN ERROR WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION . DOCUMENT LOCKED. *** Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit Mazza Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Mazza Decl, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Mazza Decl, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Mazza Decl, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Mazza Decl, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Mazza Decl, # 8 Exhibit Ex. 6 to Mazza Decl, # 9 Exhibit Ex. 7 to Mazza Decl, # 10 Exhibit Ex. 8 to Mazza Decl, # 11 Exhibit Ex. 9 to Mazza Decl, # 12 Exhibit Ex. 10 to Mazza Decl, # 13 Exhibit Ex. 11 to Mazza Decl, # 14 Exhibit Ex. 12 to Mazza Decl, # 15 Exhibit Ex. 13 to Mazza Decl, # 16 Exhibit Ex. 14 to Mazza Decl, # 17 Exhibit Ex. 15 to Mazza Decl, # 18 Exhibit Ex. 16 to Mazza Decl, # 19 Exhibit Ex. 17 to Mazza Decl, # 20 Exhibit Ex. 18 to Mazza Decl, # 21 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/8/2011) Modified on 12/15/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit 8 425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 WWW.MOFO.COM September 29, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO, SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO, DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, D.C. TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS, BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG Writer’s Direct Contact 415.268.6096 WOverson@mofo.com Via Email kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Kevin Johnson Victoria Maroulis Quinn Emanuel 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., & Samsung Telecomm., LLC Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.) Dear Kevin and Victoria: In order to avoid future misunderstandings, we are writing to confirm the following items with respect to the Court’s Order of September 28, 2011. As to item 1), the Court ordered Samsung to produce documents from each of Samsung designers of Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G, Droid Charge phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer identified in Samsung’s Rule 26(a) disclosures or interrogatory responses. This encompasses at least the following individuals: Jinsoo Kim, Jung Min Yeo, Minhyouk Lee, Hyoung Shin Park, GiYoung Lee, Yongseok Bang, Bo-ra Kim, Yunjung Lee, Wookyun Kho, Kihyung Nam, Dooju Byun, Jaegwan Shin, Qi Ling, Jeeyeun Wang, SeungHun Yoo, Ahyoung Kim, Sun-young Yi, Min Kyung Kim, and Hyunho Shin. The Court further ordered production of “all documents referencing the Apple products alleged by Apple to embody one or more of the ornamental or utility features claimed in the patents.” The Apple products embodying one or more of the features claimed in the patents are the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2. Thus, at a minimum, Samsung should be producing all references to these products in the files of the above list of custodians. As to item 2), the Court ordered Samsung to produce, “[f]rom the custodial files of Lee DonJoo, all documents relating to the redesign of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 following Apple’s announcement of the iPad 2 on or about March 2, 2011.” (Id.) Please note that the Order is not limited to documents mentioning the iPad 2. It goes to all documents concerning the redesign after March 2, 2011. sf-3051596 Kevin Johnson Victoria Maroulis September 29, 2011 Page Two As to item 3), the Court ordered Samsung to produce, “[f]rom any central files or the custodial files of any individuals with specific responsibility for surveying customers of Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G, Droid Charge phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 table computer, all survey documents that reference the Apple products currently alleged by Apple to embody one or more the ornamental or utility features claimed in the patents.” (Id.) We are assuming that Samsung will conduct a diligent search for these documents in all central files, including those in the U.S. and Korea, as well as the relevant custodial files. Again, the Apple products embodying one or more of the features claimed in the patents are the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2. Finally, the Court also ordered Samsung to produce “all other relief requested by Apple” that was “unopposed by Samsung.” (Id.) This should include the requests pertaining to marketing documents and survey documents involving the Samsung products at issue. Samsung also made a number of representations on the record as to what it had already produced or was going to produce shortly. This includes the following materials, which should be produced in full (if Samsung has not done so already) at the latest by October 7: • All CAD Design files. (Id. at p. 46.) • All loose notes and presentations on the design of the products at issue (and sketch books if there are any). (Id. at p. 47.) • All documents “regarding marketing analysis of Apple products including documents looking at the internals of the iPhones, [and] the tear downs.” (Id. at p. 47.) • All “designer drawings,” “PowerPoints,” and “marketing documents with designs embedded.” (Id. at p. 59.) The above description is not intended to limit the scope of that Order. Rather, it is intended to clarify our understanding so that there are no surprises on October 7. Please let us know by October 3 if you do not agree with the above understanding of the Order. Sincerely, /s/ Wesley Overson sf-3051596 2

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?