Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
*** 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).
trial lawyers | silicon valley
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: (650) 801-5000 FAX: (650) 801-5100
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
October 3, 2011
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Apple v. Samsung Electronics, et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
I write in response to your letters of September 30 and October 3, 2011 regarding the Court’s
September 28, 2011 Order. First of all, the Court’s Order is clear and requires no interpretation.
Second, we disagree with Apple’s interpretation of the Order in several important respects,
including the following:
Item 1 does not require Samsung to produce documents from all of the individuals listed in your
letter. Rather, the Order limits the custodians to the designers of the four products accused in
Apple’s preliminary injunction motion. Indeed, as the Court noted, “Apple has offered no
concrete basis upon which to justify its demand for such documents from beyond these
designers.” Samsung’s initial disclosures include individuals who may have relevant knowledge
regarding products other than those subject to Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction . Thus,
there are designers listed in the initial disclosures who do not have relevant information
regarding item 1. Samsung will search the files of all individuals listed in Interrogatory 1 as well
as those individuals listed in the Initial Disclosures with knowledge of the 4 products at issue in
Apple’s Motion. Finally, because Apple accuses Droid Charge of infringing only the bounce
back functionality (rather than design patents), Samsung will search the files of individuals
responsible for that functionality.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
WASHINGTON, DC | 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 6th Floor, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2544 | TEL (202) 756-1950 FAX (202) 756-1951
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000
621 43298 6100
October 3, 2011
Samsung also disagrees that item 1 includes the iPod Touch. Despite Apple’s numerous
responses to Samsung’s interrogatory regarding this exact topic, Apple has never designated the
iPod Touch as embodying the ’381 patent. Moreover, neither Apple’s motion to compel nor
Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction alleges that Samsung copied the design of the iPod
Touch; instead, Apple discusses only iPhone and iPad products. Samsung further disagrees that
the iPad 2 was encompassed by the Court’s Order, which was issued before Apple untimely
supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 7 to include it as an embodiment of the ’D889
patent. Without waiving any objections to this designation, Samsung will nevertheless produce
documents that reference the iPad 2.
Regarding item 2, Samsung has not limited its search only to documents that mention iPad 2.
Regarding item 3, Samsung maintains its objection that the iPad 2 was untimely and
inappropriately designated as an embodiment of Apple’s design patent. The Court’s Order
encompasses only those products “currently alleged by Apple to embody” the claimed patent
features. At the time of the Order, the iPad 2 was not designated as embodying the ’D889 patent.
Nevertheless, and again without waiving Samsung’s objections to this designation, Samsung will
include documents that reference the iPad 2 in its search for documents responsive to item 3. For
the same reason stated for item 1, however, Samsung will not search for surveys that reference
the iPod Touch. To be sure, Samsung will continue to search in both Korea and the United
States for responsive surveys.
Finally, we disagree with Apple’s interpretation of “[a]ll other relief requested by Apple.” In
your letter, you list categories of documents that Apple did not request either in its motion to
compel or in the requests for production that Apple presented to the Court. For example, Apple
never requested CAD files in its motion to compel. Moreover, Samsung already produced CAD
files to Apple relevant to the accused products (and we still await Apple’s response confirming
that it will honor its promise to place those files in escrow). And merely because Samsung gave
illustrative examples at the hearing of what it had already produced does not mean that these
documents are part of the “relief requested by Apple” from the Court. In fact, as the hearing
testimony more accurately reflects, these documents were produced by Samsung despite their not
being included in Apple’s requested relief. (See, e.g., Sept. 28, 2011 Hearing Transcript at 47.)
/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Victoria F. Maroulis
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?