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

Filing 467

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). (Attachment 10 replaced on 12/21/2011) (sp, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 16 replaced on 12/21/2011) (sp, COURT STAFF). PURSUANT TO ORDER #523 DOCUMENTS 467-10 AND 467-16 REMOVED. Modified on 12/21/2011 (sp, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit 14

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R LLP
N E W YO R K , SA N F R A N C I SC O ,
LO S AN G E LE S, P ALO ALT O ,
SA C RA M E N T O , SA N D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RTH E RN VI RG I N IA,
WA SH I N G T O N , D . C .
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH A N G H A I , H O N G K O N G

WWW.MOFO.COM

November 15, 2011

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6096
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail ([e-mail])
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)
CONFIDENTIAL—Subject to Protective Order

Dear Rachel:
This letter addresses the issue of Samsung including the word “Apple” in its searches of
custodial documents.
In your November 8, 2011 letter, you stated that Samsung is “generally agreeable to
including the term ‘Apple’ (perhaps with delimiters) in its searches of its designers’ custodial
documents.” Please do so. Moreover, Samsung’s search should not be limited to designers.
Samsung has already admitted in interrogatory responses that Samsung engineers copied the
iPhone’s patented rubberbanding user interface. Samsung’s copying is as relevant to utility
patent infringement as design patent infringement. Samsung should search for the term
“Apple” in the files of all relevant custodians, including designers and engineers who worked
on the products at issue, employees responsible for marketing those products, and employees
responsible for developing the infringing features. Delimiters may be used, for example to
exclude documents that refer to the other party only for irrelevant purposes, and those
delimiters should be disclosed.
In addition, to ensure that Samsung’s searches are complete, please include internal codenames used to refer to Apple as search terms. For example, the documents Samsung has
produced to date show that it sometimes uses the word “A Company” in Korean to refer to
Apple.
Samsung has requested that Apple re-run its searches of its designers’ documents for the
term ”Samsung.” There is no basis for this request. Apple’s iPhone was introduced to the
market years before Samsung first introduced the imitations that are the subject of this

sf-3071323

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
November 15, 2011
Page Two
lawsuit. Nevertheless, in an effort to compromise and to remove any excuse for Samsung
not to run the searches needed to locate relevant and responsive documents, Apple will
reciprocally search its relevant custodians’ documents for the term “Samsung” and review
those documents for responsiveness and production.
While it is Apple’s position that Samsung is already required to conduct these searches
pursuant to the Court’s September 28 Order and Apple’s remaining document requests, it is
willing to make the specific, reciprocal agreement described above so as to make Samsung’s
obligations crystal clear without requiring court intervention. Of course, Samsung should
continue to search its relevant custodians’ documents for other pertinent search terms, such
as the names of Apple’s products at issue.
Please confirm that Samsung will produce all documents described above by the end of the
month.
Best regards,
/s/
Wesley E. Overson

sf-3071323