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

Filing 487

EXHIBITS re 483 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Compel Proposed Public Redacted Version of Samsung's Motion to Compel and Supporting Documents filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Hutnyan Declaration in support of Samsung's Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 483 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 20 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 10 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 (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff, 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, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE INC.’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG'S INTERROGATORY NO. 7 TO APPLE RELATING TO APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROG NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK 1 Under Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33, Apple 2 Inc. (“Apple”) hereby amends its amended objections and response to Samsung’s Interrogatory 3 No. 7 Relating to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction served September 28, 2011. 4 Apple reserves the right to further supplement or amend these objections and response based on 5 its ongoing investigation of the facts, witnesses, and documents relating to this case. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 6 7 Apple makes the following general responses and objections (“General Objections”) to 8 each definition, instruction, and interrogatory propounded in Samsung’s Interrogatories Relating 9 to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. These General Objections are hereby 10 incorporated into each specific response. The assertion of the same, similar or additional 11 objections or partial responses to individual interrogatories does not waive any of Apple’s 12 General Objections. 13 1. Apple objects to Samsung’s definitions of “APPLE,” “PLAINTIFF,” “YOU,” and 14 “YOUR” to the extent they purport to include persons or entities that are separate and distinct 15 from Apple and are not under Apple’s control. “Apple” refers only to Apple Inc. 16 2. Apple objects to these requests to the extent they incorporate Samsung’s definition 17 of “RELATING.” Samsung’s definition of this term renders each request incorporating the term 18 overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. 19 3. Apple objects to Samsung’s definition of “PRIOR ART” as inaccurate, overly 20 broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Samsung’s definition is particularly vague 21 and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “relevant to the validity,” and overly broad in attempting 22 to include information other than that cited to the Patent Office during the prosecutions of the 23 patents that are the subject of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 24 4. Apple objects to Samsung’s definitions of “DESIGN PATENTS” and the “’381 25 PATENT” because they are inaccurate, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. 26 The phrase “design patents” means U.S. Design Patent Nos. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889. 27 The “’381 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381. 28 APPLE’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROG NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3017184 1 1 5. Apple objects to Samsung’s definition of “IDENTIFY” because it is overly broad 2 and unduly burdensome, especially because it purports to impose requirements and obligations on 3 Apple other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Samsung’s definition is 4 overbroad and unduly burdensome because it would require Apple to include in its responses, for 5 example, the addresses, employer names, and job titles of every individual identified, regardless 6 of their employment at Apple; documents and testimony supporting every fact in Apple’s 7 responses; model names/numbers, manufacturers, announcement/release/sales dates, sellers, and 8 descriptions for any product identified in Apple’s responses, regardless of whether the product is 9 an Apple product; production numbers, document type, a description of the general nature and 10 subject matter, date of creation, and all authors, addressees, and recipients for every document; 11 and country, patent or application number, filing/publication/grant dates, patentees, and 12 applicants for every patent document. “Identify” has its plain and ordinary meaning. 13 6. Apple objects to Samsung’s Instruction No. 1 because it is vague, ambiguous, 14 overly broad, and unduly burdensome, especially in its purported requirement that Apple furnish 15 information from entities that are not Apple, and from persons with “the best knowledge.” Apple 16 further objects to this instruction because it calls for the disclosure of information that is 17 privileged and protected by the work product doctrine. 18 7. Apple objects to Samsung’s Instruction No. 2 because it purports to impose 19 requirements and obligations on Apple other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. 21 8. Apple provides these objections and responses to the best of its current knowledge. 22 Discovery or further investigation may reveal additional or different information warranting 23 amendment of these objections and responses. Apple reserves the right to produce at trial and 24 make reference to any evidence, facts, documents, or information not discovered at this time, 25 omitted through good-faith error, mistake, or oversight, or the relevance of which Apple has not 26 presently identified. 27 28 9. By responding to these interrogatories, Apple does not concede the relevance or materiality of any of the interrogatories or of the subjects to which it refers. Apple’s responses APPLE’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROG NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3019365 2 1 are made subject to, and without waiving any objections as to the competency, relevancy, 2 materiality, privilege, or admissibility of any of the responses, or of the subject matter to which 3 they concern, in any proceeding in this action or in any other proceeding. 4 10. Apple objects to these interrogatories as premature to the extent they are not 5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the claims or 6 defenses related to Apple’s pending preliminary injunction motion. Apple objects to Samsung’s 7 use of expedited discovery where the targeted subject matter does not relate to Apple’s 8 preliminary injunction motion. 9 11. Apple objects to Samsung’s attempt to serve a “corrected” version of Interrogatory 10 No. 4 that substantially expands its scope and to serve a second set of interrogatories after the 11 Court’s July 8, 2011 cut-off for such interrogatories as untimely. Apple also objects to 12 Samsung’s attempt to serve a second set of interrogatories after the Court’s July 8, 2011 cut-off as 13 untimely. 14 SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE 15 TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 16 Subject to the foregoing qualifications and General Objections and the specific objections 17 made below, Apple amends its objections and response to Samsung’s Interrogatory No. 7 18 Relating to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as follows: 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 20 For each of the DESIGN PATENTS and the ’381 PATENT, IDENTIFY (by product 21 name, product manufacturer, telecommunications carrier (if applicable), date of product 22 announcement, date of product release, and appearance of product – including front, back, and 23 side images) every Apple product that embodies any patented design or invention of the DESIGN 24 PATENTS or the ’381 PATENT and provide a chart identifying specifically where each 25 limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Apple product. 26 AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 27 28 Apple objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, especially because it APPLE’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROG NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3019365 3 1 requests information pertaining to “every Apple product” and information about the “appearance 2 of product – including front, back, and side images.” Apple objects that this interrogatory calls 3 for information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in Apple’s Motion for a 4 Preliminary Injunction. Apple objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that: 5 (i) is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine; (ii) 6 would require Apple to draw a legal conclusion to respond; or (iii) can be obtained as easily by 7 Samsung, is already in Samsung’s possession, or is publicly available. 8 9 Subject to and incorporating its General Objections and its specific objections, Apple responds as follows: The patented design of the ’D677 patent is embodied in at least the original 10 iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4. The patented design of the ’D087 patent is 11 embodied in at least the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS. The patented design of the 12 ’D889 patent is embodied in at least the iPad 2. Apple refers to its preliminary injunction motion 13 moving papers and public sources for images of the aforementioned Apple products. The 14 patented invention of the ’381 patent is embodied in at least the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, 15 iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch, iPad, and iPad 2. 16 17 Dated: September 30, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 18 19 20 21 By: /s/ Richard S.J. Hung RICHARD S.J. HUNG Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S SECOND AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO ROG NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3019365 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?