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

Filing 565

OPPOSITION to ( #554 MOTION for Extension of Time For Compliance With Certain Deadlines Set By The Court's Order (Dkt No. 537) ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/30/2011) Modified text on 1/4/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit A

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6
7
8

APPLE, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.

9

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., ET AL,

10

DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV-11-1846-LHK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
PAGES 1-87

11
12
13

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

A P P E A R A N C E S:

16

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

MORRISON FOERSTER
BY: WESLEY OVERSON
RICHARD HUNG
MINN CHUNG
MICHAEL JACOBS
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

QUINN EMANUEL
BY: VICTORIA MAROULIS
BRETT ARNOLD
KEVIN JOHNSON
555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE, 5TH FL
REDWOOD SHORES, CA 94065

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: SUMMER FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185
1

1

AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK I TOOK THE

2

FIRST DEPOSITION IN THE CASE WHERE I DEPOSED

3

MR. LUTTON WHO IS A FORMER PATENT COUNSEL AT APPLE.

4

AND I ASKED MR. LUTTON ABOUT DOCUMENT COLLECTION

5

AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE RIGHT THING WAS DONE,

6

AND I WAS CONFRONTED WITH A WORK PRODUCT AND

7

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE OBJECTION, SO I NEVER GOT

8

INTO IT AND I NEVER UNDERSTOOD.

9

SO TO HEAR APPLE SAY NOW THAT THEY WANT

10

THE PROCESS TO BE TRANSPARENT IS AGAIN, THAT DIDN'T

11

COME UP IN THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS I ATTENDED

12

UNTIL THIS VERY HEARING.

13

I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT.

I AGREE WITH YOU,

14

WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF MEET AND CONFERRING

15

AND I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS TIED TO THE SCHEDULE

16

THAT EVERYONE HAS BEEN UNDER.

17

SO ONCE WE GET BEYOND THE PRELIMINARY

18

INJUNCTION MOTION ON THE 13TH, HOPEFULLY THIS GETS

19

BACK TO A NORMAL CASE IN SOME RESPECTS AND WE CAN,

20

YOU KNOW, WE CAN AVOID THESE KINDS OF HEARINGS WITH

21

YOUR HONOR AND TRY TO RESOLVE THESE THINGS WHICH IS

22

WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO ON THE 16TH.

23

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

24

MS. MAROULIS, YOU WERE SAYING?

25

MS. MAROULIS:

EXCELLENT.

I'M GLAD
65

1

MR. JOHNSON CLARIFIED THAT MEET AND CONFER ISSUE

2

BECAUSE I WAS NOT THERE.

3

I WAS ANSWERING YOUR HONOR'S SPECIFIC

4

QUESTIONS ABOUT COLLECTION PROCESS, IF THERE'S

5

ANYTHING ELSE YOUR HONOR WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, WE

6

CAN DO THAT.

7

SO THAT'S WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGN

8

DOCUMENTS, RIGHT?

9

DOCUMENTS.

THERE'S A BODY OF DESIGN

WE PRODUCED A HUGE NUMBER OF THEM.

10

APPLE IS LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS OF ALLEGED

11

COPYING.

12

THROUGH OUR SEARCH WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY.

13

IF WE FIND ANY OTHER TIME OF COURSE IT WOULD BE

14

PRODUCED AND SUPPLEMENTED BECAUSE THAT'S THE

15

PARTIES OBLIGATION.

16

THE OTHER CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE

17

BROADLY MARKETING AND CONSUMER SURVEYS.

AND AGAIN,

18

WITH RESPECT TO THESE CATEGORIES, WE HAVE SEARCHED

19

THE RELEVANT FILES AND PRODUCED AN ENORMOUS NUMBER

20

OF DOCUMENTS RANGING FROM MARKET SHARE TO MARKETING

21

PRESENTATIONS TO COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS, WHO IS OUR

22

COMPETITION, WHAT YOU SHOULD BE TARGETING,

23

MARKETING SURVEYS AS WELL.

24

SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS.

25

ONE

IS MARKETING AS A WHOLE, THE OTHER IS CONSUMER
66

1

SURVEYS.

2

SO CONSUMER SURVEYS WAS A CONTESTED

3

TOPIC, WE THOUGHT IT WAS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS

4

INSTANCE, WE THOUGHT RATHER THAN FIGHT IT JUST

5

PRODUCE IT SO WE DID.

6

IN THE MOTION TO COMPEL.

7
8

WE ARE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT

AND AGAIN WITH DESIGN DOCUMENTS WE
BELIEVE THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.

9

NOW THE DOCUMENTS OF CONFUSION, THE LAST

10

CATEGORY, IS A CONTESTED TOPIC STILL BECAUSE WE

11

DON'T THINK THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE RELEVANT IN THE PI

12

TEXT.

13

IT IS TRUE THAT BROADLY SPEAKING APPLE

14

HAS TRADEMARK CLAIMS IN THIS CASE, BUT THEY CHOSE

15

TO NOT MOVE ON TRADEMARK CLAIMS.

16

MAKE THE PI MOTION SOLELY ABOUT PATENT INFRINGEMENT

17

ANALYSIS.

18

THE COURT:

THEY CHOSE TO

EVEN THOUGH IT'S PRETTY CLEAR

19

JUDGE KOH UNDERSTOOD TRADEMARKS WERE GOING TO BE AN

20

ISSUE IN THE PI MOTION, CORRECT?

21

MS. MAROULIS:

THEY MADE IT SOUND TO

22

JUDGE KOH THAT TRADEMARK WAS GOING TO BE PART OF

23

IT, CORRECT.

24

WHEN SEE THAT IT WAS ONLY PATENT

25

INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS, SO WE FOCUSED OUR EFFORTS
67

1
2
3
4

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

5
6
7
8
9

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

10

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH

11

FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY

12

CERTIFY:

13

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT,

14

CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND

15

CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS

16

SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

17

HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED

18

TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

19
20
21
22
23

__________________________
SUMMER A. FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185

24
25
87