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).

Download PDF
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

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?