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

Filing 57

Declaration of Todd M. Briggs in Support of #56 MOTION to Compel Apple to Produce Reciprocal Expedited Discovery filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28)(Related document(s) #56 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

Exhibit 12

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

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO,
DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

May 20, 2011

Via E-Mail
Victoria F. Maroulis
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-2139
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al.
Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK

Dear Victoria:
This responds to your letter of May 16. As stated at the May 12 hearing, Apple is prepared
to engage in discovery on a reciprocal basis in the event that Apple moves for a preliminary
injunction. However, such discovery should be directed to issues relevant to the motion.
This lawsuit is about Samsung’s unlawful copying of Apple’s trademarks, trade dress, design
and utility patents. This valuable intellectual property is embodied in products that Apple
has currently in the market. A preliminary injunction motion will be based on Apple’s
current intellectual property rights, not on future products. Because Apple’s future products
have no relevance to a preliminary injunction motion, we reject your request that Apple
provide samples of such future products.
Nevertheless, we are open to discussing with you now the schedule and scope of expedited
bilateral discovery upon the filing of a preliminary injunction motion. In particular, we are
prepared to discuss the requests Samsung made during the May 12 hearing for expedited
production of documents relating to confusion, goodwill, and market share, as well as related
requests by Apple.
Please let me know if you would like to set up a call to discuss this subject.

sf-2997572

Victoria F. Maroulis
May 20, 2011
Page Two
Sincerely,

Jason R. Bartlett

sf-2997572