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

Filing 61

Declaration of GRANT L. KIM IN SUPPORT OF APPLES OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNGS MOTION TO COMPEL EXPEDITED DISCOVERY filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex 1, #2 Exhibit Ex 2, #3 Exhibit Ex 3, #4 Exhibit Ex 4, #5 Exhibit Ex 5, #6 Exhibit Ex 6, #7 Exhibit Ex 7, #8 Exhibit Ex 8, #9 Exhibit Ex 9, #10 Exhibit Ex 10, #11 Exhibit Ex 11, #12 Exhibit Ex 12, #13 Exhibit Ex 13, #14 Exhibit Ex 14, #15 Exhibit Ex 15, #16 Exhibit Ex 16, #17 Exhibit Ex 17, #18 Exhibit Ex 18, #19 Exhibit Ex 19, #20 Exhibit Ex 20, #21 Exhibit Ex 21, #22 Exhibit Ex 22, #23 Exhibit Ex 23, #24 Exhibit Ex 24, #25 Exhibit Ex 25, #26 Exhibit Ex 26, #27 Exhibit Ex 27, #28 Exhibit Ex 28, #29 Exhibit Ex 29, #30 Exhibit Ex 30)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

Exhibit 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6

APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,

7

PLAINTIFF,

8
9
10
11
12
13

VS.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., A KOREAN BUSINESS
ENTITY; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., A NEW YORK
CORPORATION; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE
LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY,

14
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C-11-01846 LHK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
MAY 12, 2011
PAGES 1-52

15
16
17

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20

APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE

21
22
23
24

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

25
1

1
2

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

3

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

MORRISON & FOERSTER
BY: HAROLD J. MCELHINNY,
MICHAEL A. JACOBS,
JASON R. BARTLETT, AND
GRANT L. KIM
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105

ALSO PRESENT:

MAUREEN MCCALL AND JAMES WITT

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART,
OLIVER & HEDGES
BY: CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN AND
ERIK C. OLSON
50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 22ND FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

BY:
13
14

VICTORIA F. MAROULIS AND
KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON
555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE
SUITE 560
REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

1

THE COURT:

YES.

2

MR. VERHOEVEN:

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE

3

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF THEM

4

FILING A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WHICH

5

WE OPPOSE, YOUR HONOR, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT'S GOING

6

TO HAPPEN, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SHOULDN'T THAT

7

DISCOVERY BE RECIPROCAL?

8
9

AND I WOULD REQUEST -- I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER WE WOULD GO TO THE MAGISTRATE BECAUSE I

10

KNOW THE MAGISTRATE'S BEEN ASSIGNED, BUT THERE ARE

11

THINGS THAT WE FAIRLY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET,

12

THROUGH DISCOVERY, TO OPPOSE A PRELIMINARY

13

INJUNCTION, SUCH AS ANY EVIDENCE THEY HAVE OF ANY

14

CONFUSION, OR LACK OF CONFUSION, BETWEEN THESE

15

PRODUCTS AND APPLE PRODUCTS; ANY DOCUMENTS

16

CONCERNING GOOD WILL; LOSS OF GOOD WILL; MARKET

17

SHARE; REPUTATION TO APPLE THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION

18

OF THESE.

19

IF THEY'VE DONE RESEARCH SURVEYS OR

20

STUDIES RELATING TO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION, WE

21

WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THOSE IF WE WERE TO FAIRLY

22

OPPOSE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION.

23

THE COURT:

24

MR. MCELHINNY:

25

WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
MY RESPONSE TO THAT, YOUR

HONOR, IS THAT THE RULES SET OUT THE BASIS FOR
34

1

THIS.

2
3

THERE'S BEEN NO REQUEST -- I MEAN, WE
FILED THREE BRIEFS HERE.

4

THERE'S BEEN NO REQUEST.

THE WAY DISCOVERY STARTS IN THIS

5

DISTRICT, WHICH IS A MEET AND CONFER ABOUT WHAT

6

THEY REASONABLY NEED, IF THEY'RE GOING TO NEED IT

7

TO OPPOSE AN INJUNCTION AND IF IT'S REASONABLE AND

8

IF YOUR HONOR IS GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM, WE'LL

9

RESOLVE THAT.

10

I HAVE SAID NOW TWICE THAT WE'RE WILLING

11

TO LIVE BY THE RULES THAT YOU SET FOR US, BECAUSE

12

WE WANT AN INJUNCTION HERE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO

13

GET AN INJUNCTION HERE IF WE'RE NOT RECIPROCAL IN

14

DISCOVERY.

15

I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THE COURT:

OKAY.

SO I'M HEARING THAT

16

YOU ARE WILLING, THEN, TO AGREE TO SOME EXPEDITED

17

PRODUCTION OF YOUR OWN.

18
19

MR. MCELHINNY:

YES.

THE ANSWER TO THAT

IS YES, AS YOUR HONOR STATES IT.

20

CAN I SUGGEST, ON THE DEPOSITION ISSUE --

21

THE COURT:

22

MR. MCELHINNY:

YES.
-- THAT WE WILL ACCEPT

23

THEIR GOOD FAITH IF THEY GIVE US A PERSON THAT

24

THEY'RE GOING TO CERTIFY AS, YOU KNOW,

25

KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THESE AREAS, WE WILL TAKE IT AS A
35

1
2

THE COURT:

-- YOU WOULD NEED TO SHOW

WHATEVER --

3

MR. MCELHINNY:

4

THE COURT:

5

-- WAS PRODUCED TO YOUR

IN-HOUSE COUNSEL.

6

MR. MCELHINNY:

7

THE COURT:

8

IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT,

MR. MCELHINNY:

10

12

I AGREE.

YOU'VE GOT IT, RIGHT?

9

11

I AGREE.

I MISUNDERSTOOD.

I AGREE WITH YOUR HONOR.
I AGREE WITH YOUR

HONOR.
THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

WELL,

13

THAT'S STILL MY -- YOU KNOW, I -- THIS IS WHAT I'M

14

GOING TO DO:

15

I DON'T WANT TO BE OVERWHELMED WITH PAPER, SO I

16

THINK WE NEED TO SET A FURTHER CMC OR SOMETHING,

17

BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK A LOT OF INTERIM MOTIONS

18

WILL PROBABLY BE FILED.

19

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND I THINK --

SO AT THIS POINT I WOULD GO AHEAD AND

20

ORDER THAT ONE SAMPLE, THE PACKAGE AND THE PACKAGE

21

INSERT, BE PRODUCED WITHIN 30 DAYS PURSUANT TO THE

22

PATENT LOCAL RULE 2-2'S INTERIM MODEL PROTECTIVE

23

ORDER, WITH NO IN-HOUSE COUNSEL REVIEW AT ALL AND

24

THE PATENT PROSECUTION BAR AS STRICT AS SAMSUNG

25

WANTS; NO INDIVIDUAL DEPOSITION OR 30(B)(6); AND NO
48

1

MARKETING MATERIALS.

2
3

NOW, IF SOMETHING CHANGES, I GUESS YOU
COULD COME BACK AND ASK.

4

AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK THAT

5

SAMSUNG'S REQUEST FOR MUTUAL DISCOVERY IS RIPE, BUT

6

YOU CAN PURSUE THAT FOR SOME TYPE OF RECIPROCAL

7

DISCOVERY.

8
9

AND WHY DON'T WE SET A TIME, LIKE A
FURTHER CMC MAYBE -- OR I GUESS WE CAN JUST WAIT

10

AND SEE WHAT, IF ANYTHING, GETS FILED AND THEN

11

WE'LL SET IT THEN.

12

THERE MAY BE ISSUES.

BUT I JUST ANTICIPATE THAT

13

MR. MCELHINNY:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. MCELHINNY:

16

OKAY?
MAY I INQUIRE, YOUR

HONOR?

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. MCELHINNY:

19

MAY I --

YES.
AGAIN, I'M IN THE SAME

MINDSET THAT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER ISSUES.

20

THE COURT:

YES.

21

MR. MCELHINNY:

BUT WE GOT AN ORDER

22

ASSIGNING DISCOVERY MATTERS IN THIS CASE TO

23

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL.

24
25

THE COURT:

WELL, SINCE I'VE ISSUED THIS

ORDER, IF THERE'S ANY FOLLOW-UP REGARDING THIS
49

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
24

/S/
_____________________________
LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

25
52