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

Filing 619

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Renewed) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Cyndi Wheeler In Support of Apple's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #2 Exhibit B to T. Briggs In Support of Samsung's Response to Apple's Opening Claim Construction, #3 Exhibit I to T. Briggs In Support of Samsung's Response to Apple's Opening Claim Construction, #4 Exhibit J to T. Briggs In Support of Samsung's Response to Apple's Opening Claim Construction, #5 Samsung's Response to Apple's Opening Claim Construction, #6 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Apple's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Hung, Richard) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

EXHIBIT I
FILED UNDER SEAL

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

2
3
4
5

APPLE INC., a California
corporation,

6

Plaintiff,
7

vs.

CASE NO.

11 cv 01846 LHK

8

9

10

11

12
13

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,
Defendants.
____________________________/

14
15
16
17

C O N F I D E N T I A L
A T T O R N E Y S E Y E S O N L Y

18
19
20
21

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BRIAN Q. HUPPI
REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011

22
23
24
25

BY: ANDREA M. IGNACIO HOWARD, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR.
CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
JOB NO. 42679
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 4
1

REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA

2

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011

3

9:38 a.m.

4
5
6

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

Good morning.

This is the

7

start of tape labeled No. 1 in the videotaped

8

deposition of Brian Huppi.

9
10
11

In the matter of Apple, Inc., versus Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
In the United States District Court, Northern

12

District of California, San Jose Division.

13

No. 11 cv 01846 LHK.

14

Case

This deposition is being held at 555 Twin

15

Dolphin Drive in Redwood Shores, California on

16

October 18th, 2011, at approximately 9:38 a.m.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

My name is Pete Sais from TSG Reporting,
Inc., and I'm the legal video specialist.
Our court reporter is Andrea Ignacio in
association with TSG Reporting.
Will counsel please introduce yourselves, and
the court reporter can swear in the witness.
MR. MACK:

Brian Mack of Quinn Emanuel,

24

representing Samsung.

25

MR. BARTLETT:

Jason Bartlett of Morrison &

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 5
1

Foerster, representing Apple.

2
3

BRIAN Q. HUPPI,

4

having been sworn as a witness,

5

by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,

6

testified as follows:

7
8
9

EXAMINATION BY MR. MACK

10
11
12
13

MR. MACK:

Q.

Mr. Huppi, could you please

state your name and address for the record.
A

Sure.

It's Brian Quentin Huppi.

My address

is 262 Rutledge Street in San Francisco, California.

14

Q

Have you been deposed before?

15

A

Yes.

16

Q

How many times?

17

A

Once.

18

Q

And do you remember what case that was in?

19

A

It was a case involving Motorola.

20
21

I don't

remember the case number.
Q

Okay.

And was

were you deposed as your

22

role as an inventor on any patent asserted

23

in that case?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

Okay.

asserted

Do you remember which patent it was?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 88
1

parallel, yes.

2

MR. MACK:

3
4

A

Q

THE WITNESS:
to

I think I'd have to see it

to be able to characterize it.
MR. MACK:
Q

13
14

Objection; calls for a legal

conclusion.

11
12

would they be considered parallel or

MR. BARTLETT:

9
10

They're heading in the same direction,

substantially parallel?

7
8

Would

basically.

5
6

Q.

Okay.

The next claim, Claim 3, says that:
"The conductive lines on different layers are

substantially perpendicular."

15

Do you see that?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

And what did you understand the phrase

18

"substantially perpendicular" to mean when you

19

reviewed this patent application?

20
21
22

MR. BARTLETT:

Objection; calls for a legal

conclusion; calls for speculation; lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS:

Yeah, I can't give you, you

23

know, a legal definition of this.

24

that in our

25

layer such that they were basically at right angles to

But I can tell you

our design, we implemented the second

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 89
1

the first layer.

2
3

MR. MACK:

Q.

So would substantially

perpendicular mean orthogonal to you.

4

MR. BARTLETT:

5

THE WITNESS:

Same objections.
I'm not sure to that exact

6

definition.

7

did it, which was they were

8

basically 90 degrees to each other.

9
10

I

again, I can only tell you how we

MR. MACK:
Q

Okay.

Claim 10

they were oriented

Fair enough.

Claim 10, do you see the

11

"wherein" clause about halfway down, "wherein the

12

touch panel comprises," on Line 36?

13

A

Okay.

14

Q

And then it talks about a number of glass

15

Yeah.

members; do you see that?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Do you see a first glass member and then a

18

second glass member, two limitations down?

19

A

Yep.

20

Q

And then a third glass member two limitations

21

down from that?

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

Are you familiar with P E T, PET?

24
25

know what that is?
A

PET?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Do you

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 90
1

Q

Yeah.

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

Okay.

4

And PET is not a type of glass;

correct?

5
6

It's a type of plastic.

MR. BARTLETT:

Objection; calls for a legal

conclusion in this context.

7

THE WITNESS:

8

definition of

9

Yeah, I don't know the exact

glass, no.

10
11
12

of PET.

MR. MACK:
Q

I don't understand it to be

But a

Okay.
but a polymer plastic would not be a

type of glass; correct?

13

MR. BARTLETT:

14

THE WITNESS:

Same objection.
I

yeah, I can't really

15

conclude on that.

16

plastic called plexiglas which is not

17

silicon based or anything, but it's

18

of a polymer, but it's sometimes referred to as

19

plexiglas.

I

I mean, there are types of

R
E
D
A
C
TE
D

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

it's not
it's made out

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 91
R
E
2
3

Q

And are there certain benefits of using glass

over plastic?

4

MR. BARTLETT:

Objection; calls for expert

5

testimony; incomplete hypothetical; calls for

6

speculation.

7

THE WITNESS:

There are probably a number of

8

different pros and cons.

9

some

An example I can give you is

some pros to using glass are potentially the

10

durability of glass as far as it's scratch resistance,

11

and it has a different dielectric constant than

12

plastic, so there could be a potential pro to using

13

glass.

That's just a couple of examples.

14

MR. MACK:

15

record for a few seconds.

16

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

17

I think we'll go off the

This marks the end of

Volume I, Disc 1, in the deposition of Brian Huppi.

18
19

Okay.

The time is 11:43 a.m., and we are off the
record.

20

(Recess taken.)

21

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

22

of Volume I, Disc 2, in the deposition of Brian Huppi.

23
24
25

This marks the beginning

The time is 11:52 a.m., and we are on the
record.
MR. MACK:

Q.

Mr. Huppi, could you look at

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580

Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only

Page 92
1

Claim No. 11, please.

2

A

Yes.

3

Q

Claim No. 11 references something called

4

dummy features; do you see that?

5

A

Yes.

6

Q

And specifically it says that there are:

7
8

"Dummy features disposed in the space between
the parallel lines."

9

Do you see that?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

And it also says that the dummy features

12

optically improve:

13
14

"The visual appearance of the touch screen by
more closely matching the optical index of the lines."

15

Do you see that?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Do you know who developed the idea of --

18

behind the dummy features?

19

A

I don't recall whose idea it was, no.

20

Q

Could it have been a collaborative effort

21

between you, Mr. Hotelling and Joshua?

22

A

Could have been.

23

Q

Okay.

24

features?

25

And what -- what were the dummy

MR. BARTLETT:

Objection; vague.

TSG Reporting - Worldwide

(877)-702-9580