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
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?