Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
EXHIBITS re 667 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's Motion to Supplement Invalidity Contentions (Baxter Declaration in Support of Samsung's Motion to Supplement Invalidity Contentions) filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X)(Related document(s) 667 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/27/2012)
425 MARKET STREET
MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G
January 26, 2012
Writer’s Direct Contact
By Email (firstname.lastname@example.org)
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
We write in response to your January 18 and 24, 2012, letters requesting that Apple stipulate
to Samsung’s service of supplemental invalidity contentions.
Apple has no objection to Samsung supplementing its invalidity contentions with respect to
WO 2005/114369, which Samsung asserts was omitted due to a clerical error, although we
note that the reference appears to already be in Samsung’s cover pleading.
However, as to the remainder of your requests, Apple sees no justification for Samsung’s
failure to discover and timely disclose the listed alleged prior art references. Samsung could
and should have unearthed the references in your letters far earlier than the dates you stated.
U.S. Patent No. 7,030,860 to Synaptics Inc.: The Synaptics ’860 patent was cited
on the face of Apple’s asserted ’607 patent, Samsung produced a copy of the ’860
patent months ago, and your January 24 letter even acknowledges that Samsung
cited the ’860 patent as potentially relevant in Exhibit Q to its initial invalidity
contentions. Against that backdrop, Samsung’s position that supplementation of its
invalidity contentions is justified in light of the January deposition of Synaptics is
Glimpse: The Glimpse article was cited in the reexamination of the asserted ’381
patent and discussed at the deposition of Ravin Balakrishnan on August 16, 2011.
Samsung’s counsel used the Glimpse article as an exhibit (See page 219 of the 8-162011 Deposition of Ravin Balakrishnan). Samsung’s claim that, despite this
discussion months ago, it did not understand the relevance of the Glimpse reference
until after the Court’s Preliminary Injunction order in November, is not credible.
January 26, 2012
Cirque: Samsung has been aware of Cirque capacitive touchpads for months.
Samsung produced a Cirque touch capacitance patent months ago that appears to
have been printed from the USPTO website on October 5, 2011.
(SAMNDCA00030092.) Samsung produced four other patents that also appear to
have been printed in early October 2011, each of which has a specific reference not
just to Cirque, but to GlidePoint in particular. (SAMNDCA00030649, 37354,
37656, and 37904.) Samsung’s claim that it only discovered the relevance of Cirque
touchscreens, including but not limited to GlidePoint, in late December is not
U.S. Patent No. 6,075,520: U.S. Patent No. 6,075,520 is one of only 13 cited U.S.
patents on the face of Samsung’s Patent No. 8,081,167, and it was cited in February
2011. Samsung’s position that it only became aware of the relevance of the ’520
patent in October or November 2011 is not credible.
Hal Philipp article re Whirlpool Velos: Your letter of January 18 does not specify
a time of discovery, stating instead in the “Time of Discovery” column, “Whirlpool
Velos already disclosed in October 7, 2011.” Samsung’s failure diligently to
discover an article discussing the reference it knew of at least as early as October 7,
2011 does not justify supplementation of its invalidity contentions.
DiamondTouch applications: Your letter of January 18 does not specify a time of
discovery for any DiamondTouch applications, stating instead that certain
applications were “already disclosed in October 7, 2011 invalidity chart.”
Samsung’s request to supplement its invalidity contentions with applications that it
knew of, and even discussed in its invalidity charts, at least as early as October 7,
2011 is unreasonable. The remaining applications do not appear to be discussed in
Samsung’s invalidity charts for the ’915 or ’163 patents, and Apple sees no
justification for their late addition to Samsung’s invalidity contentions.
2005/0012723: This patent was cited on the face of numerous patents that Samsung
is aware of and has produced to Apple. This includes the document labeled
SAMNDCA00000001. Samsung’s position that it only became aware of the
relevance of this patent in October or November 2011 is not credible.
Atmel touchscreens in KitechAid KEBU107SSS and KEBU208SSS: Apple sees
no justification for Samsung’s failure to discover this reference and its late request
to supplement its invalidity contentions.
Mac OS X: Despite your claim that Samsung learned of Mac OS X’s relevance
following the depositions of Imran Chaudhri and Bas Ording, figures from Mac OS
January 26, 2012
X appear in the asserted ’891 patent itself. Samsung’s counsel did not learn this
from Mr. Chaudhri—it noted this to Mr. Chaudhri at his October 14, 2011
deposition. (“Q: Is Figure 7 [of the ’891 patent] a picture of the user interface for
Mac OS X? A: It’s a drawing that looks like it could be.”) (10-14-2011 Deposition
of Imran Chaudhri 13:5-7.)
SuperClock!: Samsung’s counsel likely knew of SuperClock! far earlier than
October 2011. In fact, despite your claim that Samsung learned of this item at the
deposition of Steven Christensen, Samsung presented Mr. Christensen with an
exhibit at his deposition consisting of the “readme” file from SuperClock. (10-262011 Deposition of Steven Christensen 161:21-25.). We note separately that
Samsung’s counsel represents Motorola in the Apple v. Motorola matter pending in
Wisconsin, in which SuperClock! was discussed in expert reports in early
September 2011. Samsung’s position that it only became aware of Super Clock! at
the Christensen deposition is therefore not credible.
Therrien and Strang textbooks: Despite your claim that Samsung learned of these
textbooks in late October following the deposition of Wayne Westerman, it is clear
from the record that Samsung knew of these items in advance of Mr. Westerman’s
deposition. In fact, Samsung’s counsel did not learn of the textbooks from Mr.
Westerman, he provided the names of the textbooks to Mr. Westerman. (“Q: [W]as
the name of this textbook ‘Discrete Random Signals and Statistical Signal
Processing by Charles Therrien’? A: That might be it.” (10-31-11 Deposition of
Wayne Westerman 86:20-25); “Q: Do you recall a book ‘Linear Algebra and Its
Applications’ by Gilbert Strang? A: Yeah, maybe.” (Id. 87:1-3).)
In light of the above, Apple views Samsung’s proposed amendments as improper, with the
exception of the alleged clerical error. Apple intends to object both to supplementation and
/s/ Richard S.J. Hung
Richard S.J. Hung
S. Calvin Walden
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?