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

Filing 671

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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT H quinn emanuel trial lawyers | silicon valley 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: (650) 801-5000 FAX: (650) 801-5100 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS January 5, 2012 VIA E-MAIL Richard Hung Morrison & Foerster 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Re: Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Supplemental Invalidity Contentions Dear Rich: I write to follow up regarding Samsung’s request to serve supplemental invalidity contentions on Apple to include Mac OS X, SuperClock and other prior art, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6. Samsung has twice sent letters asking whether Apple will stipulate to the service of these invalidity contentions, on November 10 and 22, 2011. However, Apple has not responded to Samsung’s proposed stipulation. At the same time, Samsung has sought discovery from Apple to produce source code for the Mac OS X and SuperClock programs in Apple’s possession, in order to confirm that they are prior art against the ’891 and ’002 patents. However, Apple avoided producing the prior art source code until after Samsung filed a motion to compel. Furthermore, Apple continued to avoid a complete disclosure of relevant Mac OS X discovery by producing additional source code only after complaints by Samsung, and by still refusing to produce a hardware version of the prior art that can operate the invalidating brightness window. Despite Apple’s dilatory tactics, Samsung’s review of the source code confirms that Mac OS X invalidates the ’891 patent. quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700 SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100 CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401 LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712 MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100 MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667 NEW YORK | 02198.51855/4530734.6 Thus, Samsung is asking one final time whether Apple will stipulate to supplemental invalidity contentions. In addition to the prior art discussed in the November 10 correspondence, Samsung has good cause to include additional recently discovered prior art. For example, Glimpse, a software program disclosed at the 2005 CHI Conference, invalidates the ’381 patent as construed by Judge Koh because it always bounces back. See Patent Local Rule 3-6(a) (good cause includes a “claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment”). Samsung also seeks to clarify the invalidity contentions for the DiamondTouch system to identify numerous prior art applications and SDKs which practice the ’915 patent. Samsung further believes that the DiamondTouch system is prior art to the ’163 patent, and seeks to supplement its invalidity charts accordingly. The table below summarizes the Samsung references. U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 Prior Art Reference Glimpse 7,920,129 Atmel Touchscreens in the KitechAid KEBU107SSS and KEBU208SSS Products Cirque Capacitive Touchpads, including but not limited to the GlidePoint Touchpad WO 2005/114369 7,864,163 7,853,891 US 6,075,520 Hal Philipp, Controls and Sensors: Tough Touch Screens, 2006 Mandelbrot, Gesture Engine, MultiSurface Google Earth, Gesture/Speech Interface, DTMouse and DTLens, operating on the DiamondTouch system US 2005/0012723 Mac OS X, version 10.0 6,493,002 SuperClock! 7,844,915 and 7,864,163 02198.51855/4530734.6 2 Basis Adverse preliminary injunction decision interpreting ’381 patent Third party discovery from Atmel Corporation Third party discovery from Cirque Corporation Chart already served – amendment to cover pleading only Recent discovery Additional information on disclosed Whirlpool Velos Applications running on disclosed DiamondTouch system Recent discovery Depositions of Bas Ording & Imran Chaundri and recent production of source code by Apple in response to Samsung's motion to compel Deposition of Steven Christensen and recent production of source code by Apple in response to Samsung's motion to compel 7,812,828 DISCRETE RANDOM SIGNALS AND STATISTICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING, by Charles Therrien LINEAR ALGEBRA AND ITS APPLICATIONS, by Gilbert Strang Deposition of Wayne Westerman Deposition of Wayne Westerman Please let us know by Monday, January 9, whether Apple will agree to these supplemental contentions. Otherwise, Samsung will assume that Apple opposes any stipulation and proceed to file a motion with the court. Very truly yours, Todd M. Briggs 02198.51855/4530734.6 3

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?