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

Filing 713

OPPOSITION to ( #658 First MOTION for Leave to Supplement Its Infringement Contentions ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Hung Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit M, #15 Proposed Order)(Hung, Richard) (Filed on 2/3/2012) Modified text on 2/6/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Page 1 of 1

From:

Maselli, Samuel [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:31 AM

To:

Victoria Maroulis

Cc:

'[e-mail]'; AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service

Subject:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.) - Correspondence

Attachments: 2011-12-14 Letter from Maselli to Maroulis.pdf

Victoria,

Please find the attached correspondence related to the above-referenced action.
Regards,
Sam Maselli

Samuel Maselli | WilmerHale
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA
[phone] (t)
[phone] (f)
[e-mail]
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately
—by replying to this message or by sending an email to
[e-mail]—and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you.
For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com.

December 14, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Victoria Maroulis, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Victoria:
We write in response to your December 5 letter regarding proposed reciprocal
stipulations to amend the parties’ infringement contentions.
Your letter, which was sent in response to my November 30, 2011 letter, does not answer
the questions I asked. While you say that “Samsung believes that the contentions under Local
P.R. 3-1 need to be amended for each added product,” you do not explain in what respect(s)
Samsung seeks to amend its infringement contentions. We understand that Samsung wants to
amend its contentions to identify the iPhone 4S as an accused product. My question was whether
Samsung seeks to amend any other aspect of its contentions.
Accordingly, I ask again that you please let us know as soon as possible whether
Samsung seeks to modify in any way its disclosures and contentions set forth on September 7,
2011 pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-1(a), (c)-(h), or, on the other hand, whether Samsung will
commit in this case to the identical infringement theories for the iPhone 4S as those set forth
against the Apple products previously identified.
Finally, in response to your question of how Apple intends to proceed, as noted in the
proposed stipulation that we circulated on November 9, Apple plans to proceed under our
previously disclosed theories with respect to the additional Samsung products.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Samuel J. Maselli
Samuel J. Maselli
cc:

Counsel of Record