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

Filing 714

REPLY BRIEF in Support of ( #658 First MOTION for Leave to Supplement Its Infringement Contentions ) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Caracappa Declaration, #2 Briggs Declaration, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/7/2012) Modified text on 2/8/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK



DECLARATION OF TODD M. BRIGGS
IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY
BRIEF TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS



Plaintiff,
vs.

 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.





02198.51845/4591166.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY BRIEF TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

1

I, Todd M. Briggs, declare:

2

1.

I am a partner the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel

3 for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
4
5

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).

Unless otherwise indicated, I

have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I

6
7
8

could and would testify as follows.
2.

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the October 13, 2011 order by

9 the District Court for the Southern District of California granting Apple’s motion under 28 U.S.C.
10 § 1782 to serve a subpoena on Qualcomm for use in foreign proceedings.
11
12

3.

Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of e-mail correspondence between

Samsung and Apple.

13
4.

On January 26, 2012, following the Court’s order granting Samsung’s motion to

14
15

shorten time, counsel for Samsung sent an e-mail seeking to resume negotiations with Apple

16 regarding supplemental infringement contentions by the parties.
17

5.

On January 29, 2012, Apple responded, agreeing to resume negotiations and

18 seeking to add seven products to its infringement contentions: the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy S II
19 Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G, Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus, Galaxy Tab 8.9, Gravity Smart and
20

Showcase i500. Over the next several days, the parties negotiated regarding the details of these

21
additional contentions.
22
23

6.

During the week of January 30, 2012, Apple informed Samsung that it was seeking

24 to include the additional Samsung products for all purposes, including Apple’s design patent,
25 trademark and trade dress claims.

This was the first time Apple stated that its amendments

26 extended beyond amendments to the utility patent infringement contentions.

Nevertheless,

27
02198.51845/4591166.1

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY BRIEF TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

-2-

1 Samsung considered Apple’s request in the interest of reaching a negotiated agreement and to
2 avoid burdening the Court.
3
4

7.

On February 1, 2012, Apple introduced a provision that would restrict Samsung’s

ability to re-take depositions based on the addition of new products.

This was the first time that

5
6
7

Apple mentioned this restriction on re-taking depositions.

Samsung ultimately proposed that

depositions could be re-taken for good cause, while Apple proposed an affirmative bar on re-

8 taking any depositions.
9

8.

On February 3, 2012, the parties determined that they were at an impasse regarding

10 the restrictions on re-taking depositions, and Apple filed its opposition to Samsung’s motion.
11
12
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in
13
14
15

Redwood Shores, California on February 7, 2012.

/s/ Todd M. Briggs

16
Todd M. Briggs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
02198.51845/4591166.1

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY BRIEF TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

-3-

1
2

General Order 45 Attestation
I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this

3 Declaration.

In compliance with General Order 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that Todd Briggs has

4 concurred in this filing.
/s/ Victoria Maroulis

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
02198.51845/4591166.1

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S REPLY BRIEF TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

-4-