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

Filing 715

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Administration to File Documents Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.'s Motion for Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions for Samsung's Violation of Two Discovery Orders, #2 Declaration of Minn Cheung in Support of Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #3 Exhibit T to Chung Declaration, #4 Exhibit V to Chung Declaration, #5 Exhibit Y to Chung Declaration, #6 Exhibit Z to Chung Declaration, #7 Exhibit AA to Chung Declaration, #8 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #9 Proposed Order Granting Admin Motion)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 87
1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6
7
8

APPLE, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.

9

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., ET AL,

10

DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV-11-1846-LHK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
PAGES 1-87

11
12
13

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15

A P P E A R A N C E S:

16

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

MORRISON FOERSTER
BY: WESLEY OVERSON
RICHARD HUNG
MINN CHUNG
MICHAEL JACOBS
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

QUINN EMANUEL
BY: VICTORIA MAROULIS
BRETT ARNOLD
KEVIN JOHNSON
555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE, 5TH FL
REDWOOD SHORES, CA 94065

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: SUMMER FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185
1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 87
1

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

3
4

(WHEREUPON, COURT CONVENED AND THE
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:)

5
6

THE COURT:

PLEASE HAVE A

MR. RIVERA, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, WOULD
YOU CALL THE MATTER ON THIS MORNING'S CALENDAR

9

THE CLERK:

10
11

GOOD MORNING.

SEAT.

7
8

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011

YES, YOUR HONOR.

CALLING APPLE, INC. VERSUS SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER CV-11-1846.

12

COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES.

13

MR. OVERSON:

14

APPLE, INC.

15
16
17
18
19
20

WESLEY OVERSON ON BEHALF OF

THE COURT:

MR OVERSON, GOOD MORNING,

SIR.
MS. MAROULIS:

VICTORIA MAROULIS WITH

QUINN EMANUEL ON BEHALF OF SAMSUNG.
AND WITH ME IS MR. KEVIN JOHNSON ALSO FOR
SAMSUNG AND BRETT ARNOLD.

21

THE COURT:

22

WELCOME BACK, MS. MAROULIS.

23

GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMAN.

24

MR. OVERSON:

25

ALL RIGHT.

YOUR HONOR, MAY I ALSO

INTRODUCE MR. JACOBS, MR. HUNG AND MR. MINN CHUNG.
2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page45 of 87
1

SAMSUNG HAS ALREADY PRODUCED AND WHICH WE BELIEVE

2

THE COMPLAINTS ARE WARRANTED.

3

AND THERE'S ONE CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS

4

THAT SAMSUNG BELIEVES IS IN DISPUTE, THE ONLY ONE

5

IN DISPUTE AND THAT'S THE DOCUMENTS GOING TO THE

6

CUSTOMER CONFUSION OR ALLEGED CONFUSION.

7

SO WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST SET OF

8

ISSUES WHICH IS FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF

9

DOCUMENTS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR FROM

10

THE JENKINS DECLARATION AND FROM OUR BRIEF AND

11

OTHERWISE THAT WE'VE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AFTER

12

REASONABLE SEARCH THAT ANSWER THESE REQUESTS.

13

THE COURT:

IS IT YOUR POSITION YOU HAVE

14

PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED

15

AFTER A REASONABLE SEARCH?

16

MS. MAROULIS:

YOUR HONOR, IT'S ALWAYS

17

HARD TO SAY ALL DOCUMENTS WITH A COMPANY OF THAT

18

SIZE.

19

THE COURT:

20

MS. MAROULIS:

21
22

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
I THINK NOBODY CAN MAKE A

REPRESENTATION.
BUT IT'S CLEAR FROM OUR DECLARATIONS THAT

23

WE'VE CONDUCTED THE SEARCH AND WE CAME UP WITH A

24

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS.

25

THAT APPLE COUNSEL RIDICULED, BUT THOSE DOCUMENTS

THERE'S A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS

45

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page46 of 87
1

COME FROM THE DESIGNER FILES OF SAMSUNG EMPLOYEES

2

AND THEY WERE THEMSELVES INQUIRING DEPOSITIONS

3

ABOUT SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

4
5

SO THOSE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE
SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.

6

THE COURT:

REALLY?

THE EXTERIOR OF A

7

BUILDING WAS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION FOR ONE OF THE

8

PRODUCTS?

9
10

MS. MAROULIS:
DESIGNERS COLLECT IDEAS.

11
12

APPARENTLY THIS IS THE WAY

THE COURT:

THAT'S YOUR POSITION?

THAT'S

WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU?

13

MS. MAROULIS:

YOUR HONOR, IT COMES FROM

14

THE DESIGNERS' FILES DIRECTLY AND I WOULD RATHER

15

NOT GO FURTHER INTO THAT TO AVOID PROTECTIVE ORDER

16

ISSUES.

17

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

18

MS. MAROULIS:

AMONG THE DOCUMENTS WE

19

PRODUCED ARE A LOT OF CATEGORIES THAT EXHAUSTIVELY

20

ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF -- FOR EXAMPLE, TWO WEEKS AGO

21

WE WERE BEFORE YOUR HONOR AND APPLE COUNSEL WAS

22

MAKING ARGUMENT THAT CAD TIMES ARE THE AND ALL AND

23

BE ALL.

24
25

WE PRODUCED THE CAD FILES.
CAD FILES.

THEY HAVE OUR

THE CAD FILES SPAN BACK, THEY CAN LOOK
46

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page47 of 87
1
2

AT ITERATIONS OF DESIGN AND MAKE CONCLUSIONS.
THE COURT:

WHAT ABOUT SKETCHBOOKS?

YOU

3

WERE VERY PERSUASIVE IN EXPLAINING THE SIGNIFICANCE

4

OF SKETCHBOOKS.

5
6
7
8
9

MS. MAROULIS:

YOUR HONOR, THE SKETCHBOOK

BELONG TO THE INVENTORS OF THE PATENTS.
THE COURT:

THEY DON'T HAVE SIMILAR

SKETCHBOOKS?
MS. MAROULIS:

10

SKETCHBOOKS.

11

WE DON'T HAVE SIMILAR

THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.

12

WE HAVE LOOSE NOTES AND PRESENTATIONS

SO IN THE JENKINS DECLARATION THERE'S A

13

LIST OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS

14

THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.

15

BUT WHAT YOUR HONOR FOCUSED ON EARLIER

16

CORRECTLY IS THAT REQUEST 1 ACTUALLY DOESN'T GO TO

17

ALL DESIGN DOCUMENTS, IT GOES TO DOCUMENTS WHERE

18

THERE WAS ANY COMPARISON OF THE TIMES.

19

SO IN THE PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE, WE

20

PRODUCED DOCUMENTS REGARDING MARKET ANALYSIS OF

21

APPLE PRODUCTS INCLUDING DOCUMENTS LOOKING AT THE

22

INTERNALS OF THE IPHONES, THE TEAR DOWNS.

23

DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE PRODUCTION.

24
25

SO THOSE

BUT IN PRODUCING OUR DESIGN DOCUMENTS WE
ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO MANUFACTURE DOCUMENTS THAT
47

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page48 of 87
1

DON'T EXIST.

2

DOCUMENT, A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS WE COPIED SOMETHING

3

FROM APPLE.

4
5

THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A SMOKING GUN

WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS.

WE HAVE TAKEN A 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION LAST
WEEK --

6

THE COURT:

WELL, JUST TO BE PRECISE,

7

THEIR POSITION, THEIR REPRESENTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE

8

NOT IDENTIFIED ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE

9

INVESTIGATION YOU HAVE DONE TODAY.

10

I THINK YOU JUST TOLD ME EARLIER YOU

11

CAN'T STAND HERE AND MAKE A REPRESENTATION THAT NO

12

SUCH DOCUMENT EXISTS OF YOUR CLIENT BECAUSE YOU

13

DON'T KNOW.

14
15

MS. MAROULIS:

THAT'S CORRECT,

YOUR HONOR.

16

BUT I DO WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE

17

30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF A SAMSUNG REPRESENTATIVE WHO

18

ASKS SPECIFICALLY WHETHER HE INTERVIEWED THE

19

DESIGNERS OF THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE.

20

HE TESTIFIED HE SPOKE WITH ALL OF THEM

21

AND INQUIRED EXTENSIVELY WHETHER ANY OF THEM

22

CONSIDERED APPLE PRODUCTS WHEN DESIGNING THEIR

23

PRODUCTS, NOT JUST COPYING, BUT ANY CONSIDERATION

24

OF FRAME OF REFERENCE.

25

NOT.

THEY TESTIFIED THEY HAVE

48

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page49 of 87
1
2
3

THE COURT:

SO HE SPOKE WITH EACH OF

THESE 13 INDIVIDUALS?
MS. MAROULIS:

HE SPOKE WITH MAYBE 7 OR 8

4

INDIVIDUALS, HE SPOKE WITH PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS FOR

5

ALL OF THE FOUR PRODUCTS AT ISSUE.

6

THE COURT:

IT IS TRUE THOUGH, IS IT NOT,

7

THAT THERE WERE 13 PEOPLE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR

8

INTERROGATORY IN 26(A) RESPONSES?

9

MS. MAROULIS:

THINKING BACK ACTUALLY, HE

10

HAS TALKED TO EVERYONE WHO WAS IDENTIFIED IN

11

INTERROGATORY 1 RESPONSE.

12

STANDING HERE NOW HE TALKED TO EVERYONE IN THE

13

INITIAL DISCLOSURES.

14

HE DID SPEAK WITH INDIVIDUALS FROM INTERROGATORY 1.

BUT I CANNOT SAY

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

BUT

15

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

16

SO AS TO INTERROGATORY 1, OR ANY OF THE

17

OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN 26(A) RESPONSES, HAVE

18

DOCUMENTS BEEN COLLECTED?

19

MS. MAROULIS:

DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN

20

COLLECTED FROM INDIVIDUALS LISTED IN THE

21

INTERROGATORY 1 TO THE EXTENT THEY HAD THEM, AND

22

ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS TOO.

23

WERE FAIRLY WIDE RANGING.

24

THE COURT:

25

MS. MAROULIS:

THE DOCUMENT EFFORTS

OKAY.
AND HERE IF YOUR HONOR
49

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page87 of 87
1
2
3
4

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

5
6
7
8
9

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

10

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH

11

FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY

12

CERTIFY:

13

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT,

14

CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND

15

CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS

16

SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

17

HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED

18

TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

19
20
21
22
23

__________________________
SUMMER A. FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185

24
25
87