Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
721
AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re #667 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's Motion to Supplement Invalidity Contentions DECLARATION OF RICHARD S.J. HUNG IN SUPPORT OF APPLES OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNGS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS filed byApple Inc.. (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)(Related document(s) #667 ) (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 2/9/2012)
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
2
3
4
5
APPLE INC., a California
corporation,
6
Plaintiff,
7
vs.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
8
9
10
11
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,
12
13
Defendants.
_____________________________/
14
15
16
17
C O N F I D E N T I A L
A T T O R N E Y S' E Y E S O N L Y
O U T S I D E
C O U N S E L
18
19
20
21
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, Ph.D.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2011
22
23
24
25
BY: ANDREA M. IGNACIO HOWARD, CSR, RPR, CCRR, CLR
CSR LICENSE NO. 9830
JOB NO. 41176
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 5
1
MR. LIEN:
2
MR. BRIGGS:
3
MR. AHN:
Matthew Ahn, of Morrison &
Foerster, on behalf of Apple.
6
7
Todd Briggs, representing
Samsung.
4
5
Henry Lien, representing Samsung.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
Will the court reporter
please swear in the witness.
8
9
RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN, Ph.D.,
10
having been sworn as a witness,
11
by the Certified Shorthand Reporter,
12
testified as follows:
13
14
15
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
You may proceed.
16
17
EXAMINATION BY MR. JOHNSON
18
MR. JOHNSON:
Good morning, Mr. Balakrishnan.
19
Q
Have -- you've been deposed before?
20
A
Yes, I have.
21
Q
Okay.
22
A
About a half a dozen times, roughly.
23
Q
I'll try to ask coherent questions, and if
About how many times?
24
you -- hopefully you'll provide some answers, and
25
if -- to the extent that you don't understand any of
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 219
1
that may exist out there or may not exist.
2
MR. JOHNSON:
I'll show you what I've marked
3
as Exhibit 107, which is the Glimpse prior art that
4
was referenced in the reexamination prosecution
5
history.
6
(Document marked Balakrishnan Exhibit 107
7
for identification.)
8
9
MR. JOHNSON:
Q.
Have you read this, this
article?
10
A
Yes, I have.
11
Q
And this one you read carefully?
12
MR. MONACH:
13
THE WITNESS:
Object to the form.
This one I've read in some
14
detail, in -- in, actually, much more in detail way
15
back when it was written.
16
article from back in 2005.
17
18
19
MR. JOHNSON:
Q.
I'm familiar with the
How come you're familiar
with it back then?
A
It -- it's, first of all, an article that
20
appeared in a conference that I regularly attend, the
21
CHI Conference.
22
student of mine, and I think, at that time, he was a
23
Ph.D. student of mine, and I know the other authors,
24
so it's a work in my field that I'm generally familiar
25
with.
Clifton Foreigns was a former Ph.D.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 220
1
Q
Okay.
Do you believe this is the best prior
2
art against the '381 patent, or do you have an
3
opinion?
4
MR. MONACH:
Objection; same objections as
5
previously stated -- previously stated; asked and
6
answered, multiple times.
7
THE WITNESS:
So, as I said earlier, I have
8
not done any kind of analysis on validity or
9
invalidity.
I have not formed an opinion in that
10
regard.
11
have not studied it in view of determining validity or
12
invalidity relative to the '381 patent, so I don't
13
think I can answer that definitively either way right
14
now, but I reserve the right down the road, if the
15
time comes, to actually do that.
16
This could be prior art that's relevant.
MR. JOHNSON:
But you've reviewed it.
17
familiar with the article.
18
I
You're
'381 patent a bunch of times.
19
Q
You've obviously read the
Can you tell me what limitations from the
20
'381 patent claims are missing in this particular
21
reference?
22
MR. MONACH:
I'll object to the form of the
23
question; asking the witness to formulate an opinion
24
where he's said -- already testified multiple times he
25
hasn't done this work.
Object; it asks for a legal
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 221
1
conclusion and is compound with respect to all of the
2
different limitations and elements.
3
But if you -- if you can, and -- and want to
4
do so and study it now and give some response, I'm not
5
going to instruct you not to do that.
6
THE WITNESS:
So this is a -- I would say a
7
several-pages long article that covers some ground.
8
have not done the comparison to every element of the
9
claims of the '381 patent, and it's not something I
10
want to do on the fly.
I
11
If -- I certainly don't want to do this live
12
in a deposition.
13
carefully consider the -- the -- the article and what
14
it -- what it discloses, relative to each of the
15
embodiments -- sorry -- each of the elements of the
16
claims, and I -- I don't -- I simply cannot do that
17
right now.
18
(Document marked Balakrishnan Exhibit 108
19
for identification.)
20
21
22
MR. JOHNSON:
25
Let me mark, as Exhibit 108,
the Zimmerman '387 patent.
Q
23
24
I would have to spend the time and
You've seen that before; right?
Have you read the Zimmerman article -- I'm
sorry -- the Zimmerman patent?
A
I have browsed through it, yes.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 225
1
Q
If you -- if you turn to page '311.
2
A
And you mean by the Bates number here?
3
Q
Yeah.
4
A
Okay.
5
Q
The first combination of prior art references
6
that Nokia asserted was grounds for rejection was
7
Glimpse, plus Inside and Out; right?
8
9
10
A
That appears to be what is said in this --
this section of the document.
Q
Now, if I ask you to look at the claim charts
11
that are on pages 18, 19, et cetera, of this
12
particular document, and I ask you whether the prior
13
art discloses certain claim elements that are
14
described here, are you gonna be able to tell me if
15
they're accurate or not?
16
17
A
I don't think I can -- I'm sorry.
MR. MONACH:
Object to the -- object to the
18
form of the question as calling for speculation and --
19
and vague.
20
THE WITNESS:
If you're asking me can I,
21
based on each of these elements on the table in this
22
chart, whether whatever Nokia said here is accurate or
23
not, I don't think I can do that right now.
24
spent the time, and I think it's gonna take a
25
considerable amount of time to very carefully look at
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
I haven't
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 226
1
each of these allegations and correspond it to the
2
article in question and to the claim in question and
3
make that determination.
4
I have not done that, and I certainly don't
5
think I can do that on the fly here.
6
certainly much more time than we have today.
7
8
9
10
MR. JOHNSON:
It would take
Do you know whether -- did
the -- strike that.
Q
Did the examiner find that Glimpse disclosed
pan and zoom navigation using the touch input?
11
MR. MONACH:
12
Under the best evidence rule, whatever the
13
14
15
Objection; lack of foundation.
examiner found is the best evidence of what he found.
THE WITNESS:
I'm not sure I completely
understood that objection.
16
MR. JOHNSON:
17
MR. MONACH:
18
document speaks for itself.
19
didn't do something and whether you have an opinion on
20
it doesn't change that in the slightest.
21
MR. JOHNSON:
Yeah.
It's basically saying the
The examiner did or
That's -- that's an objection I
22
haven't heard at a deposition in a patent case before,
23
but go ahead.
24
25
THE WITNESS:
Can I have the question read
back to me, if you don't mind.
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 227
1
MR. JOHNSON:
Q.
Did the examiner find that
2
Glimpse disclosed pan and zoom navigation using touch
3
input?
4
5
6
MR. MONACH:
Objection; best evidence rule.
Objection; lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS:
I don't recall exactly what the
7
examiner found.
8
did not find that this prior art invalidated the
9
patent claims.
10
I know, in its entirety, the examiner
So the particular -- particular elements of
11
the claims and particular elements of the Glimpse
12
article that the examiner may or may not have found to
13
match up, but I'd have to study that in great detail
14
before I -- or at least in some detail before I
15
determine what he found or what he didn't find.
16
MR. JOHNSON:
Q.
Based on your familiarity
17
with the Glimpse work, can the user preview results of
18
a movement by using a light touch, and then when the
19
user lifts his finger, the movement can be undone?
20
21
22
MR. MONACH:
Object to the form of the
questions.
THE WITNESS:
Going by memory, I -- I would
23
have to study the article again carefully to match it
24
up with your particular question there, but going from
25
memory, the thrust of that article was to -- to enable
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 228
1
glimpsing or previewing some other part of the -- of
2
the document space or the space of multiple documents.
3
The specifics of it, I would have to study in detail
4
in any kind of validity or invalidity contention.
5
MR. JOHNSON:
Q.
Based on your familiarity,
6
did Glimpse describe going beyond the edge of an
7
electronic document?
8
9
MR. MONACH:
question.
10
Object to the form of the
Objection; best evidence rule.
THE WITNESS:
I would have to study the
11
article again in detail to see if it matches up with
12
the way the edge of an electronic document is used in
13
the claims of the '381 patent.
14
MR. JOHNSON:
15
MR. MONACH:
16
THE WITNESS:
Q.
So you don't know?
Same objection.
As I said, I can't answer that
17
question right off.
18
wouldn't be able to tell you either way.
19
MR. JOHNSON:
Well, from memory here, I
Q.
If I -- if I ask you about
20
whether the statements that are made in the request
21
for reexamination that appear on page '294 through
22
'344 --
23
A
This is the Bates numbering again?
24
Q
-- and whether those are accurate statements,
25
are you able to answer those questions?
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only Outside Counsel
Page 337
1
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3
4
5
I, ANDREA M. IGNACIO HOWARD, hereby certify
6
that the witness in the foregoing deposition was by me
7
duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
8
nothing but the truth in the within-entitled cause;
9
10
That said deposition was taken in shorthand
11
by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
12
California, and was thereafter transcribed into
13
typewriting, and that the foregoing transcript
14
constitutes a full, true and correct report of said
15
deposition and of the proceedings which took place;
16
17
18
That I am a disinterested person to the said
action.
19
20
21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 17th day of August, 2011.
22
23
24
___________________________________________
ANDREA M. IGNACIO HOWARD, RPR, CCRR, CLR, CSR No. 9830
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
(877)-702-9580
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?