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