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

Filing 728

*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT #730 . *** Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of #727 Reply to Opposition/Response, filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s) #727 ) (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 2/13/2012) Modified on 2/14/2012 (feriab, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 11

755 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO
CALIFORNIA 94304-1018
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 650.494.0792

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

WWW.MOFO.COM

January 27, 2012

Writer’s Direct Contact
650.813.5718
[e-mail]

By Email ([e-mail])
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Rachel:
This responds to your January 25, 2012 letter to Mia Mazza regarding expert witnesses.
Most of your letter is devoted to argumentative rhetoric, unfounded accusations, and issues
that have been resolved. It would be unproductive to spill more ink responding to those
aspects of your letter, other than to say that they are incorrect and mischaracterize Apple’s
conduct in this litigation. Apple has not been “nitpicking” about the materials to which
Samsung’s experts should have access, or attempting to delay or impede Samsung’s
development of its defense.
To the contrary, as one example, the course of events relating to Itay Sherman demonstrates
that Apple’s concerns have been valid and raised in good faith. In that context, the Court
held on December 22, 2011 that Mr. Sherman should not have access to certain types of
Apple documents because he operates a business that competes with Apple. This issue has
been resolved. It is Samsung––through its recent motion for “clarification”––that keeps
prolonging the proceedings and extending the dialogue.
In addition, your letter refers to Apple’s expert Peter Bressler and notes that Samsung has
withdrawn its objections to him. We disclosed Mr. Bressler to Samsung three months ago.
That Samsung has just now withdrawn its objection to Mr. Bressler does not somehow show
that Samsung is bending over backwards to accommodate Apple.
With respect to Samsung’s proposed expert Robert Anders, we appreciate the additional
information you have now provided to us. We hereby withdraw our objections concerning
Mr. Anders.

pa-1508447

January 27, 2012
Page Two
That leaves Samsung’s proposed expert Samuel Lucente. As you know, Apple’s concerns
regarding Mr. Lucente stem from his ownership of pending patent applications that relate to
user interfaces in mobile phones. As we understand it, Samsung proposes giving
Mr. Lucente access to Apple confidential information on precisely this subject matter. Your
letter does not propose how the parties should address that problem. As result, we cannot at
this point withdraw our objection to Mr. Lucente.
Sincerely,
/s/ Marc Pernick
Marc Pernick
cc:

Samuel Maselli
S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

pa-1508447