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

Filing 730

Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of #729 Opposition/Response to Motion, CORRECTION OF DOCKET #728 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) #729 ) (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 2/13/2012)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 11 755 PAGE MILL ROAD PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA 94304-1018 TELEPHONE: 650.813.5600 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 By Email ( 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 In addition, your letter refers to Apple’s expert Peter Bressler and notes that Samsung has withdrawn its objections to him.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 That Samsung has just now withdrawn its objection to Mr.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

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?