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

Filing 732

DECLARATION of JASON R. BARTLETT in Opposition to #700 MOTION to Compel Apple to Respond to Samsung's Requests for Admission 101-190 filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) #700 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 2/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC.,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Case No.
Plaintiff,

v.
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,
Defendants.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

DECLARATION OF JASON R.
BARTLETT IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO
COMPEL APPLE TO RESPOND
TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION 101-190
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

March 6, 2012
10:00 am
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

25
26
27
28
BARTLETT DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO RESPOND TO RFA 101-190
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3106932

1

I, JASON R. BARTLETT, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a partner at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple Inc.

3

(“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of

4

the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from members of my litigation team. I

5

make this declaration in support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Compel.

6

2.

On November 23, 2011, Samsung served its Second Set of Requests for

7

Admission on Apple. Requests 101 through 190 consist of 45 pairs of requests asking Apple first

8

to admit that certain design patents are “substantially the same,” then that the same design patents

9

are not substantially the same.

10

3.

The parties agreed to extensions of time for discovery responses that would have

11

been due over the holidays, including Samsung’s Second Set of RFAs. A true and correct copy of

12

the email exchange between Apple’s counsel and Samsung’s counsel discussing these extensions

13

is attached as Exhibit A.

14

4.

Apple served its Objections and Responses to Samsung’s Second Set of Requests

15

for Admission on January 6, 2012. The parties exchanged letters on January 7 and 16, met and

16

conferred on January 16, and were unable to resolve the dispute.

17

5.

On February 1, 2012, Samsung served its Third Set of Requests for Admission, a

18

true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. This set contains 72 comparisons of

19

design patents to design patents, a total of 142 requests, similar to those in Samsung’s Second Set

20

of Requests for Admission.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

//

28

//
BARTLETT DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO RESPOND TO RFA 101-190
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3106932

1

6.

On February 7, 2012, Samsung served its Fifth Set of Requests for Admission, a

2

true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. This set contains 92 comparisons of

3

design patents to Samsung products, 1 comparison of a design patent to a design patent, and

4

16 comparisons of design patents to third party products, totaling 109 comparisons across

5

215 requests.

6
7

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
14th day of February, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

8
9
10

/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BARTLETT DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO RESPOND TO RFA 101-190
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3106932

2