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

Filing 781

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #2 Exhibit 1 to Motion to Seal: Redacted Samsung Motion to Compel Production, #3 Exhibit 2 to Motion to Seal: Redacted Diane Hutnyan Declaration ISO Samsung's Motion to Compel, #4 Exhibit A to Hutnyan Declaration, #5 Exhibit B to Hutnyan Declaration, #6 Exhibit C to Hutnyan Declaration, #7 Exhibit D to Hutnyan Declaration, #8 Exhibit E to Hutnyan Declaration, #9 Exhibit F to Hutnyan Declaration, #10 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to Compel Efforts to Obtain Documents Related to Design Patents)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/7/2012)

EXHIBIT D

1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

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

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE INC.’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG'S
INTERROGATORY NO. 7 TO APPLE
RELATING TO APPLE INC.’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

Under Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 33, Apple

2

Inc. (“Apple”) hereby amends its objections and response to Samsung’s Interrogatory No. 7

3

Relating to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Apple reserves the right to further

4

supplement or amend these objections and response based on its ongoing investigation of the

5

facts, witnesses, and documents relating to this case.

6
7

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Apple makes the following general responses and objections (“General Objections”) to

8

each definition, instruction, and interrogatory propounded in Samsung’s Interrogatories Relating

9

to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. These General Objections are hereby

10

incorporated into each specific response. The assertion of the same, similar or additional

11

objections or partial responses to individual interrogatories does not waive any of Apple’s

12

General Objections.

13

1.

Apple objects to Samsung’s definitions of “APPLE,” “PLAINTIFF,” “YOU,” and

14

“YOUR” to the extent they purport to include persons or entities that are separate and distinct

15

from Apple and are not under Apple’s control. “Apple” refers only to Apple Inc.

16

2.

Apple objects to these requests to the extent they incorporate Samsung’s definition

17

of “RELATING.” Samsung’s definition of this term renders each request incorporating the term

18

overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.

19

3.

Apple objects to Samsung’s definition of “PRIOR ART” as inaccurate, overly

20

broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Samsung’s definition is particularly vague

21

and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “relevant to the validity,” and overly broad in attempting

22

to include information other than that cited to the Patent Office during the prosecutions of the

23

patents that are the subject of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

24

4.

Apple objects to Samsung’s definitions of “DESIGN PATENTS” and the “’381

25

PATENT” because they are inaccurate, overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.

26

The phrase “design patents” means U.S. Design Patent Nos. D618,677, D593,087, and D504,889.

27

The “’381 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381.

28
APPLE’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3019365

1

5.

Apple objects to Samsung’s definition of “IDENTIFY” because it is overly broad

2

and unduly burdensome, especially because it purports to impose requirements and obligations on

3

Apple other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Samsung’s definition is

4

overbroad and unduly burdensome because it would require Apple to include in its responses, for

5

example, the addresses, employer names, and job titles of every individual identified, regardless

6

of their employment at Apple; documents and testimony supporting every fact in Apple’s

7

responses; model names/numbers, manufacturers, announcement/release/sales dates, sellers, and

8

descriptions for any product identified in Apple’s responses, regardless of whether the product is

9

an Apple product; production numbers, document type, a description of the general nature and

10

subject matter, date of creation, and all authors, addressees, and recipients for every document;

11

and country, patent or application number, filing/publication/grant dates, patentees, and

12

applicants for every patent document. “Identify” has its plain and ordinary meaning.

13

6.

Apple objects to Samsung’s Instruction No. 1 because it is vague, ambiguous,

14

overly broad, and unduly burdensome, especially in its purported requirement that Apple furnish

15

information from entities that are not Apple, and from persons with “the best knowledge.” Apple

16

further objects to this instruction because it calls for the disclosure of information that is

17

privileged and protected by the work product doctrine.

18

7.

Apple objects to Samsung’s Instruction No. 2 because it purports to impose

19

requirements and obligations on Apple other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil

20

Procedure.

21

8.

Apple provides these objections and responses to the best of its current knowledge.

22

Discovery or further investigation may reveal additional or different information warranting

23

amendment of these objections and responses. Apple reserves the right to produce at trial and

24

make reference to any evidence, facts, documents, or information not discovered at this time,

25

omitted through good-faith error, mistake, or oversight, or the relevance of which Apple has not

26

presently identified.

27
28

9.

By responding to these interrogatories, Apple does not concede the relevance or

materiality of any of the interrogatories or of the subjects to which it refers. Apple’s responses
APPLE’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3019365

1

are made subject to, and without waiving any objections as to the competency, relevancy,

2

materiality, privilege, or admissibility of any of the responses, or of the subject matter to which

3

they concern, in any proceeding in this action or in any other proceeding.

4

10.

Apple objects to these interrogatories as premature to the extent they are not

5

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the claims or

6

defenses related to Apple’s pending preliminary injunction motion. Apple objects to Samsung’s

7

use of expedited discovery where the targeted subject matter does not relate to Apple’s

8

preliminary injunction motion.

9

11.

Apple objects to Samsung’s attempt to serve a “corrected” version of Interrogatory

10

No. 4 that substantially expands its scope and to serve a second set of interrogatories after the

11

Court’s July 8, 2011 cut-off for such interrogatories as untimely. Apple also objects to

12

Samsung’s attempt to serve a second set of interrogatories after the Court’s July 8, 2011 cut-off as

13

untimely.

14

AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7

15

Subject to the foregoing qualifications and General Objections and the specific objections

16

made below, Apple amends its objections and response to Samsung’s Interrogatory No. 7

17

Relating to Apple Inc.’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as follows:

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

19

For each of the DESIGN PATENTS and the ’381 PATENT, IDENTIFY (by product

20

name, product manufacturer, telecommunications carrier (if applicable), date of product

21

announcement, date of product release, and appearance of product – including front, back, and

22

side images) every Apple product that embodies any patented design or invention of the DESIGN

23

PATENTS or the ’381 PATENT and provide a chart identifying specifically where each

24

limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Apple product.

25

AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

26

Apple objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not

27

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, especially because it

28

requests information pertaining to “every Apple product” and information about the “appearance
APPLE’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3019365

1

of product – including front, back, and side images.” Apple objects that this interrogatory calls

2

for information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in Apple’s Motion for a

3

Preliminary Injunction. Apple objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that:

4

(i) is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine; (ii)

5

would require Apple to draw a legal conclusion to respond; or (iii) can be obtained as easily by

6

Samsung, is already in Samsung’s possession, or is publicly available.

7

Subject to and incorporating its General Objections and its specific objections, Apple

8

responds as follows: The patented design of the ’D677 patent is embodied in at least the original

9

iPhone, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4. The patented design of the ’D087 patent is embodied in at

10

least the original iPhone and iPhone 3GS. The patented design of the ’D889 patent is embodied

11

in at least the iPad 2. Apple refers to its preliminary injunction motion moving papers and public

12

sources for images of the aforementioned Apple products. The patented invention of the ’381

13

patent is embodied in at least the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad, and iPad 2.

14
15

Dated: September 28, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

16
17
18
19

By:

/s/ Richard S.J. Hung
RICHARD S.J. HUNG
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S AMENDED OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 RELATING TO APPLE’S PI MOTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3019365