Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
796
Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of #795 MOTION for Sanctions Apple's Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Based on Samsung's Violation of the Court's December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) #795 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/9/2012)
Exhibit G
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pernick, Marc J.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:09 AM
'rachelkassabian@quinnemanuel.com'
AppleMoFo; 'samsungv.apple@quinnemanuel.com'; 'calvin.walden@wilmerhale.com';
'peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com'; Mazza, Mia;
'WHAppleSamsungNDCalService@wilmerhale.com'
RE: Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re: Production of Source Code by Samsung
2012--2-26 Pernick to Kassabian re Stipulaton on Source Code.pdf; 2012-02-26 Pernick to
Kassabian re Stipulation on Source Code.pdf
Rachel:
Please let us know immediately if Samsung agrees with our proposed stipulation concerning the production of source
code, and what products we can add to the list in the stipulation. Otherwise, please let us know immediately of any
comments that Samsung has. Samsung's deadline to produce the source code expired two months ago, so we need to
wrap the stipulation up and move on.
Regards,
Marc
2012--2-26 Pernick 2012-02-26 Pernick
to Kassabia...
to Kassabia...
_____________________________________________
From:
Pernick, Marc J.
Sent:
Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:47 PM
To:
'rachelkassabian@quinnemanuel.com'
Cc:
AppleMoFo; 'samsungv.apple@quinnemanuel.com'; 'calvin.walden@wilmerhale.com'; 'peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com'; Mazza, Mia;
'WHAppleSamsungNDCalService@wilmerhale.com'
Subject:
Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re: Production of Source Code by Samsung
<< File: 2012--2-26 Pernick to Kassabian re Stipulaton on Source Code.pdf >> << File: 2012-02-26 Pernick to
Kassabian re Stipulation on Source Code.pdf >>
Hi Rachel,
Attached please find correspondence regarding Samsung's production of source code in response to the Court's
December 22, 2011 Order, as well as a draft stipulation for your review.
Regards,
Marc Pernick
Morrison & Foerster LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
650.813.5718
mpernick@mofo.com
1
755 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO
CALIFORNIA 94304-1018
TELEPHONE: 650.813.5600
FACSIMILE: 650.494.0792
WWW.MOFO.COM
February 26, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO,
DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG
Writer’s Direct Contact
650.813.5718
MPernick@mofo.com
By Email (rachelkassabian@quinnemanuel.com)
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:
During the lead counsel meet-and-confer sessions that we held on February 14-15, 2012, the
parties discussed how to handle Samsung’s failure to produce all of the source code required
by the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order. We in particular discussed reaching a stipulation
as to versions of the accused products for which Samsung had not yet produced source code.
Your February 14th letter set out a list of accused products for which Samsung represented
that any versions for which it had not yet produced source code did not––except with regard
to U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381––materially differ from the version for which Samsung had
produced source code. You also stated in our meetings (as reflected in your February 14th
letter) that Samsung would continue to investigate this issue, and would report back to us on
whether additional accused products could be added to that list. We expected to hear from
you on this issue by last Wednesday, February 22nd. We have not, however, received any
further information from you.
For purposes of moving this discussion along, I attach here a draft stipulation for Samsung’s
consideration. As you will see, the current draft includes the accused products mentioned in
your February 14th letter. I have also left blank spaces to account for additional products that
you are able to add at this point.
We have been very patient on this issue, but the time has come to resolve it. Please review
this draft stipulation, and get back to us with any comments by the close of business on
February 28, 2012.
pa-1514322
Rachel Kassabian
February 26, 2012
Page Two
Sincerely,
/s/ Marc J. Pernick
Marc J. Pernick
cc:
Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos
pa-1514322
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No.
170151)
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
v.
23
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,
24
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SOURCE CODE
FOR THE ACCUSED DEVICES
Defendants.
21
22
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa-1514264
1
WHEREAS, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) commenced the above-captioned action against
2
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
3
Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung,” and together with Apple, “the
4
Parties” and individually each a “Party”) on April 15, 2011;
5
WHEREAS, through Requests for Production propounded on Samsung and other
6
discovery mechanisms, Apple sought production of the source code for the accused products (see,
7
e.g., Apple RFP Nos. 224, 228, and 232);
8
9
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2011, Apple filed a motion to compel seeking an order
directing Samsung to produce its source code for the accused products, including its source code
10
relating to certain specified accused functions (see Apple’s 12/8/11 [Proposed] Order Granting
11
Apple’s Mot. Compel Production of Docs. & Things at 2-3);
12
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Samsung to
13
produce “the source code and technical documents requested by Apple’s motion” by
14
December 31, 2011 (12/22/11 Order at 2);
15
16
17
WHEREAS, Samsung produced only one version of source code for each accused product
by December 31, 2011;
WHEREAS, Apple contends that Samsung should be precluded from arguing that any
18
version of an accused product does not infringe any Apple patent-in-suit, unless the source code
19
for that version of the product either (i) was produced by December 31, 2011, or (ii) differs in no
20
material way from the source code for the version of the product that was produced by
21
December 31, 2011;
22
WHEREAS, although Samsung does not agree with Apple’s contention, Samsung
23
represents that, for purposes of assessing infringement of all but one of the Apple patents-in-suit,
24
the version of the following accused products for which Samsung did produce source code by
25
December 31, 2011 is representative of all versions of that product:
26
27
28
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Captivate;
Continuum;
Epic 4G;
Exhibit 4G;
Fascinate;
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa- 1514264
1
1
10
(f) Galaxy Ace Showcase;
(g) Galaxy S 4G;
(h) Gravity Smart;
(i) Indulge;
(j) Intercept;
(k) Mesmerize;
(l) Nexus;
(m)Nexus S;
(n) Nexus S 4G;
(o) Replenish;
(p) Showcase Galaxy S;
(q) Sidekick;
(r) Transform;
(s) Vibrant;
(t) Galaxy Tab (AT&T, Sprint, TMobile and Verizon versions);
(u) ….
(v) …..
(w) …
(x) …...
11
WHEREAS, Samsung’s representation does not apply to Apple’s allegation that
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
Samsung’s accused products infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in their mutual interest to memorialize
14
their partial resolution of this outstanding dispute regarding the consequences of Samsung’s
15
failure to produce all of the source code covered by the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order by
16
December 31, 2011.
17
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties as
18
follows:
19
1.
For purposes of assessing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,002, 7,853,891,
20
7,864,163, 7,844,915, 7,812,828, 7,663,607, and 7,920,129 (whether direct or indirect, and
21
whether literal or by equivalents), the version of source code that Samsung produced by
22
December 31, 2011 for the following products is representative of the source code for all versions
23
of that product:
24
25
26
27
28
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Captivate;
Continuum;
Epic 4G;
Exhibit 4G;
Fascinate;
Galaxy Ace Showcase;
Galaxy S 4G;
Gravity Smart;
Indulge;
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa- 1514264
2
1
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
x.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.
Intercept;
Mesmerize;
Nexus;
Nexus S;
Nexus S 4G;
Replenish;
Showcase Galaxy S;
Sidekick;
Transform;
Vibrant; and
Galaxy Tab (AT&T, Sprint, TMobile and Verizon versions);
…….
…….
…….
…….
This stipulation is without prejudice to Apple’s right to seek any remedy or relief
10
with regard to any disputes over Samsung’s production of source code in accordance with the
11
December 22, 2011 Order that are not addressed in Section 1 of this Stipulation.
12
13
Dated: February ___, 2012
14
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By:_____________________________
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR
ALISON M. TUCHER
RICHARD S.J. HUNG
JASON R. BARTLETT
By:________________________________
CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN
KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON
VICTORIA F. MAROULIS
EDWARD DEFRANCO
MICHAEL T. ZELLER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC.
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa- 1514264
3
1
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
Dated: ___________________, 2012
By:
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
pa- 1514264
4
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?