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

Filing 800

MOTION Administrative Motion for Relief from Lead Counsel Meet and Confer Requirement or Extension of Deadline to File Motions filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Responses due by 3/26/2012. Replies due by 4/2/2012. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

EXHIBIT 2

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

March 10, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Richard S.J. Hung
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Re:

Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Richard:
On Thursday, the last day of discovery, Apple for the fourth time in less than two weeks
amended its response to Interrogatory No. 1 to assert new conception and reduction to practice
information for its patents-in-suit. The changes include new, earlier alleged conception and
reduction to practice dates, modified language to describe previously disclosed dates in order to
render them less specific, and new contentions regarding documents and circumstances
supporting Apple’s new claimed dates.
Apple’s conduct with regard to these responses is unacceptable, to say the least. Indeed,
Samsung only learned of the March 1 supplemental response when questioning a Rule 30(b)(6)
witness about the February 27 response at his March 1 deposition. It was only then that it
became clear the witness was relying upon a second response that Apple had not even mentioned
to Samsung before the deposition. Nor did this turn out to be the last word. Even as this was
occurring, Apple, without disclosing it to Samsung, was planning to serve a third and then a
fourth new response on the last day of discovery.
Apple’s last minute gamesmanship – months after all of the inventor depositions have already
taken place – is highly prejudicial to Samsung and improper. Conception and reduction to
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | 51

Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16

practice information is well within Apple’s control, and has been since at least the time it served
its initial interrogatory response last September. As Apple is well aware, Samsung must know
Apple’s purported conception and reduction to practice dates before it can develop its invalidity
defenses. Indeed, it is for this very reason that Apple was required under the Local Patent Rules
to identify at the outset any documents supporting conception and reduction to practice dates for
its utility patents.
The timing of Apple’s four seriatim amendments raises serious concerns regarding the veracity
of the positions Apple is now choosing to put forth. For each amendment, please let us know
when Apple first learned of the information on which the amendment is based, how Apple first
learned of it, and why Apple could not have determined this information earlier.
Samsung expects Apple to agree to present for further deposition each of the inventors of the
patent-in-suit for which Apple has provided amended information in its last four interrogatory
responses so that they can be questioned on the new purported information. These depositions
will not count against Samsung’s 250-hour limit and will necessitate a modification to the expert
discovery deadlines.
Furthermore, Samsung must be permitted to supplement its invalidity contentions and conduct
any prior art discovery, including third party discovery, to account for Apple’s newly alleged
conception dates. If Apple does not agree to these requests, Samsung will ask the Court to either
compel these depositions and discovery, or strike Apple’s four recent interrogatory amendments,
and bar Apple from relying on the information or contentions in those responses on any motion
or at trial.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
/s/
Diane C. Hutnyan

2