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

Filing 815

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, #2 Declaration of S. Calvin Walden in Support of Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12, #15 Exhibit 13, #16 Exhibit 14, #17 [Proposed] Order Granting Apple's Motion to Compel)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

EXHIBIT 4

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
14 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

20

SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S FOURTH
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (NOS.
156-187)

21

Plaintiff,
vs.

22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
25
Defendant.
26
27
28
02198.51855/4372557.6

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

OBJECTIONS COMMON TO ALL REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

2

The following objections apply to each document request in Apple Inc.’s (“Apple’s”)

3 Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things, whether or not stated separately
4 in response to each particular document request.
5

1.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it requests documents

6 and information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
7 doctrine, community of interest doctrine, joint defense privilege, and/or any other applicable
8 privilege. Any such documents and information will not be provided, and an inadvertent
9 production of any document or information that Samsung believes is immune from discovery
10 pursuant to any applicable privilege shall not be deemed a waiver. Samsung may give written
11 notice to Apple that the document or information inadvertently produced is privileged or otherwise
12 protected, and upon receipt of such written notice, Apple shall immediately comply with Federal
13 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and the applicable provisions of any Protective Order entered
14 in this action, including the Model Interim Protective Order.
15

2.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it is vague,

16 ambiguous, overly broad, oppressive, unduly burdensome, harassing, compound, fails to identify
17 the documents and things sought with reasonable particularity, and seeks information that is
18 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Where
19 a term is vague and ambiguous, Samsung will respond based on its understanding of the term.
20

3.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it is not reasonably

21 limited in time or geographic scope, and to the extent it pertains to technology that are is at issue
22 in this litigation.
23

4.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks documents

24 that are not within its possession, custody or control. In making objections and/or responding to
25 any and all requests, Samsung does not indicate that responsive documents exist within the
26 ownership, possession, custody or control of Samsung.
27

5.

Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and

28 “Defendants” as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and as calling for documents or
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 information not in Samsung’s possession, custody, or control to the extent that it defines Samsung
2 to include “all predecessors, successors, predecessors-in-interest, successors-in-interest,
3 subsidiaries, divisions, parents, and/or affiliates, past or present, any companies that have a
4 controlling interest in Defendants, and any current or former employee, officer, director, principal,
5 agent, consultant, representative, or attorney thereof, or anyone acting on their behalf.”
6

6.

Samsung objects to the definition of “Apple” as overly broad.

7

7.

Samsung objects to the definition of “Defined Wireless Standards” as overly broad

8 and overly burdensome to the extent it asks Samsung to provide information relating to standards
9 and/or wireless standards to which the Samsung Patents-in-Suit have not been declared as
10 Essential or relating to standards and/or wireless standards upon which Samsung does not rely in
11 its infringement contentions.
12

8.

Samsung objects to the definition of “Relating” as overly broad.

13

9.

Samsung objects to Instruction Nos. 1 and 3 to the extent they ask for documents to

14 be produced “in their entirety.” Where applicable, Samsung will redact from certain documents
15 any non-responsive, irrelevant or privileged information.
16

10.

Samsung further objects to each document request to the extent it seeks highly

17 confidential documents containing Samsung’s sensitive proprietary business information, the
18 disclosure of which could cause Samsung substantial competitive harm. Any such documents will
19 be appropriately designated under the applicable protective order and/or redacted to exclude non20 responsive, irrelevant or privileged information.
21

11.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent it seeks documents more

22 readily available to Apple than to Samsung, or equally available to Apple as to Samsung,
23 including documents and things that are publicly available.
24

12.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks the

25 confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information of third parties, and to the extent it seeks
26 information subject to non-disclosure or other agreements between Samsung and third parties.
27

13.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks documents

28 protected from disclosure by the constitutional and/or statutory privacy rights of third persons.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

14.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks documents

2 and things before Samsung is required to disclose such documents and things in accordance with
3 any applicable law, such as the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
4

15.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks a legal

5 conclusion.
6

16.

Samsung objects to each document request to the extent that it seeks to impose any

7 requirement or discovery obligation greater or different than those imposed by the Federal Rules
8 of Civil Procedure.
9

17.

Samsung’s investigation and analysis of the facts and law pertaining to this lawsuit

10 is ongoing. Thus, Samsung’s responses are made without prejudice to its right to subsequently
11 add, modify or otherwise change, correct, or amend these responses.
12
13

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

14 REQUEST NO. 156
15

All documents and communications with an expert witness who is expected to testify in

16 this Litigation that (i) relate to compensation for the expert’s work or testimony; (ii) identify facts
17 or data that Samsung’s attorneys provided and that the expert considered in forming any opinions
18 to be expressed; and (iii) identify assumptions that Samsung’s attorneys provided and the expert
19 relied on in forming any opinions to be expressed.
20 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 156:
21

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

22 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
23 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
24 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
25 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
26 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
27 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “assumptions” is vague and ambiguous.
28 Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession,
2 custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request as premature to the extent
3 it seeks documents and things inconsistent with the applicable timeframes, such as those set forth
4 in the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and any applicable scheduling order.
5 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
6

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

7 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
8 REQUEST NO. 157
9

All documents and things relating to the alleged nexus between any alleged commercial

10 success of products embodying any alleged invention claimed by the Samsung Patents-In-Suit and
11 the alleged advantages of the invention, including without limitation any customer surveys
12 reflecting the bases for purchasing decisions.
13 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 157:
14

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

15 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
16 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
17 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
18 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
19 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
20 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
21 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
22 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the
23 claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
24 admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
25 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
26 request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
27 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
28 publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request as premature to the extent it seeks
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 documents and things inconsistent with the applicable timeframes, such as those set forth in the
2 Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and any applicable scheduling order. Samsung
3 further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
4

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

5 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
6 REQUEST NO. 158
7

All documents relating to the Georgia Pacific factors as those factors relate to Samsung’s

8 claim for damages arising from Apple’s alleged infringement of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit.
9 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 158:
10

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

11 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
12 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
13 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
14 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
15 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
16 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “Georgia Pacifica factors” is vague and
17 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
18 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
19 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request as
20 premature to the extent it seeks documents and things inconsistent with the applicable timeframes,
21 such as those set forth in the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and any applicable
22 scheduling order. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a legal
23 conclusion.
24

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

25 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
26 REQUEST NO. 159
27

All documents and things relating to accolades and awards given to products that embody

28 any alleged invention claimed by the Samsung Patents-In-Suit.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 159:
2

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

3 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
4 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
5 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
6 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
7 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
8 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “accolade” is vague and ambiguous.
9 Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the
10 scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad
11 because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks
12 documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further
13 objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple
14 than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents
15 are publicly available.
16

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

17 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
18 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
19 REQUEST NO. 160
20

All documents and things evidencing Samsung’s licensing program, including without

21 limitation documents sufficient to identify all licensing personnel, location of said personnel, and
22 duties of said personnel.
23 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 160:
24

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

25 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
26 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
27 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
28 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-7SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
2 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “licensing program” is vague and
3 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
4 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
5 overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things
6 from time periods not at issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to the request as
7 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
8 extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not
9 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to
10 the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control
11 of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents containing
12 confidential third party information, including information subject to a non-disclosure or other
13 agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
14

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

15 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
16 REQUEST NO. 161
17

All documents and things relating to Samsung’s attempts to license to others the Samsung

18 Patents-In-Suit and any related patents which have not yet resulted in a license agreement,
19 including without limitation cease and desist letters, draft agreements, and other communications.
20 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 161:
21

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

22 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
23 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
24 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
25 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
26 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
27 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “any related patents” is vague and
28 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all”
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-8SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not
2 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
3 discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the Request as duplicative of
4 Apple’s Request No. 161.
5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

6 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
7 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
8 REQUEST NO. 162
9

Documents sufficient to identify any attempt by Samsung to enforce, either in the United

10 States or abroad, the Samsung Patents-In-Suit and any related patents.
11 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 162:
12

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

13 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
14 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
15 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
16 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
17 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
18 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the terms “attempt to enforce” and “any related
19 patents” are vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it
20 is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further
21 objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or
22 defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23 evidence. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
24 publicly available.
25

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

26 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
27 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 REQUEST NO. 163
2

All documents produced or made available to Samsung by any non-party or third-party in

3 this Litigation.
4 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 163:
5

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

6 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
7 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
8 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
9 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
10 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
11 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “made available” is vague and
12 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
13 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
14 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
15 extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not
16 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to
17 the Request to the extent it is duplicative of others of Apple’s Requests For Production. Samsung
18 further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession,
19 custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it seeks
20 documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects
21 to the Request to the extent the requested documents are publicly available.
22

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

23 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
24 REQUEST NO. 164
25

All documents relating to any security interest in or lien against any of the Samsung

26 Patents-In-Suit or any related patents.
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-10SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 164:
2

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

3 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
4 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
5 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
6 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
7 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
8 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the terms “any related patents” and “security
9 interest” are vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it
10 is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further
11 objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects
12 to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of
13 any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
14 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
15

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

16 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
17 REQUEST NO. 165
18

All documents relating to the ownership, title, transfer, or assignment of any of the

19 Samsung Patents-In-Suit or any related patents.
20 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 165:
21

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

22 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
23 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
24 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
25 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
26 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
27 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “any related patents” is vague and
28 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all”
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-11SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 documents. Samsung further objects to the Request as duplicative of Apple’s Request For
2 Production No. 93. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a legal
3 conclusion.
4

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

5 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
6 things in its possession, custody and control, discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
7 REQUEST NO. 166
8

All documents relating to Samsung’s decision to mark or not to mark any product with the

9 numbers of any of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit.
10 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 166:
11

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

12 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
13 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
14 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
15 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
16 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
17 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “decision to mark or not to mark” is
18 vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not
19 reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to
20 the request as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks
21 documents and things from time periods not at issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to
22 the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the
23 Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any
24 party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung
25 further objects to the Request as duplicative of Apple's Requests Nos. 167 and 168.
26

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

27 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-12SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 REQUEST NO. 167
2

All documents and things related to any marking of any product with any of the numbers

3 of any of the Samsung Patents-in-Suit.
4 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 167:
5

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

6 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
7 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
8 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
9 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
10 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
11 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
12 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
13 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the
14 claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
15 admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the Request as duplicative of Apple’s Requests
16 Nos. 166 and 168.
17

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

18 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
19 REQUEST NO. 168
20

All documents and things evidencing Samsung’s or any licensee’s or any third party’s

21 marking of any product with the numbers of any of the Samsung Patents-in-Suit.
22 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 168:
23

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

24 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
25 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
26 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
27 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
28 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-13SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
2 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
3 Samsung further objects to the Request as duplicative of Apple’s Requests Nos. 166 and 167.
4 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the
5 possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it
6 seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further
7 objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are publicly available.
8

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

9 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
10 REQUEST NO. 169
11

All documents relating to any alleged damage or injury that Samsung has suffered or will

12 suffer as a consequence of Apple allegedly using, manufacturing, employing, or selling any Apple
13 Accused Product.
14 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 169:
15

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

16 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
17 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
18 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
19 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
20 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
21 request as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is
22 not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects
23 to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the
24 Request as premature to the extent it seeks documents and things inconsistent with the applicable
25 timeframes, such as those set forth in the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and
26 any applicable scheduling order. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it calls for a
27 legal conclusion.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-14SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

2 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
3 REQUEST NO. 170
4

All documents relating to any sales that Samsung alleges it has lost, or believes it has lost,

5 to Apple.
6 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 170:
7

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

8 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
9 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
10 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
11 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
12 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
13 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
14 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
15 Samsung further objects to the Request as premature to the extent it seeks documents and things
16 inconsistent with the applicable timeframes, such as those set forth in the Northern District of
17 California Patent Local Rules and any applicable scheduling order. Samsung further objects to the
18 Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
19

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

20 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
21 REQUEST NO. 171
22

All documents relating to budgets, projected revenues and expenses, projected sales,

23 projected profits, or other forecasts of operations concerning each Samsung Product you claim
24 embodies any invention claimed in any claim of any of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit.
25 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 171:
26

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

27 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
28 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-15SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
2 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
3 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
4 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
5 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
6 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the
7 claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
8 admissible evidence.
9

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

10 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
11 REQUEST NO. 172
12

All documents relating to Samsung’s pricing, pricing practice or policies, and changes in

13 pricing with respect to each Samsung Product you claim embodies any invention claimed in any
14 claim of any of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit, including without limitation, documents concerning
15 price lists, pricing worksheets, marketing/pricing memoranda, sales correspondence, or price
16 quotations.
17 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 172:
18

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

19 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
20 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
21 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
22 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
23 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
24 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
25 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents.
26 Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the
27 claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-16SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

2 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
3 REQUEST NO. 173
4

All documents relating to Samsung’s alleged capacity and ability to manufacture, sell,

5 and/or distribute each Samsung Product you claim embodies any invention claimed in any claim
6 of any of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit, including without limitation all documents and tangible
7 things concerning Samsung’s sales, marketing and distribution system, sales force, and geographic
8 locations for manufacturing and warehousing operations.
9 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 173:
10

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

11 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
12 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
13 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
14 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
15 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
16 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
17 seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not limited to any
18 reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at issue in this
19 litigation. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all”
20 documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not
21 relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
22 discovery of admissible evidence.
23

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

24 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
25 REQUEST NO. 174
26

All documents that list, describe, detail, or concern the market for each Samsung Product

27 you claim embodies any invention claimed in any claim of any of the Samsung Patents-In-Suit,
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-17SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 including without limitation documents concerning: (a) actual, projected, or potential market size
2 or market shares; and (b) industry trends or developments.
3 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 174:
4

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

5 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
6 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
7 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
8 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
9 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
10 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the terms “market” and “industry trends” is vague
11 and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all”
12 documents.
13

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

14 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
15 REQUEST NO. 175
16

All documents concerning transport channel processing technology, including but not

17 limited to segmentation, multiplexing, channel coding and interleaving that, prior to July 7, 1999,
18 was known, patented, conceived, described, used, made, created, analyzed, tested, standardized,
19 developed, or in development.
20 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 175:
21

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

22 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
23 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
24 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
25 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
26 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
27 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the terms “multiplexing” and “segmentation” are
28 vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-18SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. For instance, it is not limited
2 to one specific standard. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for
3 “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are
4 not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the
5 discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, the Request refers to technology not included in
6 the patents-in-suit. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
7 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
8 request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
9 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
10 publicly available.
11

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

12 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
13 REQUEST NO. 176
14

All documents concerning transport channel processing technology developed in whole or

15 part by Samsung, whether or not implemented in a commercial product or standard. This
16 includes, but is not limited to, all documents and things concerning the conception, creation,
17 development, testing, analysis, implementation, negotiation, standardization, or selection of
18 transport channel processing technology, including without limitation all documents constituting
19 or concerning:
20

(a) Samsung’s participation therein

21

(b) channel coding

22

(c) radio frame segmentation

23

(d) radio frame equalization

24

(e) transport channel multiplexing

25

(f) physical channel segmentation

26

(g) any draft or version of any specification ultimately standardized as TS
25.212, and any follow-on draft or version of TS 25.212

27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-19SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1
2
3

(h) proposals and submissions to GSM/ETSI/3GPP regarding transport
channel processing technology from any party, including without
limitation Samsung
(i) selection of features and technologies for transport channel processing
technology

4
5

(j) any feature or technology considered, proposed, analyzed, or tested for
inclusion in TS 25.212

6

(k) all of Samsung’s internal documentation, work, research, analysis, and
testing concerning transport channel processing technology

7
8
9
10

(l) all of Samsung’s IPR declarations concerning or relating to transport
channel processing technology
(m) all of Samsung’s internal documentation concerning its IPR
declarations concerning or relating to transport channel processing
technology, including for example discussion or analysis about what
patents to declare essential (or not declare essential) and when

11
12 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 176:
13

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

14 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
15 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
16 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
17 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
18 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
19 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
20 seeks. For instance, it is not limited to one standard. Samsung further objects to the request as
21 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
22 extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not
23 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, the Request
24 relates to IPR not included in the patents-in-suit. Samsung further objects to the Request as
25 duplicative of Apple’s Request For Production No. 174. Samsung further objects to the Request
26 to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung.
27 Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily
28 available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-20SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 requested documents are publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent
2 it seeks documents containing confidential third party information, including information subject
3 to a non-disclosure or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
4

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

5 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
6 REQUEST NO. 177
7

All documents, including without limitation documents constituting or concerning

8 communications within Samsung, between Samsung and any third party, constituting or
9 concerning transport channel processing technology proposed, considered for proposal, conceived,
10 created, developed, tested, analyzed, or selected for inclusion in any telecommunication standard,
11 including without limitation 3GPP TS 25.212 and TSG RAN Working Group 1.
12 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 177:
13

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

14 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
15 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
16 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
17 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
18 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
19 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “transport channel” is vague and
20 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
21 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. For instance, it is not limited to one standard.
22 Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung
23 further objects to the Request as duplicative of Apple’s Request No. 174. Samsung further objects
24 to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or
25 control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents
26 equally or more readily available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
27 Request to the extent the requested documents are publicly available.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-21SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

2 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
3 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
4 REQUEST NO. 178
5

All documents concerning data packet construction, including but not limited to

6 segmentation, concatenation, padding, length indicator optimization, pre-defined length indicator
7 values, header extension bits, and RLC-SDU alignment that, prior to May 4, 2005, was known,
8 patented, conceived, described, used, made, created, analyzed, tested, standardized, developed, or
9 in development.
10 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 178:
11

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

12 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
13 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
14 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
15 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
16 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
17 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the terms “concatenation,” “header extension bits”
18 and “padding” are vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in
19 that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. For instance, it is
20 not limited to one standard. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad because it calls
21 for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
22 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
23 request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
24 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
25 publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents
26 containing confidential third party information, including information subject to a non-disclosure
27 or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-22SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

2 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
3 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
4 REQUEST NO. 179
5

All documents concerning data packet construction developed in whole or part by

6 Samsung, whether or not implemented in a commercial product or standard. This includes, but is
7 not limited to, all documents and things concerning the conception, creation, development, testing,
8 analysis, implementation, negotiation, standardization, or selection of data packet construction,
9 including without limitation all documents constituting or concerning:
10

(a) Samsung’s participation therein;

11

(b) data packet segmentation;

12

(c) data packet concatenation;

13

(d) data packet padding;

14

(f) length indicator optimization;

15

(g) pre-defined length indicator values;

16

(h) alternative header extension bits;

17

(i) RLC-SDU alignment;

18

(j) any draft or version of any specification ultimately standardized as TS
25.322 and/or TS 25.306, and any follow-on draft or version of TS 25.322
and/or TS 25.306;

19
20

(k) proposals and submissions to GSM/ETSI/3GPP regarding data packet
construction from any party, including without limitation Samsung;

21
(l) selection of features and technologies for data packet construction;
22
23

(m) any feature or technology considered, proposed, analyzed, or tested
for inclusion in TS 25.322 and/or TS 25.306;

24

(n) all of Samsung’s internal documentation, work, research, analysis, and
testing concerning data packet construction;

25
26

(o) all of Samsung’s IPR declarations concerning or relating to data packet
construction; and

27

(p) all of Samsung’s internal documentation concerning its IPR
declarations concerning or relating to data packet construction, including

28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-23SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

for example discussion or analysis about what patents to declare essential
(or not declare essential) and when.

2
3 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 179:
4

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

5 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
6 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
7 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
8 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
9 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
10 request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it
11 seeks. For instance, it is not limited to one specific standard. Samsung further objects to the
12 request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request
13 to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or
14 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, the
15 Request relates to IPR not included in the patents-in-suit. Samsung further objects to the Request
16 as duplicative of Apple’s Request No. 178. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it
17 seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung
18 further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to
19 Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested
20 documents are publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks
21 documents containing confidential third party information, including information subject to a non22 disclosure or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
23

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

24 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
25 REQUEST NO. 180
26

All documents, including without limitation documents constituting or concerning

27 communications within Samsung, between Samsung and any third party, constituting or
28 concerning data packet construction proposed, considered for proposal, conceived, created,
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-24SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 developed, tested, analyzed, or selected for inclusion in any telecommunication standard,
2 including without limitation 3GPP TS 25.322 and 3GPP TS 25.306.
3 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 180:
4

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

5 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
6 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
7 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
8 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
9 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
10 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “data packet construction” is vague and
11 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
12 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
13 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request as
14 duplicative of Apple’s Request No. 178. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it
15 seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung
16 further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to
17 Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested
18 documents are publicly available.
19

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

20 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
21 REQUEST NO. 181
22

All documents concerning uplink transmission power control technology, including but not

23 limited to enhanced uplink service, HARQ, control of transmit power or transmit power factor,
24 and power factor scaling that, prior to June 9, 2004, was known, patented, conceived, described,
25 used, made, created, analyzed, tested, standardized, developed, or in development.
26 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 181:
27

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

28 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-25SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
2 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
3 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
4 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
5 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, following terms are vague and ambiguous:
6 “enhanced uplink service,” “control of transmit power,” “transmit power factor,” and “power
7 factor scaling.” Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably
8 limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
9 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
10 extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung.
11 Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily
12 available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the
13 requested documents are publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent
14 it seeks documents containing confidential third party information, including information subject
15 to a non-disclosure or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
16

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and without representing that any

17 responsive documents exist, Samsung will produce responsive, non-privileged documents and
18 things in its possession, custody and control discovered as a result of a reasonably diligent search.
19 REQUEST NO. 182
20

All documents concerning uplink transmission power control developed in whole or part

21 by Samsung, whether or not implemented in a commercial product or standard. This includes, but
22 is not limited to, all documents and things concerning the conception, creation, development,
23 testing, analysis, implementation, negotiation, standardization, or selection of data packet
24 construction, including without limitation all documents constituting or concerning:
25

(a) Samsung’s participation therein;

26

(b) HARQ;

27

(c) retransmission of packets;

28

(d) enhanced uplink dedicated channel (E-DCH);
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-26SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

(f) enhanced uplink dedicated physical data channel (E-DPDCH);

2

(g) enhanced uplink dedicated physical control channel (E-DPCCH);

3

(h) power factor scaling;

4

(i) any draft or version of any specification ultimately standardized as TS
25.214 and/or TS 25.213, and any follow-on draft or version of TS 25.214
and/or TS 25.213;

5
6
7
8

(j) proposals and submissions to GSM/ETSI/3GPP regarding uplink
transmission power control from any party, including without limitation
Samsung;
(k) selection of features and technologies for uplink transmission power
control;

9
10

(l) any feature or technology considered, proposed, analyzed, or tested for
inclusion in TS 25.214 and/or TS 25.213;

11

(n) all of Samsung’s internal documentation, work, research, analysis, and
testing concerning uplink transmission power control;

12
13
14
15

(o) all of Samsung’s IPR declarations concerning or relating to uplink
transmission power control; and
(p) all of Samsung’s internal documentation concerning its IPR
declarations concerning or relating to uplink transmission power control,
including for example discussion or analysis about what patents to declare
essential (or not declare essential) and when.

16
17 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 182:
18

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

19 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
20 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
21 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
22 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
23 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
24 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “power factor scaling” is vague and
25 ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not reasonably limited
26 as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to the request as
27 overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
28 extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-27SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For instance, the Request
2 relates to IPR not included in the patents-in-suit. Samsung further objects to the Request as
3 duplicative of Apple’s Request No. 181. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it
4 seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung
5 further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to
6 Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested
7 documents are publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks
8 documents containing confidential third party information, including information subject to a non9 disclosure or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
10

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

11 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
12 REQUEST NO. 183
13

All documents, including without limitation documents constituting or concerning

14 communications within Samsung, between Samsung and any third party, constituting or
15 concerning uplink transmission power control proposed, considered for proposal, conceived,
16 created, developed, tested, analyzed, or selected for inclusion in any telecommunication standard,
17 including without limitation 3GPP TS 25.214 and 3GPP TS 25.213.
18 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 183:
19

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

20 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
21 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
22 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
23 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
24 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
25 request as vague and ambiguous. For example, the term “uplink transmission power control” is
26 vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the request as overbroad in that it is not
27 reasonably limited as to the scope of documents and things it seeks. Samsung further objects to
28 the request as overbroad because it calls for “all” documents. Samsung further objects to the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-28SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 Request as duplicative of Apple’s Request No. 181. Samsung further objects to the Request to the
2 extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung.
3 Samsung further objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily
4 available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the
5 requested documents are publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent
6 it seeks documents containing confidential third party information, including information subject
7 to a non-disclosure or other agreement between Samsung and a third party, or a protective order.
8

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

9 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
10 REQUEST NO. 184
11

To the extent not duplicative of other requests, all documents relating to actual or potential

12 litigation or arbitration threatened or filed by or against Samsung, including by not limited to
13 litigation or arbitration outside of the United States, regarding the licensing of any IPR related to
14 the Defined Wireless Standards, including without limitation any and all expert reports and court
15 filings, and transcripts of any deposition, hearing, or other recorded or transcribed proceeding in
16 the arbitrations or litigations.
17 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 184:
18

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

19 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
20 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
21 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
22 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
23 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects the Request
24 as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to the Request as overbroad in that it is not
25 limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents and things from time periods not at
26 issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents
27 that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead
28 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further objects to the Request as overly
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-29SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 burdensome for its use of the overly broad definition of “Defined Wireless Standard.” Samsung
2 further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that are not within the possession,
3 custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks
4 documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to Samsung. Samsung further objects
5 to the Request to the extent the requested documents are publicly available. Samsung further
6 objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents subject to a protective order or under seal.
7

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

8 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
9 REQUEST NO. 185
10

To the extent not duplicative of other requests, all documents relating to or containing any

11 claims or statements by Samsung in any litigation or judicial proceeding, including by not limited
12 to litigation or proceedings outside of the United States, regarding the licensing of IPR that is
13 claimed Essential to any Defined Wireless Standard, the determination of a FRAND royalty rate
14 for any IPR that is claimed Essential to any Defined Wireless Standard, and the propriety of
15 injunctive relief for the infringement of IPR claimed to be Essential to any Defined Wireless
16 Standard.
17 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 185:
18

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

19 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
20 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
21 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
22 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
23 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
24 Request as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents
25 and things from time periods not at issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to the Request
26 to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or
27 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further
28 objects to the Request as overly burdensome for its use of the overly broad definition of “Defined
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-30SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 Wireless Standard.” Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
2 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
3 Request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
4 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
5 publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents
6 subject to a protective order or under seal.
7

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

8 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
9 REQUEST NO. 186
10

To the extent not duplicative of other requests, all transcripts of depositions or other

11 documents containing any testimony and/or statements by Samsung, current or former Samsung
12 affiliates or employees, or experts retained by Samsung or counsel to Samsung, relating to any
13 litigation or judicial proceeding, including by not limited to litigation or proceedings outside of the
14 United States, concerning IPR claimed Essential to any Defined Wireless Standard, the
15 determination of a FRAND royalty rate for any IPR allegedly Essential to a Defined Wireless
16 Standard, and the propriety of injunctive relief for the infringement of IPR claimed to be Essential
17 to any Defined Wireless Standard.
18 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 186:
19

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

20 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
21 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
22 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
23 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
24 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
25 Request as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents
26 and things from time periods not at issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to the Request
27 to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or
28 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-31SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 objects to the Request as overly burdensome for its use of the overly broad definition of “Defined
2 Wireless Standard.” Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
3 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
4 Request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
5 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
6 publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents
7 subject to a protective order or under seal.
8

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

9 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
10 REQUEST NO. 187
11

To the extent not duplicative of other requests, all documents prepared by any expert,

12 including any technical, economic, marketing or licensing experts, retained by Samsung or by
13 counsel to Samsung for any litigation or judicial proceeding, including by not limited to litigation
14 or proceedings outside of the United States, concerning IPR claimed Essential to any Defined
15 Wireless Standard, the determination of a FRAND royalty rate for any IPR allegedly Essential to a
16 Defined Wireless Standard, and the propriety of injunctive relief for the infringement of IPR
17 claimed to be Essential to any Defined Wireless Standard.
18 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 187:
19

In addition to its Objections and Responses Common to All Requests for Production,

20 which it hereby incorporates by reference, Samsung objects to this Request to the extent that it
21 seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
22 work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
23 applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it is unduly
24 burdensome, and/or would require undue expense to answer. Samsung further objects to the
25 Request as overbroad in that it is not limited to any reasonable time period and seeks documents
26 and things from time periods not at issue in this litigation. Samsung further objects to the Request
27 to the extent it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or
28 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Samsung further
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-32SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1 objects to the Request as overly burdensome for its use of the overly broad definition of “Defined
2 Wireless Standard.” Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents that
3 are not within the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to the
4 Request to the extent it seeks documents equally or more readily available to Apple than to
5 Samsung. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent the requested documents are
6 publicly available. Samsung further objects to the Request to the extent it seeks documents
7 subject to a protective order or under seal.
8

Subject to these objections, Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the

9 relevance and scope of the information sought by this request.
10
11
12 DATED:October 31, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

13

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

By /s/ Todd Briggs
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-33SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on Oct. 31, 2011, I caused SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND

3 RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
4 DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (NOS. 156-187) to be electronically served on the following via
5 email:
6 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC.
7 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
[e-mail]
8 MICHAEL A. JACOBS
[e-mail]
9 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR
[e-mail]
10 ALISON M. TUCHER
[e-mail]
11 RICHARD S.J. HUNG
[e-mail]
12 JASON R. BARTLETT
[e-mail]
13 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
14 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
15 Facsimile: [phone]
16 WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
17 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
18 60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
19 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
20
MARK D. SELWYN
21 [e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
22 AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
23 Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
24 Facsimile: [phone]
25
26

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in

27 Redwood Shores, California on Oct. 31, 2011.
28

_/s/ Alex Binder
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-34SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FOURTH SET OF RFPs (NOS. 156-187)