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

Filing 834

RESPONSE (re #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 bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Proposed Stipulation, #2 Declaration Declaration of Todd Briggs, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #5 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/23/2012)

EXHIBIT A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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

STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING SOURCE CODE
FOR THE ACCUSED DEVICES

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

Defendants.

21
22

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1
2

WHEREAS, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) commenced the above-captioned action (“Action”)

3

against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

4

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung,” and together with Apple, “the

5

Parties” and individually each a “Party”) on April 15, 2011;

6

WHEREAS, through Requests for Production propounded on Samsung and other

7

discovery mechanisms, Apple sought production of the source code for the accused products (see,

8

e.g., Apple RFP Nos. 224, 228, and 232);

9

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2011, Apple filed a motion to compel seeking an order

10

directing Samsung to produce its source code for the accused products, including its source code

11

relating to certain specified accused functions (see Apple’s 12/8/11 [Proposed] Order Granting

12

Apple’s Mot. Compel Production of Docs. & Things at 2-3);

13

WHEREAS, on December 22, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Samsung to

14

produce “the source code and technical documents requested by Apple’s motion” by

15

December 31, 2011 (12/22/11 Order at 2);

16

WHEREAS, on December 31, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics

17

America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”) produced source

18

code for each of the Samsung accused products in this lawsuit;

19

WHEREAS, on January 11, 2012, Apple filed a Motion to Compel seeking documents

20

sufficient to show the version histories, updates, and changes made to the source code affecting

21

accused functionalities;

22

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2012, the Court issued an order permitting Samsung to either

23

produce the additional source code information or negotiate a stipulation that its production is

24

representative of the functionality of the accused products;

25
26
27
28

WHEREAS the parties met and conferred regarding the production of such source code or
an entry of a stipulation regarding modifications to the accused functionalities;
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in their mutual interest to memorialize
their resolution of this outstanding dispute.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

1
2
3
4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties as
follows:
1.

This Stipulation and the information it contains shall be used only in the instant

5

Action, shall not be binding on any party for any other purposes or in any other administrative or

6

judicial proceeding, and shall not be used for any other purposes, including as evidence, in any

7

such other proceeding.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

2.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as an admission that any of

Samsung's products infringe any claim element of any claim of the patents at issue in this
Investigation.
3.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as an admission of validity or

enforceability of any claim of any of the patents at issue in this Action.
4.

This Stipulation is limited to Samsung products imported and sold in the United

States before March 15, 2011.
5.

For purposes of this lawsuit for assessing infringement of U.S. Patent

16

Nos. 6,493,002, 7,844,915, and 7,812,828, (whether direct or indirect, and whether literal or by

17

equivalents), the version of source code that Samsung produced by December 31, 2011 relating to

18

the functionalities accused of infringing these patents is representative of the source code for all

19

versions of that product released to date.

20

6.

For purposes of this lawsuit for assessing infringement of U.S. Patent

21

Nos. 7,469,381, (whether direct or indirect, and whether literal or by equivalents), the version of

22

source code that Samsung produced by December 31, 2011 relating to the functionalities accused

23

of infringing this patent is representative of the source code for all versions of that product

24

released in the United States before approximately August 12, 2011. The version of source code

25

produced on January 23, 2012 is representative of versions of that product released after

26

approximately August 12, 2011.

27
28

7.

For purposes of this lawsuit for assessing infringement of U.S. Patent

Nos. 7,853,891, (whether direct or indirect, and whether literal or by equivalents), the version of
source code that Samsung produced by December 31, 2011 relating to the functionalities accused
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1
2

of infringing this patent is representative of the source code for all versions of that product

3

released in the United States before approximately December 23, 2011. The version of source

4

code produced on March 10, 2012 is representative of versions of that product released after

5

approximately December 23, 2011.

6

8.

For purposes of this lawsuit for assessing infringement of U.S. Patent

7

Nos. 7,864,163 (whether direct or indirect, and whether literal or by equivalents), the version of

8

source code that Samsung produced by December 31, 2011 relating to the functionalities accused

9

of infringing this patent is representative of the source code for all versions of that product

10

released in the United States before approximately December 23, 2011. The version of source

11

code produced on March 12, 2012 is representative of versions of that product released after

12

approximately December 23, 2011.

13

9.

This stipulation is without prejudice to Samsung’s right to modify its source code

14

and products at a later time, including the development of design-arounds to the patents in

15

dispute, and does not constitute a stipulation that the December 31, 2011 code is representative of

16

such later-developed source code and products.

17

10.

This stipulation is without prejudice to Apple’s right to seek any remedy or relief

18

with regard to any disputes over Samsung’s production of source code in accordance with the

19

December 22, 2011 Order that are not addressed in this Stipulation.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

3

1
2

Dated: March ___, 2012

3

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

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

4

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: ___________________, 2012

By:
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

5