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)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd Briggs
Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:55 AM
Pernick, Marc J.; Rachel Herrick Kassabian
AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; calvin.walden@wilmerhale.com;
peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com; Mazza, Mia;
WHAppleSamsungNDCalService@wilmerhale.com
RE: Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re: Production of Source Code by Samsung
4655502_1_Samsung Source Code Stipulaton.DOC
Marc,
We have been working on the source code stipulation and have attached a new draft for your review. If you would like
to discuss or have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Thanks, Todd
From: Pernick, Marc J. [mailto:MPernick@mofo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 9:47 PM
To: Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; calvin.walden@wilmerhale.com; peter.kolovos@wilmerhale.com; Mazza, Mia;
WHAppleSamsungNDCalService@wilmerhale.com
Subject: Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re: Production of Source Code by Samsung
<<2012--2-26 Pernick to Kassabian re Stipulaton on Source Code.pdf>> <<2012-02-26 Pernick to Kassabian re
Stipulation on Source Code.pdf>>
Hi Rachel,
Attached please find correspondence regarding Samsung's production of source code in response to the Court's
December 22, 2011 Order, as well as a draft stipulation for your review.
Regards,
Marc Pernick
Morrison & Foerster LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
650.813.5718
mpernick@mofo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any
advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any
attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
1
party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by
reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2
EXHIBIT 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No.
170151)
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
v.
23
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?