Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION to ( #815 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/30/2012) Modified text on 4/2/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
Kolovos, Peter [Peter.Kolovos@wilmerhale.com]
Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:07 PM
Randa Osman; Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Walden, S. Calvin; Kolovos, Peter
RE: Apple v. Samsung; Motion to Compel
Follow Up Flag:
Calvin is out of the office today but forwarded your email to my attention.
Apple is willing to agree to the proposal outlined below with the modifications that we have highlighted in your text. If
these changes are acceptable, we will put this language into an agreed upon stipulation and order to be entered by
We look forward to your response.
From: Randa Osman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 12:43 PM
To: Walden, S. Calvin
Cc: Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Subject: Apple v. Samsung; Motion to Compel
In a further effort to resolve the matters raised in Apple’s Motion to Compel concerning documents from
other litigations, Samsung is willing to agree to the following:
Samsung agrees to produce by April 5 non‐privileged documents, if any, that it is able to locate
after conducting a reasonable search, responsive to the following categories of documents for
litigation in the US and foreign jurisdictions, excluding any responsive discovery motions, filings
by third parties, and documents prepared by nontestifying experts:
Documents, including briefing not publicly available on Pacer, deposition or other
testimony of Samsung’s current or former employees or its testifying experts, and reports
prepared by Samsung’s testifying experts, relating to or containing any claims or
statements by Samsung in any litigation or judicial proceeding, regarding the
determination of a FRAND royalty rate for any IPR that is claimed Essential to any ETSI
Wireless Standard, and the propriety of injunctive relief for the infringement of IPR claimed
to be Essential to any ETSI Wireless Standard.
As to Apple’s Request No. 134, as indicated in Rachel Herrick Kassabian’s February 16, 2012 letter to you,
Samsung previously offered to produce its non‐privileged responsive “business plans, strategy
documents, financial projections and licensing plans that are applicable to patents that have been
declared essential to the UMTS specifications identified in Apple’s answers and counterclaims (25.212,
25.213, 25.214, and 25.322).”
Apple accepted this proposal but seeks clarification as to the scope of production. Specifically, Apple
wants to know if Samsung intends to include in its production only business plans, strategy documents,
financial projections and licensing plans that, by their terms, apply only to patents declared essential to
UMTS specifications identified in Apple’s answer and counterclaims. To be clear, Samsung will produce
by April 5 its non‐privileged, responsive business plans, strategy documents, financial projections and
licensing plans, located after a reasonable search, that are applicable to patents that have been declared
essential to the UMTS specifications identified in Apple’s answer and counterclaim, even if those business
plans and other responsive documents also apply to other patents, to UMTS generally and/or to 3G
generally. Of course, Samsung reserves the right to make redactions as appropriate to protect its
confidential, proprietary information and/or trade secrets.
I trust that the proposals set forth in this email adequately address the issues raised in Apple’s Motion to
Compel. Please let me know if Apple is willing to accept Samsung’s proposals and take its Motion to
Compel off calendar. In light of the filing deadline for Samsung’s Opposition papers, I would appreciate it
if you would respond by the close of business today.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.443.3000 Main Office Number
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
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?