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

Filing 847

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Trac Declaration in Support of Motion to File Under Seal, #2 Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #3 Hecht Declaration in Support of Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #4 Ex A, #5 Ex B1, #6 Ex B2, #7 Ex C1, #8 Ex C2, #9 Ex D, #10 Ex E, #11 Ex F1, #12 Ex F2, #13 Ex F3, #14 Ex F4, #15 Ex G, #16 Ex H, #17 Ex I, #18 Ex J1, #19 Ex J2, #20 Ex J3, #21 Ex J4, #22 Ex J5, #23 Ex J6, #24 Ex J7, #25 Ex J8, #26 Ex J9, #27 Ex J10, #28 Ex J11, #29 Ex K1, #30 Ex K2, #31 Ex K3, #32 Ex L, #33 Ex M, #34 Ex N, #35 Ex O1, #36 Ex O2, #37 Ex P1, #38 Ex P2, #39 Ex Q1, #40 Ex Q2, #41 Ex Q3, #42 Ex Q4, #43 Ex Q5, #44 Ex Q6, #45 Ex Q7, #46 Ex R, #47 Ex S1, #48 Ex S2, #49 Rosenbrock Declaration in Support of Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #50 Ex 1, #51 Ex 2, #52 Ex 3, #53 Ex 4, #54 Ex 5, #55 Ex 6, #56 Ex 7, #57 Ex 8, #58 Ex 9, #59 Ex 10, #60 Ex 11, #61 Ex 12, #62 Ex 13, #63 Ex 14, #64 Ex 15, #65 Ex 16, #66 Ex 17, #67 Ex 18, #68 Proposed Order Denying Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment, #69 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 4/2/2012) Modified on 4/3/2012 Attachment #1 Trac Declaration placed under seal. Posting of attachments #16, 18, 19, 20 through 33, 37, 38, 47 and 48 are NOT in compliance with General Order 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT G

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]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO
SAMSUNG’S FOURTH AND FIFTH
SETS OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

1

1
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1763:
Apple objects to this request because the word “common” is vague and ambiguous.

3

Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its response to

4

Request for Admission No. 1762 as if fully set forth herein.

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1764:

6

Admit that APPLE has disclosed essential IPRs with respect to an ETSI technical

7

specification after that technical specification has been published.

8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1764:

9

Apple admits Request No. 1764, but denies that such disclosures were untimely under the

10

relevant facts and circumstances.

11

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1765:

12

Admit that ETSI members have disclosed essential IPRs with respect to an ETSI technical

13

specification after that technical specification has been frozen.

14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1765:

15

Apple admits that Samsung, an ETSI member, has disclosed IPR it asserts is essential

16

with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has been frozen.

17

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1766:

18

Admit that it is common for ETSI members to disclose essential IPRs with respect to an

19

ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has been frozen.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1766:

21

Apple objects to this request because the word “common” is vague and ambiguous.

22

Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its response to

23

Request for Admission No. 1765 as if fully set forth herein.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1767:

25

Admit that APPLE has disclosed essential IPRs with respect to an ETSI technical

26

specification after that technical specification has been frozen.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1767:

28

Apple admits Request No. 1767, but denies that such disclosures were untimely under the
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

398

1

relevant facts and circumstances.

2

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1768:

3

Admit that on numerous occasions, ETSI members have disclosed essential IPRs with

4

respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has been published.

5

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1768:

6

Apple objects to this request because the phrase “on numerous occasions” is vague and

7

ambiguous. Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its

8

response to Request for Admission No. 1762 as if fully set forth herein.

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1769:

10

Admit that on numerous occasions, ETSI members have disclosed essential IPRs with

11

respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has been frozen.

12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1769:

13

Apple objects to this request because the phrase “on numerous occasions” is vague and

14

ambiguous. Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its

15

response to Request for Admission No. 1765 as if fully set forth herein.

16

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1770:

17

Admit that ETSI members have disclosed patents and patent applications as essential, or

18

likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical

19

specification has been published.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1770:

21

Apple admits that Samsung, an ETSI member, has disclosed patents and patent

22

applications that it asserts as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI

23

technical specification after that technical specification has been published.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1771:

25

Admit that it is common for ETSI members to disclose patents and patent applications as

26

essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that

27

technical specification has been published.

28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

399

1
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1771:
Apple objects to this request because the word “common” is vague and ambiguous.

3

Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its response to

4

Request No. 1770 as if fully set forth herein.

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1772:

6

Admit that on numerous occasions, ETSI members have disclosed patents and patent

7

applications as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical

8

specification after that technical specification has been published.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1772:

10

Apple objects to this request because the phrase “on numerous occasions” is vague and

11

ambiguous. Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its

12

response to Request for Admission No. 1770 as if fully set forth herein.

13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1773:

14

Admit that APPLE has disclosed patents and patent applications as essential, or likely to

15

become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification

16

has been published.

17

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1773:

18

Apple admits Request No. 1773, but denies that such disclosures were untimely under the

19

relevant facts and circumstances.

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1774:

21

Admit that ETSI members have disclosed patents as essential, or likely to become

22

essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has

23

been published, even where the patent was issued before the technical specification had been

24

published.

25

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1774:

26

Apple admits that Samsung, an ETSI member, has disclosed patents that it asserts as

27

essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that

28

technical specification has been published.
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

400

1
2

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1775:
Admit that it is common for ETSI members to disclose patents as essential, or likely to

3

become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification

4

has been published, even where the patent was issued before the technical specification had been

5

published.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1775:

7

Apple objects to this request on the ground that the word “common” is vague and

8

ambiguous. Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple incorporates its

9

response to Request for Admission No. 1774 as if fully set forth herein.

10
11

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1776:
Admit that on numerous occasions, ETSI members have disclosed patents as essential, or

12

likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical

13

specification has been published, even where the patent was issued before the technical

14

specification had been published.

15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1776:

16

Apple objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “on numerous occasions” is

17

vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, Apple can neither admit nor deny the request. Apple

18

incorporates its response to Request for Admission No. 1774 as if fully set forth herein.

19

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1777:

20

Admit that APPLE has disclosed patents as essential, or likely to become essential, with

21

respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has been published,

22

even where the patent was issued before the technical specification had been published.

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1777:

24

Apple admits Request No. 1777, but denies that such disclosures were untimely under the

25

relevant facts and circumstances.

26

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1778:

27
28

Admit that ETSI members have disclosed patents as essential, or likely to become
essential, with respect to an ETSI technical specification after that technical specification has
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

401

1

even where the patent application was filed before the technical specification had been published.

2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1781:

3

Apple admits Request No. 1781, but denies that such disclosures were untimely under the

4

relevant facts and circumstances.

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1782:

6

Admit that ETSI members other than Samsung have sought injunctions to prevent alleged

7

infringement of patents that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with

8

respect to an ETSI technical specification.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1782:

10

Apple admits that certain ETSI members have sought injunctions to prevent alleged

11

infringement of patents that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with

12

respect to an ETSI technical specification, but Apple denies that all such efforts to obtain an

13

injunction were proper.

14

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1783:

15

Admit that Qualcomm has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of patents

16

that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI

17

technical specification.

18

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1783:

19

Apple objects to this request on the ground that it requires information outside Apple’s

20

possession, custody and control. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either admit or deny the

21

request. Apple incorporates its response to Request for Admission No. 1782 as if fully set forth

22

herein.

23

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1784:

24

Admit that Nokia has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of patents that

25

had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI technical

26

specification.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1784:

28

Apple admits that in Nokia’s complaint against Apple, dated October 22, 2009, in the
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

403

1

matter styled Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-791 (D. Del. 2009), Nokia’s “Prayer for Relief”

2

seeks “a permanent injunction preventing further infringement, contributory infringement, and

3

inducement of infringement until and unless Apple pays to Nokia such F/RAND compensation

4

for past infringement, and irrevocably commits to payment of such compensation in the future.”

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1785:

6

Admit that Motorola has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of patents

7

that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI

8

technical specification.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1785:

10

Apple admits in matters pending against Apple Sales International and Apple Inc. in

11

the Landgericht Mannheim, 7th Civil Division, Motorola has sought an injunction to prevent

12

alleged infringement of one or more patents Motorola declared essential with respect to an ETSI

13

standard or technical specification.

14

Apple further admits that in a matter pending against Apple Retail German GmbH in

15

the Landgericht Dusseldorf, 4th Civil Division, Motorola has sought an injunction to prevent

16

alleged infringement of one or more patents Motorola declared essential with respect to an ETSI

17

standard or technical specification.

18

Apple further admits that in a matter pending against Apple Inc. before the United States

19

International Trade Commission, Motorola has sought an exclusion order barring the importation

20

of products alleged to infringe one or more patents Motorola declared essential with respect to an

21

ETSI standard or technical specification.

22

Apple further admits that in a matter pending against Apple Inc. before the United States

23

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Motorola has sought an injunction to prevent

24

alleged infringement of one or more patents Motorola declared essential with respect to an ETSI

25

standard or technical specification.

26

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1786:

27
28

Admit that InterDigital has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of patents
that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to an ETSI
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

404

1

technical specification.

2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1786:

3

Apple admits that in InterDigital’s third-party complaint against Samsung, dated

4

November 30, 2007, in the matter styled InterDigital v. Samsung, 1:07-cv-00167 (D. Del. 2007),

5

InterDigital’s “Prayer for Relief” requests that the court “[e]nter an injunction and permanently

6

enjoin Samsung Defendants from infringing the claims of the ’010 patent and the ’778 patent

7

under 35 U.S.C. § 283.”

8

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1787:

9

Admit that APPLE has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of patents

10

that had been disclosed as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect to a standard or

11

technical specification.

12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1787:

13

Apple objects to this request to the extent it seeks information about standards that are

14

created by standards setting organizations other than ETSI and about specifications beyond those

15

related to UMTS. Apple denies it has sought an injunction to prevent alleged infringement of

16

patents that have been disclosed to ETSI as essential, or likely to become essential, with respect

17

to an ETSI technical specification related to UMTS.

18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1788:

19

Admit that APPLE iPhone and iPad products are currently enjoined from being sold in

20

Germany.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1788:

22

Apple denies Request No. 1788. Apple’s response to Request No. 1789 is incorporated by

23

reference as if fully set forth herein.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1789:

25

Admit Motorola has obtained an injunction in Germany against the sale of APPLE

26

products based on the assertion of at least one patent that had been disclosed as essential, or likely

27

to become essential, with respect to an ETSI standard or technical specification.

28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

405

1
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1852:
Apple denies that, if, as Apple contends, a declaration in accordance with Clause 6.1 of

3

the ETSI IPR Policy, followed by a company implementing the Technical Specification to which

4

that patent is declared essential, establishes a binding license agreement with respect to that

5

patent, Samsung is not licensed under U.S. Patent No. 5,835,721 to make products that comply

6

with the 3GPP TS 04.60 V8.27.0 Technical Specification, insofar as Samsung is implementing

7

those Technical Specifications. However, insofar as a commitment to license U.S. Patent No.

8

5,835,721 in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy, followed by a company

9

implementing the 3GPP TS 04.60 V8.27.0 Technical Specification, is determined not to establish

10

a binding license agreement with respect to that patent, Apple admits, that Samsung is not

11

licensed to make products that comply with the 3GPP TS 04.60 V8.27.0 Technical Specification.

12

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1853:

13

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.322

14

version 6.9.

15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1853:

16

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

17

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

18

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

19

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

20

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

21

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

22

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

23

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

24

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

25

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

26

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

27

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1854:

28

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.322 version
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

424

1

6.9.

2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1854:

3

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

4

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

5

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

6

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

7

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

8

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

9

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

10

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

11

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

12

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

13

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

14

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1855:

15

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.322 version 6.9 cannot be implemented without infringing at least

16

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941.

17

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1855:

18

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

19

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

20

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

21

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

22

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

23

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

24

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

25

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

26

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

27

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

28

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

425

1

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1856:

2

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.213

3

version 3.10.0.

4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1856:

5

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

6

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

7

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

8

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

9

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

10

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

11

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

12

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

13

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

14

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

15

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

16

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1857:

17

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.213 version

18

3.10.0.

19

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1857:

20

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

21

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

22

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

23

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

24

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

25

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

26

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

27

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

28

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

426

1

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

2

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1858:

4

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.213 version 3.10.0 cannot be implemented without infringing at

5

least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1858:

7

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

8

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

9

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

10

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

11

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

12

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

13

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

14

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

15

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends

16

to proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will

17

supplement its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1859:

19

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,447,516 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.214

20

version 6.5.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1859:

22

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

23

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

24

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

25

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

26

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

27

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

28

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

427

1

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

2

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends

3

to proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will

4

supplement its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1860:

6

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,447,516 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.214 version

7

6.5.

8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1860:

9

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

10

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

11

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

12

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

13

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

14

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

15

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

16

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

17

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

18

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

19

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1861:

21

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.214 version 6.5 cannot be implemented without infringing at least

22

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,447,516.

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1861:

24

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

25

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

26

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

27

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

28

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

428

1

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

2

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

3

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

4

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

5

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

6

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

7

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1862:

8
9
10

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212
version 6.0.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1862:

11

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

12

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

13

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

14

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

15

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

16

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

17

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

18

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

19

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

20

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

21

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

22

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1863:

23

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212 version

24

6.0.

25

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1863:

26

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

27

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

28

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

429

1

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

2

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

3

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

4

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

5

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

6

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

7

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

8

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1864:

10

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.212 version 6.0 cannot be implemented without infringing at least

11

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792.

12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1864:

13

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

14

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

15

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

16

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

17

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

18

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

19

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

20

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

21

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

22

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

23

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1865:

25
26

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,001 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212
version 3.1.

27
28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

430

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1865:

2

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

3

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

4

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

5

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

6

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

7

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

8

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

9

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

10

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

11

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

12

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

13

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1866:

14

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,001 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212 version

15

3.1.

16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1866:

17

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

18

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

19

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

20

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

21

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

22

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

23

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

24

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

25

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

26

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

27

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

431

1
2

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1867:
Admit that 3GPP TS 25.212 version 3.1 cannot be implemented without infringing at least

3

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,001.

4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1867:

5

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

6

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

7

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

8

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

9

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

10

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

11

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

12

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

13

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

14

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

15

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

16

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1868:

17

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,050,410 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212

18

version 3.1.

19

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1868:

20

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

21

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

22

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

23

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

24

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

25

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

26

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

27

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

28

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

432

1

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

2

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1869:
Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,050,410 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212 version

4
5

3.1.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1869:

7

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

8

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

9

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

10

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

11

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

12

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

13

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

14

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

15

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

16

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

17

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

18

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1870:

19

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.212 version 3.1 cannot be implemented without infringing at least

20

one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,050,410.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1870:

22

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

23

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

24

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

25

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

26

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

27

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

28

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

433

1

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

2

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

3

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

4

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

5

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1871:
Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,604 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212

6
7

version 3.1.

8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1871:
Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

9
10

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

11

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

12

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

13

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

14

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

15

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

16

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

17

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

18

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

19

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1872:
Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,604 is essential to 3GPP TS 25.212 version

21
22

3.1.

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1872:

24

Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

25

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

26

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

27

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

28

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

434

1

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

2

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

3

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

4

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

5

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

6

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

7

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1873:

8
9
10
11

Admit that 3GPP TS 25.212 version 3.1 cannot be implemented without infringing at least
one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,604.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1873:
Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

12

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

13

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

14

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

15

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

16

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

17

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

18

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

19

actually essential to the standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends to

20

proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will supplement

21

its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

22

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1874:

23
24
25

Admit that Apple iPhone 4 complies with 3GPP TS 25.322 version 6.9.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1874:
Apple objects to this Request on the grounds that the term “complies with” is vague and

26

ambiguous. Apple further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly

27

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the

28

extent that it is not limited in time. Apple also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

435

1
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1907:
Apple objects to this request on the ground that the phrase “the responsibility of” is vague

3

and ambiguous. Subject to this objection, Apple denies Request No. 1907.

4

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1908:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Admit that APPLE released the iPhone on June 29, 2007.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1908:
Apple admits Request No. 1908.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1909:
Admit that APPLE released the iPhone 3G on July 11, 2008.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1909:
Apple admits Request No. 1909.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1910:
Admit that APPLE released the iPhone 3GS on June 19, 2009.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1910:
Apple admits Request No. 1910.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1911:
Admit that APPLE released the iPhone 4 on June 24, 2010.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1911:
Apple admits Request No. 1911.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1912:
Admit that APPLE released the iPhone 4S on October 14, 2011.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1912:
Apple admits that Apple released the iPhone 4S in the United States, Canada, Australia,

24

the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan on October 14, 2011.

25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1913:

26
27
28

Admit that APPLE released the iPod Touch on September 5, 2007.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1913:
Apple admits that Apple released the first generation iPod touch on September 5, 2007.
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

448

1

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1914:

2

Admit that APPLE released the iPad on April 3, 2010.

3

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1914:

4
5

Apple admits Apple released the iPad in the United States on April 3, 2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1915:

6
7

Admit that APPLE released the iPad 3G on April 30, 2010.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1915:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple admits that Apple released the iPad 3G (AT&T) in the United States on April 30,
2010.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1916:
Admit that APPLE released the iPad 2 on March 11, 2011.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1916:
Apple admits that Apple released the iPad 2 in the United States on March 11, 2011.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1917:
Admit that APPLE released the iPad 2 3G on March 11, 2011.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1917:
Apple admits that Apple released the iPad 2 3G (AT&T and Verizon) in the United States

18

on March 11, 2011.

19

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1918:

20

Admit that the ETSI Secretariat provides to its members procedures to allow access to

21

information with respect to ESSENTIAL IPRs which have been brought to the attention of ETSI.

22

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1918:

23

Apple objects to this request on the ground that the word “procedures” and “information”

24

and the phrase “to allow access” are vague and ambiguous as used in this request. Accordingly,

25

Apple can neither admit nor deny this request. Apple admits that Section 7.2 of the ETSI

26

Intellectual Property Rights Policy states: “ETSI shall establish appropriate procedures to allow

27

access to information at any time with respect to ESSENTIAL IPRs which have been brought to

28

the attention of ETSI” and that ETSI maintains the “ETSI IPR online database,” available at
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

449

1

chipsets that implement the UMTS standard formed a valid and binding license agreement for

2

those declared-essential patents, INFINEON was licensed.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1959:

4

Admit that APPLE was aware of Intel Corp.’s plans to acquire INFINEON’s Wireless

5

Solution Business before the acquisition took place.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1959:

7

Apple admits that Intel publicly announced its plans to acquire Infineon in August 2010,

8

and the acquisition was completed on January 31, 2011.

9

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1960:

10

Admit that Steve Jobs discussed Intel Corp.’s plans to acquire INFINEON’s Wireless

11

Solution Business with Intel CEO Paul Otellini before the acquisition took place.

12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1960:

13

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

14

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either admit or

15

deny this request.

16

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1961:

17

Admit that the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE

18

ACCUSED PRODUCTS are manufactured by Intel Mobile Communications (“IMC”) in

19

Singapore.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1961:

21

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

22

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

23

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

24

admit or deny this request.

25

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1962:

26
27

Admit that none of the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE
ACCUSED PRODUCTS are manufactured in the United States.

28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

463

1
2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1962:
Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

3

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

4

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

5

admit or deny this request.

6

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1963:

7

Admit that the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE

8

ACCUSED PRODUCTS are transferred from Intel Mobile Communications (“IMC”) in

9

Singapore to Intel SDN. BHD. in Malaysia.

10
11

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1963:
Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

12

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

13

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

14

admit or deny this request.

15

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1964:

16

Admit that the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE

17

ACCUSED PRODUCTS are never transferred by Intel Mobile Communications (“IMC”) to a

18

location in the United States.

19

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1964:

20

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

21

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

22

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

23

admit or deny this request.

24

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1965:

25

Admit that the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE

26

ACCUSED PRODUCTS are transferred from Intel SDN. BHD. in Malaysia to Hongfujin

27

Precision Electronics (Zhengzhou) Co., Ltd. in Zhengzhou, China.

28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

464

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1965:

2

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

3

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

4

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

5

admit or deny this request.

6

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1966:

7

Admit that Hongfujin Precision Electronics (Zhengzhou) Co., Ltd. in China receives

8

INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS on behalf of APPLE.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1966:

10
11

Apple admits Request No. 1966.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1967:

12

Admit that the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the APPLE

13

ACCUSED PRODUCTS are never transferred by any Intel entity, including without limitation

14

Intel Mobile Communications (“IMC”), Intel Corp., Intel Americas, Inc. and Intel SDN. BHD., to

15

a location in the United States.

16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1967:

17

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is

18

outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning

19

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

20

admit or deny this request.

21

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1968:

22

Admit that the first time the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS incorporated in the

23

APPLE ACCUSED PRODUCTS arrive in the United States is when the APPLE ACCUSED

24

PRODUCTS that incorporate the INTEL BASEBAND PROCESSORS are sent to the United

25

States.

26

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1968:

27
28

Apple objects to this request on the ground that a response requires information that is
outside Apple’s possession, custody and control, including, for example, information concerning
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

465

1

components that Apple has purchased from third parties. Accordingly, Apple is unable to either

2

admit or deny this request.

3

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1969:

4

Admit that at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867 covers the technology set forth

5

in SAMSUNG’s R1-99915 proposal, sent July 8, 1999.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1969:

7

Apple objects to this Request on the grounds that the term “covers” is vague and

8

ambiguous. Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

9

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

10

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

11

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not

12

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Apple also objects to this request on the

13

grounds that it is premature, not relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, and not

14

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Apple states that despite

15

declaring this patent essential to the UMTS standard, Samsung has not yet established that it is

16

actually essential to the standard and to any proposals (including Samsung proposals)

17

incorporated within that standard. Apple expects that for any claims on which Samsung intends

18

to proceed to trial, Samsung will proffer expert opinions on these issues, and Apple will

19

supplement its response as necessary in response to expert discovery.

20

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1970:

21

Admit that no claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867 covers the technology set forth in

22

SAMSUNG’s Tdoc R1-99915 proposal, sent July 8, 1999.

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1970:

24

Apple objects to this Request on the grounds that the term “covers” is vague and

25

ambiguous. Apple objects to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it

26

purports to require Apple to analyze unasserted claims of the Samsung patents in suit. Apple

27

objects further that this request does not seek an admission regarding the application of law to

28

facts, but is rather being used to compel an admission of a conclusion of law, which is not
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS FOUR AND FIVE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3105446

466