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).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT G 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 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 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

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?