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 J2
FILED UNDER SEAL

ELECTRONICS

May 13, 2011
Via Express Mail and Facsimile
Mr. Boris Teksler
Director, Licensing
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop, MiS 36-2 PAT
Cupertino, CA 95014-2084,
USA
RE: Apple’s Request for a Patent License
Dear Mr. Teksler,
This responds to your April 29 and May 9, 2011 letters requesting terms for a potential
FRAND license for Apple under certain Samsung patents.
As an initial matter, Apple’s request for FRAND license terms comes as quite a surprise.
As you know, Samsung was negotiating with Apple in good faith when Apple abruptly halted the
discussions and filed a preemptive lawsuit. In our view, it would have made more sense to
discuss the license you are requesting in that context, rather than now that Apple has initiated
litigation. We wonder about the reason behind Apple’s request at this time.
We also disagree with several of the statements in your letters such as the assertion that
Samsung’s actions are contrary to FRAND principles or that Samsung’s alleged silence implies
it will not honor legitimate FRAND obligations. To the contrary, Samsung takes FRAND
commitments seriously and is willing to grant Apple a nonexclusive license under any Samsung
patents relating to UMTSiWCDMA wireless devices that are subject to FRAND commitments.
Before we can set forth the actual terms for such a license, we will need some additional
information from you since your letter was unclear as to many important details. For example,
you did not specify whether Apple requires a license for Samsung’s entire worldwide patent
portfolio of UMTSiWCDMA patents. You also did not specify whether Apple contemplates that
the license will include foreign counterparts and related patents or only those for which Apple
contends an actual FRAND commitment exists. Similarly, you suggest Apple might like a
license under certain specific Samsung patents, but you did not identify the patents. We will also
need to know what the time frame is for the license Apple seeks and whether Apple contemplates
a grant back of rights to Samsung under any essential patents that Apple might have or is
otherwise willing to enter into a cross-license. Since these are relevant considerations, we
respectfully request that you provide this information by the end of next week so that we can

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

SAMNDCA00322770

Cl
H

~a
H

O

move this discussion along. Once we understand the terms you are actually requesting, we will
do our best to respond within a reasonable time with a license proposal.
Finally, although you ask that Samsung provide its response on a non-confidential basis,
you did not explain the basis for that request. We are not aware of any requirement that
Samsung provide the information Apple requested on a non-confidential basis and would point
out that all exchanges between the parties of presentations and other negotiation-related materials
to date have been confidential. Moreover, the terms and existence of certain potential Samsung
licenses, such as those you inquired about, are almost certainly governed by confidentiality
restrictions that prevent us from disclosing them to in-house Apple personnel, let alone publicly.
To help us better understand the basis for your request, please explain why Apple insists that
Samsung respond on a non-confidential basis.
We look forward to your response.
Regards,

Ctl

Ctl

Seongwoo Kim
Director
Licensing Team, IP Center
Samsung Electronics
416, Maetan 3-Dong,
Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon-Si,
Geonggi-Do, 443-742, Korea

Ctl

c)
c)
[ao
N)
N)
I-.a