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

Filing 860

Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of #847 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) #847 ) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 4/9/2012)

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT L
FILED UNDER SEAL

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11
12

WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 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.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15
16

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

17

Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

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

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S FOURTH
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
1

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

To the extent that YOU contend that the sale of an INTEL or QUALCOMM
BASEBAND PROCESSOR(S) exhausts Samsung’s rights in one or more of the SAMSUNG
PATENTS-IN-SUIT, state in detail the basis for that contention including an identification of all
facts concerning any alleged first sale of the BASEBAND PROCESSOR(s) in the United States
and the circumstances surrounding such sale, including any delivery of the BASEBAND
PROCESSOR(s) to any entity in the United States.

PROCESSOR(s) is not delivered to any entity in the United States before being imported into the
United States as part of an ACCUSED PRODUCT, YOU should so state.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38
Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

burdensome, including without limitation because it calls for the identification of “all facts
concerning” and seeks information relating to technologies or functionality not at issue. Apple
further objects because this interrogatory contains multiple, discrete interrogatories. Apple also
objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity
against disclosure.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and General Statement

19
20

If, for example, the BASEBAND

and Objections, Apple responds as follows:

21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27

As used herein, Declared Essential Patents in Suit has the definition recited in Apple’s Ninth Set of
Requests for Admission to Defendants Samsung and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.

28
18

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its response as appropriate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
To the extent YOU contend that SAMSUNG’S named inventors or other personnel
promoted technologies for inclusion in UMTS that are covered by one or more of the asserted

18

SAMSUNG PATENTS-IN-SUIT, state in detail the complete basis for that contention including a

19

description of all DOCUMENTS and other evidence reflecting SAMSUNG’S alleged efforts to

20

promote the technologies of the patents-in-suit for inclusion in UMTS, the identification of any

21

proposals or other DOCUMENTS reflecting these alleged efforts to promote, and the detailed

22

legal and technical basis for YOUR assertion that these proposals or other DOCUMENTS reflect

23

the subject matter of the asserted SAMSUNG PATENTS-IN-SUIT.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39

25

Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly

26

burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to

27

the discovery of admissible evidence, including without limitation because it seeks information

28
20

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Apple further responds that in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d),
Apple has produced and/or will produce documents responsive to this Interrogatory, and that the
burden of ascertaining the answer to this Interrogatory from the produced business records is
substantially the same for Apple as for Samsung. Apple further designates, at this time, the
following documents from which information responsive to this Interrogatory may be
ascertained:
APL7940001420032–APL7940001420080
APL7940001422999–APL7940001425767
APL7940011889416–APL7940011890041
APL794-F0000000637–APL794-F0000008197
Apple reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its response as appropriate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 55:
For each BASEBAND PROCESSOR provided for use in or otherwise known by YOU to

19

be used in an APPLE ACCUSED PRODUCT including, without limitation, the Qualcomm

20

MDM6610, Qualcomm MDM6600, Infineon BGA736; Infineon PMB 8876; Infineon PMB 8878;

21

Infineon PMB 8879; Infineon PMB 9801; Infineon PMB 5703 SMARTi UE; Infineon PMB 5701

22

SMARTi 3G; Infineon X-GOLD 608; Infineon X-GOLD 616; Infineon X-GOLD 618 and any

23

other baseband or RF transceiver component sold to or purchased by APPLE or APPLE

24

MANUFACTURERS, describe the chain of possession, custody, or commerce of the

25

BASEBAND PROCESSOR from manufacture to integration into an APPLE ACCUSED

26

PRODUCT by identifying each entity involved in the chain of possession, custody, or commerce

27

(including, but not limited to, IAI, IMC, INTEL, INFINEON and/or QUALCOMM); the entity’s

28
47

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

role; the entity’s relationship with the other identified entities; all related sales information,
contracts, licenses, agreements or informal understandings between the entity and the other
identified entities concerning the design, manufacture, testing, assembly, sale and chain of
distribution of BASEBAND PROCESSORS to APPLE or APPLE MANUFACTURERS; and
any changes in the design, manufacture, sale or distribution of BASEBAND PROCESSORS that
occurred after September 1, 2010.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 55
Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, including without limitation because it seeks information
relating to “all documentation” and to the extent it relates to technologies or functionality not at
issue in this matter. Apple further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
burdensome to the extent it purports to include any baseband chip or other component that is not
incorporated in one of the Apple products identified in Samsung’s Patent Local Rule 3-1
Infringement Contentions, served on September 7, 2011. Apple further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to a confidentiality or non-

18

disclosure agreement or governed by a protective order preventing its production, is not within

19

Apple’s possession, custody, or control, or otherwise seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade

20

secret information of third parties. Apple also objects to this Interrogatory because it contains

21

multiple subparts that each should count as a separate interrogatory.

22
23

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Apple
responds as follows:

24
25
26
27
28
48

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its response as appropriate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 56:
For each BASEBAND PROCESSOR provided for use in or otherwise known by YOU to
be used in an APPLE ACCUSED PRODUCT including, without limitation, the Qualcomm
MDM6610, Qualcomm MDM6600, Infineon BGA736; Infineon PMB 8876; Infineon PMB 8878;
Infineon PMB 8879; Infineon PMB 9801; Infineon PMB 5703 SMARTi UE; Infineon PMB 5701
SMARTi 3G; Infineon X-GOLD 608; Infineon X-GOLD 616; Infineon X-GOLD 618 and any
other baseband or RF transceiver component sold to or purchased by APPLE or APPLE
MANUFACTURERS, IDENTIFY whether any transfer of possession, transfer of custody,
delivery, integration into an ACCUSED PRODUCT, or sale of the BASEBAND PROCESSORS
takes place in the United States, including the entities involved and the terms of such transfer,
delivery, integration or sale in the United States.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56
Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly

18

burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to

19

the discovery of admissible evidence, including to the extent it relates to technologies or

20

functionality not at issue in this matter. Apple further objects to this interrogatory as overly

21

broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to include any baseband chip or other

22

component that is not incorporated in one of the Apple products identified in Samsung’s Patent

23

Local Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions, served on September 7, 2011. Apple further objects to

24

this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is subject to a confidentiality or non-

25

disclosure agreement or governed by a protective order preventing its production, is not within

26

Apple’s possession, custody, or control, or otherwise seeks confidential, proprietary, or trade

27
28
49

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
1
2
3
4

secret information of third parties. Apple also objects to this Interrogatory because it contains
multiple subparts that each should count as a separate interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Apple
responds as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its response as appropriate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 57:
Describe every test procedure performed by or on behalf of APPLE for each BASEBAND
PROCESSOR provided for use in or otherwise known by YOU to be used in an APPLE
ACCUSED PRODUCT including, without limitation, the Qualcomm MDM6610, Qualcomm

18

MDM6600, Infineon BGA736; Infineon PMB 8876; Infineon PMB 8878; Infineon PMB 8879;

19

Infineon PMB 9801; Infineon PMB 5703 SMARTi UE; Infineon PMB 5701 SMARTi 3G;

20

Infineon X-GOLD 608; Infineon X-GOLD 616; Infineon X-GOLD 618 and any other baseband

21

or RF transceiver component sold to or purchased by APPLE or APPLE MANUFACTURERS,

22

including an identification of the type of test(s), processors and/or chipsets paired with the

23

BASEBAND PROCESSOR, SOFTWARE used in the testing, the procedure followed for the

24

testing, and the geographic location of the testing.

25

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57

26

Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly

27

burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to

28
50

APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S
FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)