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

Filing 873

JOINT STATUS REPORT by Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 4/16/2012) Modified text on 4/17/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1 [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

vs.

14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
15 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
16 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
17
Defendants.
18

Date:
Time:
Place: Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4708954.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1

1.

2

Both Parties’ Position

3

As directed by the Court, Apple and Samsung are both willing to participate in a

ADR

4 Magistrate Judge Settlement Conference with Judge Spero as mediator. At Apple, the chief
5 executive officer and general counsel are the appropriate decision-makers, and they will represent
6 Apple during the upcoming settlement discussions. At Samsung, the chief executive officer and
7 general counsel are also the appropriate decision-makers, and they will represent Samsung during
8 these settlement discussions.
9

2.

Dispositive Motions

10

Both Parties’ Position

11

The parties are evaluating whether to request summary judgment on any issue, and if either

12 decides to file a dispositive motion, the parties will list in the next Case Management Conference
13 Statement the grounds for any such motion. With rebuttal expert reports due today, the parties
14 expect that after the completion of expert discovery and the narrowing of the case through the
15 meet and confer process, which already has begun, they will be in a better position to narrow the
16 summary judgment issues as well. To reduce the issues that the Court needs to decide before trial,
17 Apple today withdrew its previously-filed motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 660).
18

3.

19

Apple’s Daubert and In Limine Motions

20

Apple intends to challenge the admissibility of expert testimony that attempts to address

Daubert and In Limine Motions

21 contentions never disclosed as required by the Patent Local Rules (for utility patents) or in timely
22 responses to Apple’s contention interrogatories (for designs, trademarks, and trade dress claims).
23 The parties have begun a meet and confer process, and Samsung has agreed that it will not pursue
24 matters included in the Court’s order of March 27, 2012. Samsung is still considering the other
25 issues Apple has raised.
26

Apple is also considering other motions but has not yet made final decisions about which

27 to pursue. In keeping with the Court’s request that we streamline pre-trial filings, Apple proposes
28 that each side combine all its Daubert and in limine motions into a single 25-page brief.
02198.51855/4708954.1

-1-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1

Samsung's Daubert and In Limine Motions

2

Samsung at this time is unable to make a final decision on which Daubert or In Limine

3 motions it would file. As mentioned above, Samsung has not yet received Apple’s rebuttal expert
4 reports. In addition, deposition discovery on those expert reports has yet to be taken. Samsung
5 strenuously objects to Apple’s request to limit Daubert motions at this time. Currently, Apple
6 has served 29 opening expert reports and likely will serve a similar number of rebuttal reports
7 today.

Among the experts Apple currently is asserting are experts whose proposed testimony

8 does not meet the requisite evidentiary standard and will not assist a trier of fact. For example,
9 one of Apple’s experts opines on the “cultural significance of Apple design”—a topic not at issue
10 in this action and his report is replete with his personal subjective opinions, such as “Apple’s
11 attention to design allows people a feeling of symbiosis with their electronic tools, creating a
12 feeling that one’s device is an extension of oneself” and anecdotes about his vacation in Spain.
13 Another Apple expert opines about the fact that “Apple is “known for design,” and has “design in
14 Apple’s DNA,” again, testimony that is not “expert” in any sense. Several other reports also
15 suffer from irrelevance and methodology flaws. Samsung also may need to challenge the
16 admissibility of expert testimony that addresses contentions previously never disclosed as required
17 by the Patent Local Rules (for utility patents) or in timely responses to Samsung’s contention
18 interrogatories and document requests. As part of the narrowing of the case, Samsung hopes that
19 most of these issues will become moot. As of today, however, there remain significant Daubert
20 issues as a result of the expert reports Apple has submitted.

Samsung requests that the Court

21 defer ruling on the number of Daubert and In Limine motions until completion of the parties’
22 meet-and-confer process to limit the claims and defenses at trial.
23

4.

24

Apple’s Claims and Defenses

25

Apple currently intends to assert at trial claims for infringement of the following utility

Claims and Defenses the Parties Will Assert at Trial

26 patents, which protect aspects of Apple’s iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch products: U.S. Patent No.
27 6,493,002 (the status bar), U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (the rubber-banding effect when over28 scrolling), U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (ellipse-fitting algorithms to interpret touches), U.S. Patent
02198.51855/4708954.1

-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1 No. 7,844,915 (gestures), U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891 (the timed window), U.S. Patent No.
2 7,864,163 (tap to zoom and navigate), and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,663,607 and 7,920,129 (touchscreen
3 hardware).
4

Apple also has claims for infringement of various design patents, along with claims for

5 trade dress and trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, and trade dress dilution under 15
6 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The design patents are U.S. Patent No. D504,889 (iPad 2 body style), U.S.
7 Patent No. D622,270 (iPod touch body style), U.S. Patent Nos. D593,087 and D618,677 (iPhone
8 body style), and U.S. Patent Nos. D604,305, D617,334, and D627,790 (iPhone graphical user
9 interface). The trade dress claims also cover the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch products. Apple’s
10 claims also include common law trademark infringement (based on certain icons on Apple’s
11 products), commission of unfair business practices under California Business and Professions
12 Code § 17200, and Samsung’s unjust enrichment.
13

In response to Samsung’s counterclaims of patent infringement, Apple is asserting

14 affirmative defenses and declaratory-judgment counterclaims based on non-infringement,
15 invalidity, license, and equitable issues (e.g., waiver and estoppel). In addition, Apple is asserting
16 affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on Samsung’s breaches of standard-setting rules and
17 the anticompetitive effects of those breaches; these include antitrust, unfair competition, and
18 breach-of-contract claims.
19

Samsung's Claims and Defenses

20

Samsung intends, at Court’s direction, to narrow down its claims significantly by dropping

21 some of its patents prior to the May 2 deadline ordered by Court. Following are Samsung’s
22 current claims.
23
24
25
26

•

Apple has infringed one or more claims of the following Samsung’s asserted
patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,604, U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941. U.S. Patent No.
7,362,867, U.S. Patent No. 7,386,001, U.S. Patent No. 7,447,516, U.S. Patent No.
7,200,792, U.S. Patent No. 7,050,410, U.S. Patent No. 7,069,055, U.S. Patent No.
7,079,871, U.S. Patent No. 7,546,893, U.S. Patent No. 7,577,460, and U.S. Patent
No. 7,698,711. Samsung is entitled to injunction and damages to address Apple’s
infringement.

27
28
02198.51855/4708954.1

-3-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1

In addition, Samsung expects Apple to drop some of its claims and counterclaims and as a

2 result will be able to drop its corresponding defenses. Following are Samsung’s current defenses
3 and claims for declaratory relief.
•

Samsung has not violated any antitrust laws or its commitments to standard-setting
bodies;

•

Samsung has not infringed any of the claims of any design or utility patent, or any
trademarks or trade dress asserted by Apple, and is therefore entitled to a
declaratory judgment of non-infringement;

•

All of the design and utility patents asserted by Apple are invalid, and Samsung is
entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity;

•

All of the trademarks and trade dress, including applications, asserted by Apple are
invalid and should therefore be canceled;

•

Samsung has not violated 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and is therefore entitled to a
declaratory judgment of no Federal false designation of origin;

13

•

Samsung has not diluted any asserted Apple trade dress;

14

•

Samsung has not violated California Business and Professional Code § 17200 et
seq. and is there entitled to a declaratory judgment of no violation;

•

Samsung has not violated the law of unjust enrichment and is therefore entitled to a
declaratory judgment of no violation.

17

5.

Ongoing Efforts to Narrow the Issues In Anticipation of Trial

18

Lead counsel for the parties met in person on April 13, 2012, to discuss the narrowing of

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

15
16

19 issues. Each party is committed to reviewing its claims and potential witnesses and continuing to
20 meet and confer next week. The parties plan to submit weekly reports to the Court each Monday
21 prior to the May 2 conference reflecting the progress made to date.
22

Because expert discovery is scheduled to end on April 27, 2012, the parties jointly request

23 until April 30 to file our joint Case Management Conference Statement setting forth the result of
24 this process, in advance of the May 2 nd Case Management Conference.
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4708954.1

-4-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1
2 Dated: April 16, 2012
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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]

16
17
18
19
20

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]

21
22

By:

Alison Tucher

23
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4708954.1

-5-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT

1
Dated: April 16, 2012
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
15

By:

Victoria Maroulis

16
17

Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4708954.1

-6-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT STATUS REPORT