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

Filing 892

OPPOSITION to ( #885 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION For Clarification Of April 12 Order ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit M, #15 Exhibit N, #16 Exhibit O, #17 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 4/30/2012) Modified text on 5/1/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT D

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

February 13, 2012

Jason Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Jason:
I write in response to your February 10, 2012 letter regarding the production of documents from
related proceedings.
To begin with, Apple has been compelled to produce deposition transcripts from all cases that
bear a technological nexus to this one. Apple’s failure to identify all such cases itself –
especially since these are cases Apple is or was involved in – illustrates its lack of respect for its
Rule 34 obligations and for the Court’s Order ordering it to produce materials from these cases.
Further, since your letter confirming that our initial list was complete, we have located two
additional cases that have a technological nexus with the issues in our case: (1) Motorola
Mobility v. Apple, Inc., 10-cv-23580 (S.D. Fla.); and (2) Investigation Regarding Certain
Electronic Devices With Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated
Software (S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.), 337-TA-724 (ITC).
Please find below a list of all the relevant actions we have identified thus far and the basis of
their relevance to this proceeding. Please identify any other proceedings that have a
technological nexus with this one. If we later learn of other proceedings that Apple should have
identified, we reserve our right to seek sanctions against Apple for its discovery misconduct.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | 51

Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16

•

Investigation Regarding Certain Electronic Devices (Nokia v. Apple), 337-TA-701
(ITC): involves utility patents that cover similar technologies as the patents-in-suit

•

Investigation of Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpad
and Touchscreens (Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Apple), 337-TA-714 (ITC):
involves a utility patent that covers a similar technology as the patents-in-suit

•

Investigation In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices
(Motorola v. Apple), 337-TA-745 (ITC): involves utility patents that cover similar
technologies as the patents-in-suit

•

Investigation of Certain Mobile Devices And Related Software (Apple v.
Motorola), 337-TA-750 (ITC): involves the ‘828 and ‘607 patents

•

Investigation Regarding Certain Electronic Devices (Samsung v. Apple), 337-TA
794 (ITC): involves utility patents that cover similar technologies as the patentsin-suit

•

Investigation Regarding Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices (Samsung v.
Apple), 337-TA-796 (ITC): involves the ‘949 patent, as well as other utility and
design patents that cover similar technologies and features as the patents-in-suit

•

Investigation Regarding Certain Portable Electronic Devices (Apple v. High Tech
Computer Corp.), 337-TA-797 (ITC): involves the ‘915, ‘129, and ‘381 patents

•

Nokia v. Apple, 09-cv-00791 (D. Del.): involves the ‘381 patent

•

Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 09-cv-01531 (N.D. Cal.): involves
utility patents that cover similar technologies as the patents-in-suit

•

Apple v. High Tech Computer Corp., 10-cv-00167 (D. Del.): involves the ‘381
patent

•

Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., 10-cv-00661 (W.D. Wis.): involves the ‘828
and ‘607 patents

•

Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., 10-cv-00662 (W.D. Wis.): involves the ‘002
patent

•

Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 1:12-cv-00134 (D. Del.): involves
a utility patent that covers similar technologies as the patents-in-suit

•

Motorola Mobility v. Apple, Inc., 10-cv-23580 (S.D. Fla): involves utility patents
that cover similar technologies as the patents-in-suit

•

Investigation Regarding Certain Electronic Devices With Image Processing
Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software (S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v.

2

Apple, Inc.), 337-TA-724 (ITC): involves utility patents that cover similar
technologies as the patents-in-suit
Second, your accusations about Samsung’s supposed failure to obtain third-party approvals are
misplaced, since it was only last Monday that Apple revealed there was CBI from HTC, Nokia
and Atmel at issue. And even in the days since I have identified Apple’s own cases for it, I have
yet to receive from Apple a list of any other CBI that might be implicated so that we can even
begin the approval process.
Finally, it is becoming clear that Apple is concealing more than the relevant cases and
identification of the CBI at issue. We have learned from Alan Heinrich that Atmel already gave
Apple permission to produce all Atmel CBI to Samsung in this litigation. Please immediately
produce all documents that you are currently withholding on the grounds that they contain Atmel
CBI and confirm when you have done so.
If we do not receive, by tomorrow morning, in writing, a satisfactory response, including (1)
identification of all cases with a technological nexus to the issues in this case; (2) identification
of all third-party CBI that is at issue; (3) unequivocal reassurance that Apple’s only objection to
production of the relevant materials from these cases is CBI approval, and (4) unequivocal
reassurance that all the requested materials1 will be produced immediately upon clearance to
produce any CBI material therein, we will place this on the lead counsel meet and confer agenda
for resolution.
Kind regards,
/s/
Diane C. Hutnyan

1

That is, all documents from these actions responsive to RFP No. 98 (All documents
and communications concerning the patentability, novelty, scope, infringement, validity,
invalidity, enforceability or unenforceability of any claim in any of the APPLE IP) and/or RFP
No. 75 (All DOCUMENTS relating to any lawsuit, administrative proceeding, or other
proceeding involving any of the APPLE ACCUSED PRODUCTS, APPLE IP, or patents related
to the APPLE PATENTS-IN-SUIT, including, without limitation, any pleading, paper, motion,
affidavit, declaration, report, decision, or order, for cases to include, without limitation, C1180169 MISC JF (HRL) (N.D. Cal.), 337- TA-794 (ITC), 1:2010cv23580 (S.D. Fla.),
1:2010cv06385 (N.D. Ill.), 1:2010cv06381 (N.D. Ill.), 337-TA-745 (ITC), 1:2010cv00166 (D.
Del.), 1:2010cv00167 (D. Del.), 337-TA-724 (ITC), 3:2010cv00249 (W.D. Wisc.), and 337-TA701 (ITC).).

3