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

Filing 893

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT

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

19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4730508.2

Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

1

Under Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), the parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management

2

Statement to update the prior statement and to offer their thoughts for the remainder of the case.

3

1.

Claims and Defenses the Parties Will Assert at Trial

4

Apple’s Claims and Defenses

5

Apple has carefully reviewed its claims and defenses and, in order to be able to present its

6

case to the jury in the time allotted, has stream-lined its case. Apple has identified several assets

7

that it is prepared to dismiss without prejudice:

8
9
10

Utility patents: Of Apple‘s eight asserted utility patents, Apple is willing to dismiss one
entire patent and several dozen patent claims from the remaining patents without prejudice.
Specifically, Apple is willing to dismiss without prejudice:

11



All claims of U.S. Patent No.7,812,828 (ellipse-fitting algorithms to interpret touches).

12



Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002 (status bar);

13



Claims 2, 3, 5, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 (rubber-banding effect when over-

14

scrolling);

15



Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 (touchscreen hardware);

16



Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129 (touchscreen

17

hardware);

18



Claims 7 and 14-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 (gestures);

19



Claims 14-15, 17-21, 23, 39-40, 42-46, 48, 51-52, 55-56, 64-71, and 73-74 of U.S.

20
21
22
23

Patent No. 7,853,891 (timed window);


Claims 5, 8-9, 29, 33-34, 36, 38, and 52 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 (tap to zoom and
navigate).

Design patents: Of Apple‘s seven design patents, Apple is willing to dismiss without

24

prejudice U.S. Patent No. D622,270. Because the design patent case is straightforward and can

25

be presented primarily via images, it will take little time to present the remainder, i.e.:

26



U.S. Patent No. D504,889 (iPad 2 body style);

27



U.S. Patent No. D593,087 (iPhone body style);

28



U.S. Patent No. D618,677 (iPhone body style);

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

1

1



U.S. Patent No. D604,305 (iPhone GUI);

2



U.S. Patent No. D617,334 (iPhone GUI); and

3



U.S. Patent No. D627,790 (iPhone GUI).

4

(See Amended Compl., Claims for Relief numbered Eight to Fifteen.) Contrary to Samsung‘s

5

representations, it is well-established that claim construction of the asserted design patents is both

6

ill-advised and unnecessary. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed.

7

Cir. 2008) (―[T]he preferable course ordinarily will be for a district court not to attempt to

8

‗construe‘ a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed

9

design.‖); Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commc’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (―In many

10

cases, the considerable effort in fashioning a detailed verbal description does not contribute

11

enough to the infringement analysis to justify the endeavor. Depictions of the claimed design in

12

words can easily distract from the proper infringement analysis of the ornamental patterns and

13

drawings."). Indeed, Samsung‘s suggestion of that the Court construe the asserted design patents

14

now—after expert discovery, and just two months before trial—can only be for purposes of

15

delay.

16

Other assets: Apple has asserted trade dress infringement and dilution (First, Second,

17

and Fourth Claims for Relief) on the basis of various registered and unregistered trade dress

18

assets. Apple will dismiss from this case iPhone trade dress Registration No. 3,475,327 and the

19

unregistered trade dress for the original iPhone and the iPhone 4. Apple‘s trade dress claims at

20

trial will rest on the following:

21



iPhone trade dress Registration Nos. 3,470,983 and 3,457,218

22



iPhone 3G (unregistered) trade dress

23



iPhone/iPhone 3G/iPhone 4 (unregistered) trade dress, and

24



iPad and iPad 2 (unregistered) trade dress.

25

Apple has asserted trademark infringement under federal and state law, on the basis of

26

seven icons and a trademark for the iTunes Store (Third and Fifth Claims for Relief). Apple will

27

dismiss from this case Registered Trademark 3,889,685 (settings icon) and Registered Trademark

28

3,889,642 (messaging icon), and will proceed to trial on the following six trademarks:

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

2

1



3,886,200 (yellow and green sunflower for photos);

2



3,886,169 (yellow notepad for ―notes‖);

3



3,886,197 (male silhouette on spiral notebook for ―contacts‖);

4



3,886,196 (green and white phone handset for making phone calls);

5



2,935,038 (eighth note and CD for iTunes music service); and.

6



U.S. Application 85/041,463 (white circle with 2/8 musical note for iTunes music

7
8

service).
All of the preceding can be presented quickly, as they primarily consist of or relate to images.
Apple‘s claims under California‘s Unfair Business Practices statute, Bus. and Prof. Code §

9
10

17200, and for Unjust Enrichment (Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief) are equitable claims.

11

They can be tried to the Court simultaneously with the jury trial and will require the presentation

12

of no additional evidence.1
Countering Samsung‘s counter-claims, Apple will assert antitrust, unfair competition, and

13
14

breach of contract claims.
Apple will defend against Samsung‘s claims of patent infringement based on non-

15
16

infringement, invalidity, license, and equitable issues (e.g., waiver and estoppel).

17

Samsung’s Claims and Defenses

18

Apple has refused to adequately reduce the case pursuant to the Court‘s Order to fit the

19

25-hour per side limit. The Court clearly told Apple that if it wanted a trial in July and August, it

20

would have to significantly reduce its claims to fit 25 hours per side. Apple has not done so.

21

Despite repeated inquiries from Samsung over the course of the last week, Apple did not identify

22

for Samsung until 2 pm the day of the filing what, if any, claims it would be prepared to drop.

23
24
25
26
27

1

Samsung mistakenly suggests that Apple refused to meet and confer about the scope of the
parties‘ claims for reduction last week. Last Friday, Apple‘s lead counsel wrote to ask Samsung‘s
lead counsel what Samsung wanted to discuss, offering to confer on Saturday, Sunday, or
Monday. Apple‘s correspondence received no response. In fact, Samsung waited until after 9:30
p.m. on the evening that this Joint Statement was due to advise Apple of its position and to raise
the arguments it makes here, depriving Apple of any meaningful opportunity to respond in this
submission.

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

3

1

At 2 pm the day of this filing, when Samsung finally received Apple‘s portion of this Case

2

Management Statement, it became clear that Apple had not sufficiently reduced its case. Apple

3

still insists on asserting more than 30 claims. For example, Apple is willing to dismiss only one

4

of its 8 utility patents, only one of its 7 design patents, 2 of its eight asserted trademarks and 3 of

5

its eight trade dresses. Apple‘s purported ―reductions‖ do virtually nothing to streamline the case

6

because each of the intellectual property assets Apple says it will drop are cumulative of other

7

claims. For example Apple dropped TM registration No. 3,475,327

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

but kept in the case Nos. 3,470,983

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

4

1

and 3,457,218:

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Dropping this one trademark will not significantly reduce the case because, as can plainly
be seen, the ―dropped‖ claim is duplicative of two other substantially identical claims.
Essentially, Apple continues to assert that it will try four cases: utility case with seven

11

patents; design patent case with 6 patents, trade dress case with 5 trade dresses, trademark case

12

with 6 trademarks, and an antitrust case on top of that. Apple‘s revisions do not result in any

13

fewer accused products nor eliminate the relevance of any design prior art, functionality

14

arguments, or witnesses. Further, Apple is not willing to dismiss any of its antitrust or exhaustion

15

allegations. This case cannot possibly be tried within the Court‘s available time in July and

16

August.

17

Even if Apple claims it could put on its case within the time available, there is no way that

18

Samsung could defend against these multiple cases and claims in 25 hours. In contrast, Samsung

19

has committed to withdrawing three of its 12 counterclaim patents – one fourth of its entire case.

20

Samsung likely would have been willing to reduce its claims even further had Apple approached

21

the Court‘s request for the parties to limit their case in a reasonable manner.

22

Pursuant to the Court‘s instructions during the Case Management Conference and its Case

23

Management Order to streamline and simplify its offensive case for trial, Samsung will reduce its

24

offensive case by dismissing the following offensive patents:

25



U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792;

26



U.S. Patent No. 7,386,001;

27



U.S. Patent No. 7,079,871;

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

5

1

Samsung intends to proceed with its remaining claims and defenses, including its claim

2

that Apple infringes the following Samsung patents and Samsung is entitled to damages and

3

permanent injunction to redress this infringement: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,604, U.S. Patent No.

4

7,675,941, U.S. Patent No. 7,362,867, U.S. Patent No. 7,447,516, U.S. Patent No. 7,050,410, U.S.

5

Patent No. 7,069,055, U.S. Patent No. 7,546,893, U.S. Patent No. 7,577,460, and U.S. Patent No.

6

7,698,711.

7

2.

Dispositive Motions and Motions to Strike

8

Apple’s Dispositive Motions and Motions to Strike

9

To reduce the issues that the Court needs to decide before trial, Apple has withdrawn its

10

previously-filed motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 660) and will prepare its claims and

11

defenses for jury trial. Apple does not intend to file any motion for summary adjudication.

12

Apple does intend to file by May 17 a motion under Rule 37(c)(1) seeking to preclude

13

Samsung from asserting defenses based on theories that it failed timely to disclose during

14

discovery. Specifically, Apple intends to challenge any attempt by Samsung to present or

15

support—through expert testimony or otherwise—contentions never disclosed as required by the

16

Patent Local Rules (for utility patents) or in timely responses to Apple‘s contention

17

interrogatories (for all claims). Apple will limit this motion to no more than 25 pages.

18

Samsung's Dispositive Motions and Motions to Strike

19

Pursuant to the Court‘s Case Management Order, Samsung identifies the following issues

20

on which it will seek summary judgment: (1) invalidity of selected Apple patents; and (2)

21

functionality of Apple‘s trademarks and trade dress.

22

In addition, Apple seeks Court‘s permission to file on May 17 a motion under Rule

23

37(c)(1) of no more than 25 pages seeking to preclude Samsung from asserting defenses allegedly

24

based on theories not previously disclosed. Samsung identified a number of theories Apple is

25

pursuing in its experts reports that had not been previously disclosed to Samsung. If Court

26

permits Apple to file this motion, Samsung respectfully requests permission to file a similar

27

motion to preclude not to exceed 25 pages.

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

6

1

Finally, Samsung requests a claim construction hearing on any of Apple‘s design patents

2

that remain in the case. As with utility patents, a design patent must be properly construed to

3

determine its meaning and scope. See Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679

4

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (trial courts have a duty to conduct claim construction in design patent cases).

5

Claim construction is a question of law for the court. Id; see also Markman v. Westview

6

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc); Sun-Mate Corp. v. Koolatron

7

Corp., 2011 WL 3322597 at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (―claim construction is a question of law

8

for the court‖); 180s Inc. v. Gordini Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d 714, 717 n. 2 (D. Md. 2010) (same);

9

Moose Mountain Toymakers Inc. v. Majik, Ltd., 2011 WL 3626067, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug 12, 2011)

10

(―First, the design patent must be properly construed, as a matter of law.‖).

11

In the course of expert discovery over the last three weeks, it became apparent that the

12

parties disagree on the scope of the design patent claims and that the parties‘ infringement and

13

invalidity positions are greatly affected by the scope of the claims. Thus, construing the design

14

patent claims is not only required by law but will greatly reduce the scope of the case by

15

obviating the need to call some of the parties‘ experts. Therefore, Samsung proposes to hold a

16

claim construction hearing on the remaining design claims on June 21, 2012, concurrently with

17

the hearing on the parties‘ Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert motions. The briefing

18

can proceed according to the regular Northern District Local Rules with parties‘ opening briefs

19

due on May 17, and opposition briefs due on May 31.

20

A.

Daubert Motions

21

Apple’s Daubert Motions

22

Apple currently intends to file a motion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

23

Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 seeking the relief described below:
Exclusion of Nicholas Godici‘s opinion that later-issued design patents

24

i.

25

narrow the construction of certain design patents-in-suit;

26

ii.

27

Michael Mazis, as legally irrelevant because Apple‘s icons are irrebuttably

28

presumed to have achieved consumer association with a single source;

Exclusion of testimony from one of Samsung‘s proffered survey experts,

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

7

Exclusion of testimony from one of Samsung‘s proferred design experts,

1

iii.

2

Itay Sherman, on various grounds, including lack of qualification to opine on

3

matters addressed in his report;

4

iv.

5

Lucente, on various grounds, including failure to apply proper legal standard;

6

v.

7

irrelevance of his stated opinions under the proper law;

8

vi.

9

expert; and

Exclusion of testimony from Samsung‘s proffered expert on icons, Sam

Exclusion of testimony from Dr. Mark Lehto regarding ergonomics, for

Exclusion of certain opinions of Michael Wagner, Samsung‘s damages

Exclusion of certain opinions of George Mantis, one of Samsung‘s survey

10

vii.

11

experts.

12

In keeping with the Court‘s request that we streamline pre-trial filings, Apple proposes that each

13

side limit its Daubert motion(s) to a combined total of no more than 25-pages.

14

Samsung’s Daubert Motions

15

Apple submitted more than 30 expert reports in this matter. A number of these reports are

16

plainly improper and several are duplicative of each other. Samsung currently intends to file a

17

motion under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal

18

Rule of Evidence 702 seeking the relief described below:

19

i.

Exclusion of certain opinions and testimony of Terry Musika, Apple‘s damages

20

expert. Mr. Musika relies on a series of improper assumptions, ad hoc and unreliable methods,

21

and insufficient data to support his opinions rather than sound economic analysis. Mr. Musika‘s

22

analyses are convoluted and inappropriately inflate the scale of damages. They would therefore

23

be highly prejudicial and not helpful to the jury. Mr. Musika‘s specific analyses and opinions on

24

lost profits, ―infringer‘s profits,‖ reasonable royalty and irreparable harm are contrary to

25

governing law on acceptable remedies for alleged infringement of intellectual property and at

26

odds with the facts of this case. They should be excluded;

27
28

ii.

Exclusion of opinions of John Hauser, Apple‘s damages survey expert. Apple‘s

damages survey expert, John Hauser, should be excluded on multiple grounds. First, Dr. Hauser

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

8

1

failed to produce a single document concerning the In Depth Interviews and pre-tests he allegedly

2

conducted to craft his survey. Dr. Hauser asserts that not a single record was kept of these 20

3

interviews and pre-tests, but that all the results were verbally conveyed to him. Without any

4

records, Samsung cannot replicate Dr. Hauser‘s survey and it should be excluded on this basis

5

alone. Second, Dr. Hauser ran no pre-tests on the final version of the survey administered to

6

respondents. Apple‘s own rebuttal expert admits this is critical to ensure that respondents

7

actually understood the survey. Finally, Dr. Hauser did not survey any feature at issue in this

8

case. Dr. Hauser simply assumed that Apple‘s asserted utility patents affect the accuracy and

9

reliability of touch screens. But the patents have nothing to do with that, making Dr. Hauser‘s

10

survey irrelevant to any issue in the case. For these reasons, among others, Dr. Hauser‘s opinions

11

should be excluded;

12

iii.

Exclusion of opinions and testimony of Henry Urbach, Apple‘s expert on the

13

alleged cultural significance of Apple. Mr. Urbach‘s report is irrelevant and will not assist the

14

trier of fact in the determination of a fact at issue. The ―cultural significance‖ of Apple‘s designs

15

and Apple‘s ―commitment to design‖ are not at issue in this litigation. Moreover, Mr. Urbach‘s

16

report essentially consists of his own subjective and conclusory opinion that Apple products are

17

desirable—―[b]eautiful, even stunning.‖ Mr. Urbach‘s ―methodology‖ is not the least bit

18

scientific or technical and therefore not subject to standards or controls, relying heavily on

19

anecdote such as his personal experiences while traveling in Spain and such abstract observations

20

as transcendence. For example, when asked about the statement in his report that: "Certain

21

exceptionally alluring products may even reach the status of a fetish," he responded that ―An

22

object that is a fetish is not something that is merely used, but it is something that holds a kind of

23

auratic power. It holds the authority to compel because it stands in for something else. It promises

24

to secure or deliver, a god is a good example of that, a god that promises good fortune or

25

immortality or fertility.‖ These types of opinions are not helpful to the jury.

26

iv.

Exclusion of testimony from Susan Kare regarding alleged infringement of

27

Apple‘s non-utility patent intellectual property. Ms. Kare‘s analysis of infringement of design

28

patents and trademarks does not take into account proper legal standard and ignores appropriate

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

9

1

comparison required under law. For example, although Kare talks about Samsung‘s accused

2

products and Apple‘s design patents, she never opines about how an ordinary observer would

3

perceive Samsung‘s accused products, nor would she have any basis for such an opinion. In

4

addition, she failed to consider Apple‘s design patents in view of prior art or their functionality,

5

even though she admitted that Apple‘s graphic user interface was not purely aesthetic and was in

6

part functional.

7

v.

Exclusion of opinions of Sanjay Sood, Apple‘s expert on consumer decision

8

making. Mr. Sood opines about the importance of design in smartphone product choice based on

9

irrelevant studies conducted about reactions to such basic products as lamps, staplers, tape

10

dispensers, and alarm clocks. His studies should be excluded as well on the same grounds as

11

Urbach‘s opinions. Rather than refer to the ―cultural significance‖ of Apple‘s design, Sood

12

opines about the fact that ―Apple is ―known for design,‖ and has ―design in Apple‘s DNA,‖ again,

13

facts not at issue.

14

vi.

Exclusion of Jeffrey Winer‘s expert testimony on the grounds that his testimony is

15

merely duplicative of Apple‘s other experts, and exclusion of portions of Richard Donaldson‘s

16

expert testimony on the ground of improper cumulativeness and legal opinion;

17
18

Samsung does not believe 25 pages is sufficient to address the above motions and requests
the Court to permit it to file a brief not to exceed 40 pages.

19

B.

In Limine Motions

20

Apple’s In Limine Motions

21

Apple currently plans to file motions in limine seeking the following relief:

22

i.

Exclusion of argument or evidence as to how other courts have construed–

23

–or ruled on the validity, enforceability, or infringement of––any of Apple‘s

24

patents, or their foreign counterparts or US or foreign family members.

25

ii.

26

Jobs by Walter Isaacson.

27

iii.

Obscuring the ―Samsung‖ logo on the court‘s video display for jurors.

28

iv.

Exclusion of any reference to working conditions in China.

Exclusion of argument or evidence regarding statements attributed to Steve

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

10

1

v.

Exclusion of any reference to the size of Apple‘s tax bills.

2

vi.

Exclusion of expert opinions not disclosed in Samsung‘s expert reports.

3

Apple requests that it be allowed to file up to seven motions in limine, provided it does not

4

exceed a limit of 35 pages for all such motions.

5

Samsung’s In Limine Motions

6

Samsung currently plans to file motions in limine seeking the following relief:

7

i.

8
9
10
11

Exclusion of arguments that steps in various utility patents must be performed in

certain order as contrary to law;
ii.

Exclusion of any reference to other cases, orders for sanctions, and/or to the

parties‘ discovery conduct;
iii.

Exclusion of the document containing page number SAMDNCA10154021, and

12

any other documents reprinting or referencing subject matter therein on the grounds of hearsay,

13

lack of foundation, and F.R.E. 403;

14
15
16

iv.

Exclusion of any reference to any alleged trade secret violations, or to any other

claims not asserted in the present case;
v.

Exclusion of document number SAMNDCA00526887-52693 or any other

17

document or testimony describing the subject matter discussed on pages 526905-13 on the

18

grounds of hearsay and F.R.E. 403;

19

vi.

Exclusion of certain third party publications, such as Apple related blogs, and

20

articles by non-expert newspaper reporters, regarding any assessment of Apple and Samsung

21

and/or their products.

22
23

Samsung requests that it be allowed to file up to 10 motions in limine not to exceed 5
pages each.

24

3.

Developments Since the April 5, 2012 Case Management Statement

25

On April 16 and 23, 2012, the parties submitted Joint Status Reports describing their

26

efforts to narrow the issues for trial. (Dkt. No. 881.) Since the April 23 Report, the parties have

27

made further progress in streamlining the case, as discussed above in Section 1.

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

11

1

On April 12, 2012, Judge Grewal granted in part and denied in part Samsung‘s Motion to

2

Compel Production of Certain Design Patents and Samsung‘s Motion to Compel Production of

3

Materials From Related Proceedings and to Enforce December 22, 2011 Court Order. (Dkt. No.

4

867.) On April 26, 2012, Apple filed an administrative motion seeking clarification of the latter

5

ruling. (Dkt. No. 885.) That administrative motion remains pending.

6

On April 23, 2012, Judge Grewal granted in part and denied in part Apple‘s Motion for

7

Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions for Samsung‘s Violations of September 28 and December 22, 2011

8

Discovery Orders, and also granted in part and denied in part Apple‘s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion

9

Regarding Samsung‘s Violation of January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order. (Dkt. No. 880.)

10

On April 24, 2012, Judge Grewal heard argument on Apple‘s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Based

11

on Samsung‘s Violation of the December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code. (Dkt. No.

12

795.) Judge Grewal has not issued a ruling on that motion as of the date of this submission.

13

Expert discovery closed on April 27, 2012, pursuant to the Court‘s August 25, 2011 Case

14

Management Order. A limited number of expert depositions have yet to be taken, including the

15

depositions of each side‘s damages expert. The parties anticipate that all expert depositions shall

16

be completed by May 14, 2012.

17

4.

Proposals For the Remainder of the Case Development Process

18

As directed by the Court, the parties identify above the dispositive, Daubert, and in limine

19

motions they currently intend to file. Pursuant to the Court‘s August 25, 2011 and April 12, 2012

20

Case Management Orders, the parties intend to file their dispositive motions and their Daubert

21

motions no later than May 17, 2012. The parties propose the following additional deadlines,

22

which are consistent with the Court‘s Guidelines for Final Pretrial Conference, before our July 18,

23

2012 pre-trial conference:

24
June 29, 2012

26

Last day to file Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial
disclosures

July 3, 2012

25

Last day to file joint pretrial statement
and to exchange copies of all exhibits,
summaries, charts, and diagrams to be
used at trial other than solely for
impeachment or rebuttal

27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

12

1

July 3, 2012
July 8, 2012

Last day to file oppositions to motions
in limine

July 11, 2012

Last day to file voir dire questions,
proposed jury instructions, and
proposed verdict forms

July 13, 2012

Last day to file objections to the use
of a deposition or admissibility of
materials identified under Rule
26(a)(3) disclosures

July 16, 2012

2

Last day to file motions in limine

Last day to file excerpts of deposition
testimony or other discovery to be
offered at trial other than solely for
impeachment or rebuttal

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5.

11

ADR

12

Both Parties’ Position

13

As directed by the Court, Apple‘s chief executive officer and general counsel and Samsung‘s

14

chief executive officer and general counsel will participate in a Settlement Conference with

15

Magistrate Judge Spero. (Dkt. No. 889.)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

13

1

Dated: April 30, 2012

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

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]

11
12
13
14
15

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]

16
17
18
19
20

By:

/s/ Alison Tucher

21
22

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant
APPLE INC.

23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

14

1
Dated: April 30, 2012
2
3
4
5
6

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]

7
8
9
10

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

11
12
13
14
15

By:

16

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

17
18
19
20
21

sf-3138409

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4729563.1

15