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

Filing 90

Declaration of Cooper Woodring in Support of #86 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22)(Related document(s) #86 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF COOPER C.
WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

I, COOPER C. WOODRING, declare as follows:

2

A.

Qualifications

3

1.

I am an independent industrial designer and inventor. I have bachelor’s and

4

master’s degrees in Industrial Design. I have worked as an industrial designer continuously since

5

1962—almost 50 years. I have received over 25 United States design and utility patents. (See

6

Exhibit 1.) A selected set of my United States design patents is attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.

7
8

2.
as:

9

[T]he professional service of creating and developing concepts and
specifications that optimize the function, value, and appearance of
products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and
manufacturer. (See Exhibit 4.)

10
11
12

The Industrial Designers Society of America (“IDSA”) defines industrial design

3.

I was elected President and Chairman of the IDSA and most recently served as its

13

Executive Director. I testified before the United States Congress on The Industrial Design

14

Innovation and Technology Act (H.R. 1790). I was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to

15

head the United States Information Agency’s Cultural Exchange Mission, “Design in America,”

16

behind the then-existing Iron Curtain. I recently addressed the Design Patent Examiners of the

17

United States Patent and Trademark Office at its first ever “Design Day” on future issues and

18

strategies for seeking patent protection for designs from the perspective of an industrial designer.

19

(See Exhibit 5.)

20

4.

I received my profession’s highest award, the IDSA Personal Recognition Award,

21

which has been bestowed on only nine designers in history. A list of my honors, awards, articles,

22

and speaking engagements appears in my curriculum vitae. (See Exhibit 6.)

23

5.

During my career, I have designed hundreds of consumer products. A majority of

24

my career was spent with JCPenney Co. in New York City as Manager of New Product

25

Development and Product Design. During my time with JCPenney, I designed consumer

26

products in many categories, including sporting goods, toys, furniture, electronics, hardware,

27

major appliances, and housewares. Attached as Exhibit 7 are examples of consumer electronics I

28

designed during my career.
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

1

6.

Based on my years of experience designing consumer products, including

2

consumer electronics, and for all the reasons stated in this declaration, I believe that I am

3

qualified to testify as one skilled in the art with respect to the designs at issue in this case. In

4

addition, I believe that my experiences working with other designers of products of this type

5

qualify me to testify on what would be understood by one skilled in the art of designing cellular

6

phones and tablet computers such as the ones at issue here.

7

7.

I also believe that, based on my firsthand experiences observing purchasers of

8

consumer electronics, I am qualified to testify as to how an ordinary observer would perceive and

9

evaluate cellular phone and tablet computer designs. For example, during my tenure at

10

JCPenney, it was estimated that more than one million people a day shopped in our stores.

11

Watching the many customers come through the store, I conducted research into how ordinary

12

observers evaluate, compare, and purchase product designs, including consumer electronics. I

13

studied and learned the habits and customs of these ordinary customers in the retail environment,

14

including the length of time a typical customer spends making a purchase decision for consumer

15

products. I also have experience seeing how consumers are influenced by market trends and

16

styles. In short, I have had firsthand experience observing ordinary purchasers of consumer

17

electronics. Furthermore, I have purchased consumer electronics and thus can speak from my

18

own personal experiences. For all of these reasons, I believe that I am qualified to testify on

19

issues related to how ordinary observers perceive ornamental designs for cellular phones and

20

tablet computers, such as those at issue here.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

8.

In the past five years, I have worked as an expert witness in several lawsuits

involving design patent and trade dress infringement. In particular, I have served as an expert for:
Herman Miller against A. Studio in Case No. 1:04CV0781
(W.D. Mich.);
Electrolux against Oreck Holdings in Civil Action No. 055696 (E.D. La.);
Garmin against Tom Tom in Case No. 268408/KGZA 06819 (The Netherlands District Court of The Hague, Civil
Law Section);

28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1

Wing Shing against Sunbeam (Mr. Coffee) in Case No. 06
Civ. 3522 (S.D.N.Y.);

2
VTech Communications, Inc. against Motorola, Inc. in Case
No. 07-cv-171-DF-CMC (E.D. Tex.);

3
4

Wenger Corp. against Jim Melhart Piano & Organ Co., Inc.
in Case No. M-05-359 (S.D. Tex.);

5
Wenger Corp. against Stadium Chair Co. & Gil DeShazio in
Case No. MO-5-CV-099 (W.D. Tex.);

6
7

Nichia Corp. against Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. in Case
No. 06-cv-162-MMC (JCS) (N.D. Cal.);

8
Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. against Stamford Tyres Intl.
Pte Ltd. in Case No. SACV 07-0010 CJC (MLGx) (C.D.
Cal.);

9
10

Yokohama against Hangzhou Tire in Case No. SACV 060822 JVS (C.D. Cal.);

11
12

Bodum against Four Others in Case No. 07C5303 ASE
(N.D. Ill.);

13
Dexas against Tung Yung in Case No. 6:07-CV-00334 LED
(E.D. Tex.);

14
15

Risenthel against Mad Bags in Case No. 1:09-CV-04971
(N.D. Ill.);

16
B&R Plastics against Kikkerland Designs in Investigation
No. 337-TA-693 (U.S. ITC);

17
18

Cobra against Bulldog in Case No. 1:09-cv-00436-UA-PTS
(M.D.N.C.);

19
MMI against Baja Motorsports in Case No. 2:10-cv-00496JAT (D. Ariz.); and

20
21

Chrysler against Xingyue Group in Investigation No. 377TA-722 (U.S. ITC).

22
23

9.

I have been retained as an expert consultant in this case by Morrison & Foerster

24

LLP, attorneys for Apple Inc. My hourly rate is $360. My compensation is in no way tied to the

25

outcome of this case or any particular part of the case.

26

B.

Scope of Declaration

27

10.

I have been asked by Apple’s attorneys to compare the designs claimed in U.S.

28

Design Patent No. D618,677 (the “’D677 patent”), D593,087 (the “’D087 patent”), and D504,889
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

3

1

(the “’D899 patent”) against the designs of Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Galaxy Tab

2

10.1 products.

3

11.

My detailed analysis follows and makes reference to Exhibits 8-21, which contain

4

side by side comparisons of the patented designs and the Samsung products and, in some

5

instances, three-way comparisons of the patented designs, the Samsung products, and the prior art.

6

12.

In Exhibits 8-21, I have scaled the drawings and photographs such that the heights

7

of the phones and tablet computers correspond with one another. Care has been taken not to

8

change the proportional relationship (i.e., aspect ratio) of the designs. When conducting my

9

analysis, I compared an actual physical sample of the Samsung product to the drawing figures of

10

the patented designs. The photographs in this declaration accurately represent the Samsung

11

products and record the visual comparison that I made.

12

C.

Detailed Comparison of ’D677 Design against Samsung Galaxy S 4G and
Infuse 4G.

14

13.

The ’D677 patent is directed to the ornamental appearance of Apple’s iPhone.

15

14.

Before conducting my comparison of the ’D677 patent against the Samsung

13

16

Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G products, I reviewed the file history of the ’D677 patent and analyzed

17

and became familiar with the prior art cited there, as well as U.S. Design Patent No. D498,754

18

and D563,929 (the “Samsung-identified references”), which I understand were identified by

19

Samsung’s attorneys at a May 12, 2011 hearing in this case.

20

15.

In conducting my analysis, I compared the eight views of the ’D677 patent (FIGS.

21

1-8) with the corresponding views of the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G phones. In

22

Exhibit 8, each view of the patented ’D677 design is compared to the corresponding view of the

23

Galaxy S 4G. In Exhibit 11, each view of the patented ’D677 design is compared to the

24

corresponding view of the Infuse 4G.

25
26

1.
16.

’D677 against the Galaxy S 4G

On visual inspection, it is apparent that all of the major design elements from the

27

patented ’D677 design are also found in the Galaxy S 4G design. Just as in the patented design,

28

the Galaxy S 4G design has:
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

4

1

a.

a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with
four evenly rounded corners;

b.

an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front
surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the
display screen and substantial borders above and below the
display screen; and

c.

a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front
surface above the display screen,

d.

where the rectangular front surface is otherwise
substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional
button area centrally located below the display.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(See Exhibit 8.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

17.

To confirm my analysis, and to directly compare physical product against physical

product, I have also included in Exhibit 9 a view-by-view comparison of the Apple iPhone 3GS,
which embodies the patented ’D677 design, against the Samsung Galaxy S 4G. As can be seen
from Exhibit 9, each major design feature listed in points (a)-(d) above exists in both the Apple
iPhone 3GS and the Samsung Galaxy S 4G.
18.

Moreover, I have conducted a “three way” analysis of the Galaxy S 4G design, the

’D677 design, and the prior art (i.e., the prior art cited in the ‘D677 file history and the Samsungidentified references). In my analysis, the Galaxy S 4G design entirely overlaps with the patented
’D677 design, but is far afield from the designs of the prior art I considered. Put another way,
both the ’D677 design and the Galaxy S 4G design depart conspicuously from the prior art
designs in the same key features. This spectrum of designs is illustrated in Exhibit 10, which
compares the Galaxy S 4G against the two Samsung-identified references on the one hand, and
the patented ’D677 design on the other.
19.

Some minor differences exist between the Galaxy S 4G design and the patented

’D677 design. In particular:

24
a.

the Galaxy S 4G has slightly thinner black bands above and
below the display screen;

b.

the Galaxy S 4G has a slightly longer and thinner speaker
slot;

c.

the Galaxy S 4G has a small camera aperture in the upper
right corner of the front surface;

25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

d.
20.

the Galaxy S 4G uses small graphical icons to denote touch
sensitive areas under its display screen.

These minor differences, however, merely prevent the Galaxy S 4G from being an

exact copy of the patented ’D677 design. They do not carry sufficient weight to alter the overall
impression created by the Galaxy S 4G design, which incorporates every major design element
from the ’D677 design.
21.

In my opinion, the Galaxy S 4G design is substantially the same as the’D677

design and embodies that patented design. It is similarly my opinion that an ordinary observer
purchasing a cellular phone would also find the Galaxy S 4G design to be substantially the same
as the patented ’D677 design.

10
2.
11
12
13

22.

D677 against the Infuse 4G

On visual inspection, it is apparent that all of the major design elements from the

patented ’D677 design are also found in the Infuse 4G design. Just as in the patented design, the
Infuse 4G design has:

14
a.

a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with
four evenly rounded corners;

b.

an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front
surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the
display screen and substantial borders above and below the
display screen; and

c.

a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front
surface above the display screen,

d.

where the rectangular front surface is otherwise
substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional
button area centrally located below the display.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(See Exhibit 11.)

23

23.

To confirm my analysis, and to directly compare physical product against physical

24

product, I have also included in Exhibit 12 a view-by-view comparison of the Apple iPhone 4,

25

which embodies the patented ’D677 design, against the Samsung Infuse 4G. As can be seen from

26

Exhibit 12, each major design feature listed in points (a)-(d) above exists in both the Apple

27

iPhone 4 and the Samsung Infuse 4G.

28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

6

1

24.

Moreover, I have conducted a “three way” analysis of the Infuse 4G design, the

2

’D677 design, and the prior art (i.e., the prior art cited in the ’D677 file history and the Samsung-

3

identified references). In my analysis, the Infuse 4G design entirely overlaps with the patented

4

’D677 design, but is far afield from the designs of the prior art I considered. Put another way,

5

both the ’D677 design and the Infuse 4G design depart conspicuously from the prior art designs

6

in the same key features. This spectrum of designs is illustrated in Exhibit 13, which compares

7

the Infuse 4G against the Samsung-identified references on the one hand, and the patented ’D677

8

design on the other.

9

25.

10

Some minor differences exist between the Infuse 4G design and the patented

’D677 design. In particular:

11

a.

the Infuse 4G has slightly thinner black bands above and
below the display screen;

b.

the Infuse 4G front surface has rounded corners with a
slightly smaller radius of curvature;

14

d.

the Infuse 4G has a slightly longer and thinner speaker slot;

15

e.

the Infuse 4G uses small graphical icons to denote touchsensitive areas located under its display screen.

12
13

16
17

26.

These minor differences, however, merely prevent the Infuse 4G from being an

18

exact copy of the patented ’D677 design. They do not carry sufficient weight to alter the overall

19

impression created by the Infuse 4G design, which incorporates every major design element from

20

the ’D677 design.

21

27.

In my opinion, the Infuse 4G design is substantially the same as the’D677 design

22

and embodies that patented design. It is similarly my opinion that an ordinary observer

23

purchasing a cellular phone would also find the Infuse 4G design to be substantially the same as

24

the patented ’D677 design.

25

D.

Comparison of ’D087 Design against Samsung Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G

26

28.

The ’D087 patent is directed to the ornamental appearance of Apple’s iPhone.

27
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

7

1

29.

Before conducting my comparison of the ’D087 patent against the Samsung

2

Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G products, I reviewed the file history of the ’D087 patent and analyzed

3

and became familiar with the prior art cited there, as well as the Samsung-identified references.

4

30.

In conducting my analysis, I compared the eight views of the sixth embodiment of

5

the ’D087 patent (FIGS. 41-48) (the “patented ’D087 design”) with the corresponding views of

6

the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G phones. In Exhibit 14, each view of the patented ’D087

7

design is compared to the corresponding view of the Galaxy S 4G. In Exhibit 17, each view of

8

the patented ’D087 design is compared to the corresponding view of the Infuse 4G.

9
10

1.
31.

’D087 design against the Galaxy S 4G

On visual inspection, it is apparent that all of the major design elements from the

11

patented ’D087 design are also found in the Galaxy S 4G design. Just as in the patented design,

12

the Galaxy S 4G design has:

13

a.

a flat rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded
corners;

b.

an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front
surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the
display screen and substantial borders above and below the
display screen;

c.

a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front
surface above the display screen,

d.

where the rectangular front surface is otherwise
substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional
button area centrally located below the display; and

e.

a thin, continuous bezel surrounding the rectangular front
surface that is substantially uniform in appearance and
having an inwardly sloping profile.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

(See Exhibit 14.)
32.

To confirm my analysis, and to directly compare physical product against physical

24
product, I have also included in Exhibit 15 a view-by-view comparison of the original Apple
25
iPhone, which embodies the patented ’D087 design, against the Samsung Galaxy S 4G. As can
26
be seen from Exhibit 15, each major design feature listed in points (a)-(e) above exists in both the
27
Apple iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy S 4G.
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

8

1

33.

Moreover, I have conducted a “three way” analysis of the Galaxy S 4G design, the

2

patented ’D087 design, and the prior art (i.e., the prior art cited in the ’D087 patent file history

3

and the Samsung-identified references). In my analysis, the Galaxy S 4G design entirely overlaps

4

with the patented ’D087 design, but is far afield from the designs of the prior art I considered.

5

Put another way, both the patented ’D087 design and the Galaxy S 4G design depart

6

conspicuously from the prior art designs, and do so in the same key features. This spectrum of

7

designs is illustrated in Exhibit 16, which compares the Galaxy S 4G against the Samsung-

8

identified references on the one hand, and the patented ’D087 design on the other.

9
10

34.

Some minor differences exist between the Galaxy S 4G design and the patented

’D087 design. In particular:

11

a.

the Galaxy S 4G has slightly thinner bands above and
below the display screen;

b.

the Galaxy S 4G has a slightly longer and thinner speaker
slot;

c.

the Galaxy S 4G has a small camera aperture in the upper
right corner of the front surface;

d.

the Galaxy S 4G uses small graphical icons to denote touch
sensitive areas under its display screen;

e.

in profile, the bezel of Galaxy S 4G is slightly thinner at the
top edge and slightly thicker at the bottom edge.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

35.

These minor differences, however, merely prevent the Galaxy S 4G from being an

20

exact copy of the patented ’D087 design. They do not carry sufficient weight to alter the overall

21

impression created by the Galaxy S 4G design, which incorporates every major design element

22

from the patented ’D087 design.

23

36.

In my opinion, the Galaxy S 4G design is substantially the same as the patented

24

’D087 design and embodies that design. It is similarly my opinion that an ordinary observer

25

purchasing a cellular phone would also find the Galaxy S 4G design to be substantially the same

26

as the patented ’D087 design.

27
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

9

1
2

2.
37.

’D087 design against the Infuse 4G

On visual inspection, it is apparent that all of the major design elements from the

3

patented ’D087 design are also found in the Infuse 4G design. Just as in the patented design, the

4

Infuse 4G design has:

5

a.

a flat rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded
corners;

b.

an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front
surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the
display screen and substantial borders above and below the
display screen;

c.

a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front
surface above the display screen,

d.

where the rectangular front surface is otherwise
substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional
button area centrally located below the display; and

e.

a thin, continuous bezel surrounding the rectangular front
surface that is substantially uniform in appearance and
having an inwardly sloping profile.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(See Exhibit 17.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

38.

To confirm my analysis, and to directly compare physical product against physical

product, I have also included in Exhibit 18 a view-by-view comparison of the original Apple
iPhone, which embodies the patented ’D087 design, against the Samsung Infuse 4G. As can be
seen from Exhibit 18, each major design feature listed in points (a)-(e) above exists in both the
Apple iPhone and the Samsung Infuse 4G.
39.

Moreover, I have conducted a “three way” analysis of the Infuse 4G design, the

patented ’D087 design, and the prior art (i.e., the prior art cited in the ’D087 patent file history
and the Samsung-identified references). In my analysis, the Infuse 4G design entirely overlaps
with the patented ’D087 design, but is far afield from the designs of the prior art that I considered.
Put another way, both the patented ’D087 design and the Infuse 4G design depart conspicuously
from the prior art designs, and do so in the same key features. This spectrum of designs is
illustrated in Exhibit 19, which compares the Infuse 4G against the Samsung-identified references
on the one hand, and the patented ’D087 design on the other.

28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

10

1
2

40.

Some minor differences exist between the Infuse 4G design and the patented

’D087 design. In particular:

3

a.

the Infuse 4G has slightly thinner bands above and below
the display screen;

b.

the Infuse 4G has a slightly thinner bezel when viewed
from the front;

c.

the Infuse 4G has rounded corners with a slightly smaller
radius of curvature;

d.

the Infuse 4G has a slightly longer and thinner speaker slot;

e.

the Infuse 4G uses small graphical icons to denote touchsensitive areas below its display screen.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
41.

These minor differences, however, merely prevent the Infuse 4G from being an

11
exact copy of the patented ’D087 design. They do not carry sufficient weight to alter the overall
12
impression created by the Infuse 4G design, which incorporates every major design element from
13
the patented ’D087 design.
14
42.

In my opinion, the Infuse 4G design is substantially the same as the patented

15
’D087 design and embodies that patented design. It is similarly my opinion that an ordinary
16
observer purchasing a cellular phone would also find the Infuse 4G design to be substantially the
17
same as the patented ’D087 design.
18
E.

Detailed Comparison of ’D889 Design against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

43.

The ’D889 patent is directed to the ornamental appearance of an electronic device.

44.

19

Before conducting my comparison of the ’D889 patent against the Samsung

20
21
Galaxy Tab 10.1 product, I reviewed the file history of the ’D889 patent and analyzed and
22
became familiar with the prior art cited there.
23
45.

In conducting my analysis, I compared the nine views of the ’D889 patent (FIGS.

24
1-9) with the corresponding views of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. In Exhibit 20, each view of
25
the patented ’D889 design is compared to the corresponding view of the Galaxy Tab 10.1.
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

11

1

46.

On visual inspection, it is apparent that all of the major design elements from the

2

patented ’D889 design are also found in the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Just as in the patented design, the

3

Galaxy Tab 10.1 design has:

4

a.

an overall rectangular shape with four evenly rounded
corners;

b.

a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is
without any ornamentation;

7

c.

a thin rim surrounding the front surface;

8

c.

a substantially flat back panel that rounds up near the edges
to form the thin rim around the front surface; and

d.

a thin form factor.

5
6

9
10
11

47.

I have also conducted a “three way” analysis of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the ’D889

12

design, and the prior art cited in the ’D889 patent file history. In my analysis, the Galaxy Tab

13

10.1 design entirely overlaps with the patented ’D889 design, but is far afield from the designs of

14

the prior art I considered. Put another way, both the ’D889 design and the Galaxy Tab 10.1

15

design depart conspicuously from the prior art designs in the same key features. This spectrum of

16

designs is illustrated in Exhibit 21, which compares the Galaxy Tab 10.1 against two of the

17

closest prior art references from the ’D889 patent file history on the one hand, and the patented

18

’D889 design on the other.

19
20

48.

Some minor differences exist between the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the patented

’D889 design. In particular:

21

a.

the Galaxy Tab 10.1, held in vertical or portrait view, has a
slightly higher height-to-width ratio;

b.

the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is slightly more rounded in its edge
profiles; and

c.

the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has a slightly thinner form factor.

22
23
24
25

49.

These minor differences, however, merely prevent the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from being

26

exact copy of the patented ’D889 design. They do not carry sufficient weight to alter the overall

27

impression created by the Galaxy Tab 10.1 design, which incorporates every major design

28

element from the ’D889 design.
DECLARATION OF COOPER C. WOODRING IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

12