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

Filing 922

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion for Clarification Regarding the COurt's May 4, 2012 Order filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #2 Exhibit Samsung's Motion For Clarification Regarding the Court's May 4, 2012 Order (Redacted), #3 Declaration of Mark TUng In Support of Samsung's Motion for Clarification (Redacted), #4 Exhibit 1 to the Tung Declaration, #5 Exhibit 2 to the Tung Declaration, #6 Exhibit 3 to the Tung Declaration, #7 Exhibit 4 to the Tung Declaration, #8 Exhibit 5 to the Tung Declaration, #9 Exhibit 6 to the Tung Declaration, #10 Exhibit 7 to the Tung Declaration, #11 Exhibit 8 to the Tung Declaration, #12 Exhibit 9 to the Tung Declaration, #13 Exhibit 10 to the Tung Declaration, #14 Exhibit 11 to the Tung Declaration, #15 Exhibit 12 to the Tung Declaration, #16 Exhibit 13 to the Tung Declaration, #17 Exhibit 14 to the Tung Declaration, #18 Exhibit 15 to the Tung Declaration, #19 Exhibit 16 to the Tung Declaration, #20 Exhibit 17 to the Tung Declaration, #21 Exhibit 18 to the Tung Declaration, #22 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to FIle Documents Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/15/2012)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com  50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129 kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)  victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor  Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 (650) 801-5000  Telephone: Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com  865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,  INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION  Plaintiff, vs.  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,  Defendant.  Date: June 19, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal   PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION  02198.51855/4750626.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 1 I, Mark Tung, declare as follows:  1. I am an associate in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,  counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). I submit this declaration in  support of Samsung's Motion for Clarification Regarding the Court's May 4, 2012 Order. I have  personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I  could and would testify to such facts under oath.  2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the  transcript for the April 24, 2012 hearing on Apple's Rule 37(b) Motion Based On Samsung's  Violation of the Court's December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code.  3. Following the hearing, Samsung conducted a detailed review of its December 30,  2011 production of source code.   As a result of  this review, Samsung confirmed that the blue glow source code is present in the versions of source  code produced on December 30, 2011 for at least the Galaxy S II (Android Gingerbread 2.3.5),  Exhibit 4G (Android Gingerbread 2.3.3), Epic 4G (Android Gingerbread 2.3.6), and Galaxy Tab  10.1 (Android Honeycomb 3.1). Source code files for these products, as they appear on the source  code review computer at Quinn Emanuel's Redwood Shores office, are date-stamped December  20, 2011.  4. I am informed that Apple's experts requested printouts of Samsung's timely  production of blue glow source code on January 6, 2012, and received Bates-stamped printouts of  the code on January 9. 2012. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a letter  from Samsung's counsel to Apple's counsel, dated January 9, 2012, accompanying the delivery of  these printouts.  5.   02198.51855/4750626.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 1 2 3 4 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 5 February 1, 2012 deposition transcript of Qi Ling, a Samsung witness, in which Apple's counsel 6 questioned Mr. Ling about the blue glow functionality. 7 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the January 8 12, 2012 deposition transcript of Wookyun Kho, a Samsung witness, in which Apple's counsel 9 questioned Mr. Kho about the blue glow functionality. 10 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the March 11 8, 2012 deposition transcript of Ioi Lam, a Samsung witness, in which Apple's counsel questioned 12 Mr. Lam about the blue glow functionality. 13 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the January 14 27, 2012 deposition transcript of Jaegwan Shin, a Samsung witness, in which Apple's counsel 15 questioned Mr. Shin about the blue glow functionality. 16 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the April 17 26, 2012 deposition transcript of Dr. Jeffrey Johnson, a Samsung expert witness, in which Apple's 18 counsel questioned Dr. Johnson about the blue glow functionality as it is implemented in 19 numerous accused products and applications. 20 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the May 21 12, 2012 deposition transcript of Dr. Michael Wagner, a Samsung expert witness, in which 22 counsel for Apple discussed the impact of the May 4, 2012 Order. 23 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the April 24 20, 2012 deposition transcript of Apple's infringement expert, Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan, discussing 25 his review of physical samples of Samsung products containing the blue glow and "bounceback" 26 functionality. 27 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 28 August 16, 2011 deposition transcript of Dr. Balakrishnan. 02198.51855/4750626.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 1 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Expert 2 Report of Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph.D. Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381. 3 15. Apple has refused to make the devices upon which Dr. Balakrishnan based his 4 infringement report available for inspection. Samsung's counsel requested to inspect the device on 5 April 22, 2012. Following Apple's refusal, Samsung reiterated its request by letter dated May 6, 6 2012. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of the May 6, 2012 letter from 7 Samsung's counsel to Apple's counsel. 8 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Apple's 9 counsel to Samsung's counsel, dated May 10, 2012, in which Apple again refused to make 10 available for inspection the devices upon which Dr. Balakrishnan based his infringement report. 11 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Apple's 12 counsel to Samsung's counsel dated November 29, 2011 requesting documents relating to the blue 13 glow functionality that Samsung implemented in its products. 14 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of a proposed stipulation 15 that Apple's counsel sent to Samsung's counsel on February 26, 2012. This proposed stipulation 16 provided that the version of source code for each accused product produced by Samsung by 17 December 31, 2011 is representative of all later versions of that product. Apple expressly 18 acknowledged that "Samsung’s representation does not apply to Apple’s allegation that Samsung’s 19 accused products infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381." 20 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of Samsung's Supplemental 21 Objections and Responses to Apple's Seventh Set of Interrogatories (No. 16). 22 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the April 23 26, 2012 deposition transcript of Dr. Karan Singh, an Apple expert witness, in which Dr. Singh 24 testified that certain technical alternatives do not infringe the '163 patent. 25 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the Expert 26 Report of Karan Singh, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,864,163, 7,844,915 27 and 7,853,891. 28 02198.51855/4750626.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 1 22. Dr. Singh's report discusses a document bearing Bates label SAMNDCA00203880. 2 Samsung produced this document to Apple on December 29, 2012, from the custodial files of Min 3 Kyoung Kim. 4 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 6 true and correct. Executed on the 15th of May, 2012, in Redwood Shores, California. 7 8 9 ___/s/ Mark Tung_____________ Mark Tung 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4750626.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4DECLARATION OF MARK TUNG IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?