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

Filing 934

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 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 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, #2 Declaration in Support of Motion to Seal, #3 Exhibit 1 to Ward Declaration ISO Motion to Seal, #4 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike, #5 Declaration of Diane Hutnyan ISO Motion to Strike, #6 Declaration of Jeffrey Johnson ISO Motion to Strike)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/17/2012) Modified on 5/21/2012 attachment #2 sealed pursuant to General Order No. 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

3 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
4
5

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

Plaintiff,
vs.

6 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
7 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
9
Defendants.
10

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE
EXPERT TESTIMONY BASED ON
UNDISCLOSED FACTS AND THEORIES
Date:
June 26, 2012
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Place:
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal
FILED UNDER SEAL

11
12

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

13 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) have filed a Motion to Strike
14 Expert Testimony Based on Undisclosed Facts and Theories.
15

For good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that, to the extent that they rely on undisclosed

16 facts and theories as set forth in Samsung’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Apple shall
17 be precluded from citing, basing testimony on, offering expert testimony corresponding to, or in
18 any other way relying on the following portions of Apple’s expert reports, which are hereby
19 stricken:
20

1. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Michel Maharbiz, paragraph 67, and pages 11,

21

12, 16, 18, 23, 28, 30, 31, 44, 57, 66, and Exhibits C and D, insofar as they cite or

22

present Scanning Electron Microscope Reports.

23

2. From the March 22, 2012 Invalidity Report of Tony Givargis, paragraphs 97, 127,

24

136, 148, 150, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174,183, 184, 185, 188, 191, 222, 231,

25

253, 260, 288, 295, and 324.

26
27
28

3. From the April 16, 2012 Non-Infringement Rebuttal Report of Tony Givargis,
paragraphs 14-16, 27-28, 30, 62-63, 64, 65, and footnote 4.
4. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Sanjay Sood, paragraphs 12-30 and 63-64.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE

1

5. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Peter Bressler, paragraphs 34, 51, 56, 60, 64-

2

67, 68, 73, 77-80, 81, 86, 89-92, 104, 110-127, 136, 141-143, 191-193, 255-259,

3

338-344, 358, and 360.

4
5
6

6. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Susan Kare, paragraphs 45, 46, 53, 54, 62-64,
and Exhibits 9 & 10.
7. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Russell Winer, paragraphs 83-86, 92, 96 101,

7

105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114-116, 123, 124,127-130, 132 -138, 140, 141, 143,

8

145, 147-151, 154,157, 158-160, 163-165, 171, 174, 181, 184 and 185.

9

8. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Terry Musika, paragraphs 152-262 (opinions

10

on reasonable royalty Samsung should pay to Apple), and the Exhibits referenced

11

therein.

12

9. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Terry Musika, paragraphs 168-181

13

(discussions of Apple and Samsung licenses and licensing practices), and the

14

Exhibits referenced therein.

15

10. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Terry Musika, paragraphs 126-127 and 133

16

(opinions concerning Apple's manufacturing capacity), and the Exhibits referenced

17

therein.

18

11. From the April 16, 2012 Rebuttal Report of Terry Musika, paragraphs 29, 43-45,

19

and 68-69 (opinions concerning Apple’s production of license agreements).

20

12. Mr. Musika is precluded from relying on all licenses and license-related

21

information produced by Apple after the close of fact discovery, including all

22

licensing charts produced after the close of fact discovery (APLNDC0001772330-

23

R-APLNDC0001772340-R; APLNDC-Y0000051350-R-APLNDC-Y0000051356-

24

R; APLNDC-Y0000236371-R-APLNDC-Y0000236405-R; APLNDC-

25

Y0000232449-APLNDC-Y0000232454); all non-patent licenses, including the

26

“Made for iPod” licenses (APLNDC-Y00014859-APLNDC-Y000148473); and all

27

evidence of the parties’ licensing practices, including licensing negotiations

28

between Samsung and Apple.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE

1

13. From the March 22, 2012 Report of Ravin Balakrishnan, paragraphs 17, 40-41, 63,

2

66, 71, 73-75, 77, 79-82, 84-85, 87-90, 92-94, 96-102, 104-05, 107-08, 110-11,

3

113-15, 117-18, 120-21, 123-26, 128-31, 133-35, 137-40, 142-44, 146-48, 150-54,

4

156-61, 163-67, 169-73, 175, 177-78, 181, 183, 186, 189-90, 196-98, 200-05, 207-

5

13, 215-23, 225, 227-28, 233-35, 237-42, 244-50, 252-260 and all descriptions,

6

figures and cites to video exhibits in Exhibit 3 of the same.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10 DATED:

May ___, 2011

11
12
13

Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE