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

Filing 939

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple's Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung's Expert Reports, #2 Decl. of C. Wheeler, #3 Decl. of E. Tierney, #4 Decl. of M. Pernick, #5 Ex. 1, #6 Ex. 14, #7 Ex. 15, #8 Ex. 32, #9 Ex. 33, #10 Ex. 36, #11 Ex. 37, #12 Proposed Oder Granting Apple's Motion to Strike, #13 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Admin Motion)(Tucher, Alison) (Filed on 5/17/2012) Modified on 5/21/2012 attachment #2 and #3 sealed pursuant to General Order No. 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit 14 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 10 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 11 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 14 INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 19 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 20 21 vs. CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 2-6) 22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG 24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendants Samsung Electronics 2 Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC 3 (collectively, “Samsung”) respond to Plaintiff Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Second Set of Interrogatories 4 as follows: 5 6 GENERAL STATEMENT The following responses are based on discovery available as of the date hereof. Discovery 7 is just beginning and is continuing, and these responses are subject to change accordingly. It is 8 anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation and analysis may lead to the 9 discovery of additional information or documents, supply additional facts and add meaning to 10 known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of 11 which may lead to additions to, changes to or variations from the responses set forth herein. 12 In addition, the following responses are given without prejudice to Samsung’s right to 13 produce or rely on subsequently discovered information, facts or documents. Samsung 14 accordingly reserves the right to change the responses herein and/or produce or rely on 15 subsequently discovered documents as additional facts are ascertained, analysis is made, legal 16 research is completed and contentions are made. The responses herein are made in a good faith 17 effort to comply with the provisions of Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 18 and to supply such responsive information as exists and is presently within Samsung’s possession, 19 custody or control, but are in no way to be deemed to be to the prejudice of Samsung in relation to 20 further discovery, research and analysis. 21 An answer to an interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable general or 22 specific objection to an interrogatory. In responding to the interrogatories, Samsung does not 23 waive any objections that may be applicable to the use, for any purpose, of any information or 24 documents provided in response, or the admissibility, relevance, or materiality of any such 25 information or documents to any issue in this case. 26 Samsung’s responses to these interrogatories do not constitute admissions relative to the 27 existence of any documents or information, to the relevance or admissibility of any documents or 28 information, or to the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization contained in Apple’s Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 requests. All objections as to relevance, authenticity, or admissibility of any document are 2 expressly reserved. 3 Samsung expressly incorporates this General Statement and the following General 4 Objections as though set forth fully in response to each of the following individual interrogatories 5 and, to the extent that they are not raised in any particular response, Samsung does not waive those 6 objections. 7 8 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Samsung objects to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” contained in Apple’s 9 Second Set of Interrogatories to the extent they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil 10 Procedure. 11 2. Samsung objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 12 “Defendants” as overly broad to the extent it requires Samsung to pursue information from 13 individuals no longer employed by Samsung whose data is not currently in the possession of 14 Samsung. Samsung further objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 15 “Defendants” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous to the extent it does not define “affiliates,” 16 and also to the extent that it requires Samsung to potentially seek information from thousands of 17 people. Samsung will respond to interrogatories based on a reasonable inquiry of individuals 18 expected to possess the requested information. 19 3. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Apple” to as overly broad, vague, and 20 ambiguous. 21 4. Samsung objects to Apple‘s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad, 22 vague, and ambiguous insofar as it includes the undefined categories of “any similar products” 23 and “any products that Apple accuses of infringing its intellectual property in this litigation.” 24 5. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Hardware Design” as overly broad, 25 vague, and ambiguous insofar as it includes “all hardware, insignia or ornamentation thereon.” 26 6. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Graphical User Interface Design” as 27 overly broad, vague and ambiguous. 28 7. Samsung objects to the definition of “Third Party” or “Third Parties” as overly Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 broad. 2 8. Samsung objects to Apple’s definition of “Relating,” and each and every 3 interrogatory that uses the term “Relating,” as overly broad, vague and ambiguous. 4 9. Samsung objects to these interrogatories as vague and ambiguous to the extent 5 they include terms that are undefined. Samsung in its responses will identify any terms it believes 6 are vague and ambiguous and will assume a reasonable meaning for each such term. 7 10. Samsung objects generally to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit 8 information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product 9 doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable 10 privilege or immunity. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be deemed a 11 waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable 12 privilege or immunity recognized by statute or case law. Samsung will exchange with Apple a log 13 of withheld documents at a time agreed to by counsel for the parties. Samsung also will not log 14 privileged documents that were created on or after April 15, 2011. 15 11. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek 16 information from outside a reasonable time period or from a point other than a reasonable time. 17 12. Samsung objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek to compel 18 Samsung to generate or create information and/or documents that do not already exist. 19 13. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they prematurely 20 call for contentions, identification of prior art, or identification of witnesses at this stage of the 21 litigation. 22 14. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative or cumulative 23 of another interrogatory. 24 15. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is compound and comprises 25 discrete subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 26 16. Samsung expressly reserves the right to respond to any or all of the interrogatories 27 by specifying documents wherein the responsive information may be ascertained pursuant to Rule 28 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 17. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek 2 confidential proprietary or trade secret information of third parties. Samsung will endeavor to 3 work with third parties to obtain their consent, if necessary, before identifying or producing such 4 information and/or documents. 5 18. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories on the grounds that they are 6 overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 7 discovery of admissible evidence. 8 19. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the ground that they are overly broad, 9 unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent they purport to require Samsung to search its 10 facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would 11 reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Samsung’s responses are based upon (1) 12 a reasonable search and investigation of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to 13 contain responsive information, and (2) inquiries of Samsung’s employees and/or representatives 14 who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information. 15 20. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds that they seek information 16 already in the possession of Apple, publicly available, or as readily available to Apple as it is to 17 Samsung. 18 21. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information before 19 Samsung is required to disclose such information in accordance with any applicable law, such as 20 the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules. 21 22. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that they 22 seek legal conclusions or call for expert testimony. Samsung’s responses should not be construed 23 to provide legal conclusions. 24 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Statement and General Objections, 25 Samsung responds as follows: 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 INTERROGATORIES 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 3 For each of the Asserted Claims, set forth in detail Samsung’s bases for asserting the 4 defense of non-infringement, including a claim chart indicating whether each element of the claim 5 is present or absent in each of the Products at Issue and, if Samsung contends that an element is 6 absent, the detailed basis for that contention. 7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 8 Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to 9 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 10 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 11 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to 12 Apple‘s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous insofar as it 13 includes the undefined categories of “any similar products” and “any products that Apple accuses 14 of infringing its intellectual property in this litigation.” Samsung further objects to this 15 interrogatory as premature to the extent it requests information regarding Samsung’s non16 infringement contentions just seven business days after Apple has served its infringement 17 contentions and before sufficient discovery has been conducted. Samsung further objects to this 18 interrogatory to the extent it prematurely calls for contentions at this stage of litigation. Samsung 19 will provide such contentions in accordance with the Court’s Minute Order and Case Management 20 Order, dated August 25, 2011. 21 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows: 22 For U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 23 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 24 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 25 For U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 26 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 27 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -5SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 For U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 2 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 3 infringement contentions and respond thereto. Samsung also incorporates by reference the 4 Declaration of Jeffrey Johnson in Support of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a 5 Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 174). 6 For U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 7 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 8 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 9 For U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 10 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 11 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 12 For U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 13 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 14 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 15 For U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 16 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 17 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 18 For U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will 19 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s 20 infringement contentions and respond thereto. 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 22 Identify in detail the person or persons most knowledgeable about the design, 23 development, implementation, structure, operation, and promotion of each of the Products at Issue, 24 including the design, development, implementation, structure, or operation of the Hardware 25 Design of each of the Products at Issue and the Graphical User Interface Design installed or 26 available on each of the Products at Issue, including a detailed description of each of their roles. 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -6SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 2 Samsung objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with 3 regard to the terms “Hardware Design” and “Graphical User Interface Design.” Samsung further 4 objects to Apple‘s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous insofar 5 as it includes the undefined categories of “any similar products” and “any products that Apple 6 accuses of infringing its intellectual property in this litigation.” 7 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung incorporates by 8 reference Samsung’s Initial Disclosures, served on September 7, 2011, and any supplemental 9 disclosures thereon. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with Apple about the relevance and 10 scope of any additional information sought by this request. 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 12 Identify in detail Samsung’s policies, practices, documents, communications, meetings, 13 entities, divisions, departments, teams, groups, employees, representatives, agents, and anyone 14 acting on Samsung’s behalf relating to keeping apprised of, reverse engineering, copying, 15 emulating, or otherwise monitoring or analyzing Apple’s products, services, designs, technologies, 16 advertising, marketing, or strategies in the mobile electronic device industry, including any use by 17 Samsung of information relating to the foregoing activities in the design, development, or 18 implementation of Samsung’s own products, services, designs, technologies, advertising, 19 marketing, or other strategies. 20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 21 Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to 22 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 23 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 24 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. 25 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows: 26 Samsung does not have “policies” or “practices” of “reverse engineering, copying, [or] 27 emulating” Apple’s products, but Samsung does keep apprised of its competitors’ products, 28 including Apple’s products. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -7SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 Samsung has not yet completed its discovery and investigation of the facts relating to this 2 interrogatory. Samsung will supplement this response with a narrative, and/or with the documents 3 reflecting this information (if any) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 5 State in detail the basis of Samsung’s contention that Apple’s claims are barred “on the 6 basis that the marks and alleged trade dress at issue lack distinctiveness, including, without 7 limitation secondary meaning,” as alleged in ¶ 281 of the Answer, including an identification of 8 any documents on which Samsung intends to rely or which tend to prove or disprove Samsung’s 9 contention. 10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 11 Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to 12 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 13 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 14 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further 15 objects to this interrogatory as premature to the extent it requests information regarding 16 Samsung’s contentions before discovery has been completed or substantially completed, and to the 17 extent it requests information that is or will be the subject of expert testimony. 18 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows: 19 Samsung directs Apple to Samsung’s Answer in this case. See Dkt. No. 80. Samsung also 20 refers Apple to smartphone and tablet computer product selections available on the market and in 21 retailer stores. 22 Samsung has not yet completed its discovery and investigation of the facts relating to this 23 interrogatory. Samsung will supplement this response with a narrative and/or with the documents 24 reflecting this information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). 25 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 26 State in detail the basis of Samsung’s contention that Apple’s claims are barred “by reason 27 of other parties’ use of any trademarks or trade dress at issue,” as alleged in ¶ 292 of the Answer, 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -8SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 including an identification of any documents on which Samsung intends to rely or which tend to 2 prove or disprove Samsung’s contention. 3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 4 Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to 5 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the 6 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the 7 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further 8 objects to this interrogatory as premature to the extent it requests information regarding 9 Samsung’s contentions before discovery has been completed or substantially completed, and to the 10 extent it requests information that is or will be the subject of expert testimony. 11 Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows: 12 Samsung directs Apple to Samsung’s Answer in this case. See Dkt. No. 80. Samsung also 13 refers Apple to smartphone and tablet computer product selections available on the market and in 14 retailer stores. 15 Samsung has not yet completed its discovery and investigation of the facts relating to this 16 interrogatory. Samsung will supplement this response with a narrative and/or with the documents 17 reflecting this information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). 18 19 DATED: September 8, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 20 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By /s/ Todd Briggs Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -9SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 8, 2011, I caused SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND 3 RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 2-6) to be 4 electronically served on the following via email: 5 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC. 6 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY hmcelhinny@mofo.com 7 MICHAEL A. JACOBS mjacobs@mofo.com 8 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR jtaylor@mofo.com 9 ALISON M. TUCHER atucher@mofo.com 10 RICHARD S.J. HUNG rhung@mofo.com 11 JASON R. BARTLETT jasonbartlett@mofo.com 12 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 13 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 14 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 15 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com 16 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 17 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 18 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 19 MARK D. SELWYN mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com 20 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 21 AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road 22 Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 23 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in 25 Redwood Shores, California on Sept. 8, 2011. 26 _/s/ Melissa N. Chan 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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?