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

Filing 940

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.s Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Samsungs Experts filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Samsungs Experts, #2 Declaration Of Jason Bartlett In Support Of Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Samsungs Experts, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 9, #9 Exhibit 12, #10 Exhibit 14, #11 [Proposed] Order Granting Apples Motion To Exclude Testimony Of Samsungs Experts, #12 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Admin Motion to File Under Seal)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

1
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]
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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC

11
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
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,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPLE’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY OF SAMSUNG’S
EXPERTS
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

Defendants.

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

June 21, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

1

Apple has moved in limine, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 702, and

2

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclude certain testimony of

3

Samsung’s proffered experts Itay Sherman (“Sherman”), Sam Lucente (“Lucente”), Mark Lehto

4

(“Lehto”), Nicholas Godici (“Godici”), George Mantis (“Mantis”), Michael Mazis (“Mazis”),

5

Michael Kamins (“Kamins”) , and Michael Wagner (“Wagner”). The Court finds that the

6

testimony of Samsung’s proffered experts fails to meet the standard for admissibility of expert

7

testimony, and therefore GRANTS Apple’s motion in its entirety.

8
9
10
11

1.

Itay Sherman’s opinions regarding design patent infringement and validity are

excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant, unhelpful to the
jury, contrary to law, and unreliable.
2.

Itay Sherman’s opinions regarding trade dress functionality are excluded under

12

Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to

13

law, and unreliable.

14
15
16

3.

Because these topics constitute substantially all of Mr. Sherman’s testimony,

Samsung shall not call him to testify.
4.

Sam Lucente’s opinions regarding design patent infringement, functionality, and

17

obviousness are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant,

18

unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and unreliable.

19

5.

Sam Lucente’s opinions regarding trade dress distinctiveness, confusion as to

20

source, and functionality are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as

21

irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and unreliable.

22

6.

Mark Lehto’s opinions regarding functionality of the asserted design patents and

23

trade dress are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant,

24

unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and unreliable. Because these topics constitute

25

substantially all of his testimony, Samsung shall not call him to testify.

26

7.

Nicholas Godici’s opinions regarding design patent scope, design patent non-

27

infringement, design patent indefiniteness, the use of broken lines in design patents, and PTO

28

design patent examination are excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702
[PROPOSED] ORDER ORDER DENYING GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3146748

1

1

as irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and unreliable. Because these topics

2

constitute substantially all of his testimony, Samsung shall not call him to testify.

3

8.

George Mantis’s survey and associated testimony are excluded under Federal

4

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and

5

unreliable. Because these topics constitute substantially all of his testimony, Samsung shall not

6

call him to testify.

7

9.

Michael Mazis’s survey and associated testimony are excluded under Federal

8

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and

9

unreliable. Because these topics constitute substantially all of his testimony, Samsung shall not

10

call him to testify.

11

10.

Michael Kamins’s survey and associated testimony are excluded under Federal

12

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as irrelevant, unhelpful to the jury, contrary to law, and

13

unreliable.

14

11.

Michael Wagner’s opinion that profits awarded pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289 may

15

be allocated is excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as contrary to

16

law.

17

12.

Michael Wagner’s opinion that lost profits are not appropriate because Apple must

18

show demand specific to the patented feature under the Panduit test is excluded under Federal

19

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403 and 702 as contrary to law.

20

13.

Michael Wagner’s opinion apportioning at most one percent of Samsung’s profits

21

to “Apple’s design-related IP” is, with associated analysis, excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of

22

Evidence 702 because it is unreliable.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: _____________
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER ORDER DENYING GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3146748

2