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

Filing 953

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 Samsung's Conditional Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge, #2 Declaration of Mark Tung, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 10, #6 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) atucher@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) rhung@mofo.com JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 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 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 18 19 20 Plaintiff, v. 23 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SOURCE CODE FOR THE ACCUSED DEVICES SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 24 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK Defendants. 21 22 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK pa-1514264 1 WHEREAS, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) commenced the above-captioned action against 2 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung 3 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung,” and together with Apple, “the 4 Parties” and individually each a “Party”) on April 15, 2011; 5 WHEREAS, through Requests for Production propounded on Samsung and other 6 discovery mechanisms, Apple sought production of the source code for the accused products (see, 7 e.g., Apple RFP Nos. 224, 228, and 232); 8 9 WHEREAS, on December 8, 2011, Apple filed a motion to compel seeking an order directing Samsung to produce its source code for the accused products, including its source code 10 relating to certain specified accused functions (see Apple’s 12/8/11 [Proposed] Order Granting 11 Apple’s Mot. Compel Production of Docs. & Things at 2-3); 12 WHEREAS, on December 22, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Samsung to 13 produce “the source code and technical documents requested by Apple’s motion” by 14 December 31, 2011 (12/22/11 Order at 2); 15 16 17 WHEREAS, Samsung produced only one version of source code for each accused product by December 31, 2011; WHEREAS, Apple contends that Samsung should be precluded from arguing that any 18 version of an accused product does not infringe any Apple patent-in-suit, unless the source code 19 for that version of the product either (i) was produced by December 31, 2011, or (ii) differs in no 20 material way from the source code for the version of the product that was produced by 21 December 31, 2011; 22 WHEREAS, although Samsung does not agree with Apple’s contention, Samsung 23 represents that, for purposes of assessing infringement of all but one of the Apple patents-in-suit, 24 the version of the following accused products for which Samsung did produce source code by 25 December 31, 2011 is representative of all versions of that product: 26 27 28 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Captivate; Continuum; Epic 4G; Exhibit 4G; Fascinate; JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK pa- 1514264 1 1 10 (f) Galaxy Ace Showcase; (g) Galaxy S 4G; (h) Gravity Smart; (i) Indulge; (j) Intercept; (k) Mesmerize; (l) Nexus; (m) Nexus S; (n) Nexus S 4G; (o) Replenish; (p) Showcase Galaxy S; (q) Sidekick; (r) Transform; (s) Vibrant; (t) Galaxy Tab (AT&T, Sprint, TMobile and Verizon versions); (u) …. (v) ….. (w) … (x) …... 11 WHEREAS, Samsung’s representation does not apply to Apple’s allegation that 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 Samsung’s accused products infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381; and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in their mutual interest to memorialize 14 their partial resolution of this outstanding dispute regarding the consequences of Samsung’s 15 failure to produce all of the source code covered by the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order by 16 December 31, 2011. 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties as 18 follows: 19 1. For purposes of assessing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,002, 7,853,891, 20 7,864,163, 7,844,915, 7,812,828, 7,663,607, and 7,920,129 (whether direct or indirect, and 21 whether literal or by equivalents), the version of source code that Samsung produced by 22 December 31, 2011 for the following products is representative of the source code for all versions 23 of that product: 24 25 26 27 28 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Captivate; Continuum; Epic 4G; Exhibit 4G; Fascinate; Galaxy Ace Showcase; Galaxy S 4G; Gravity Smart; Indulge; JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK pa- 1514264 2 1 j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. v. w. x. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Intercept; Mesmerize; Nexus; Nexus S; Nexus S 4G; Replenish; Showcase Galaxy S; Sidekick; Transform; Vibrant; and Galaxy Tab (AT&T, Sprint, TMobile and Verizon versions); ……. ……. ……. ……. This stipulation is without prejudice to Apple’s right to seek any remedy or relief 10 with regard to any disputes over Samsung’s production of source code in accordance with the 11 December 22, 2011 Order that are not addressed in Section 1 of this Stipulation. 12 13 Dated: February ___, 2012 14 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By:_____________________________ HAROLD J. MCELHINNY MICHAEL A. JACOBS JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR ALISON M. TUCHER RICHARD S.J. HUNG JASON R. BARTLETT By:________________________________ CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN KEVIN P.B. JOHNSON VICTORIA F. MAROULIS EDWARD DEFRANCO MICHAEL T. ZELLER 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC. 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK pa- 1514264 3 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 4 Dated: ___________________, 2012 By: The Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE FOR ACCUSED DEVICES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK pa- 1514264 4

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?