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

Filing 978

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 Motion For Leave To Seek Reconsideration of the Court's May 21, 2012 Order, #2 Declaration of Thomas Watson, #3 Exhibit 4, #4 Exhibit 17, #5 Exhibit 18, #6 Exhibit 19, #7 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion for Leave, #8 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/26/2012)

EXHIBIT 19

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DENVER,
SACRAMENTO, WALNUT CREEK

WWW.MOFO.COM

March 28, 2012

NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.7455
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail ([e-mail])
Victoria F. Maroulis
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-2139
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, No. 2012-1105 (Fed. Cir.)

Dear Victoria:
Apple declines your request to bring the 035 model to the Federal Circuit oral argument on
April 6, 2012.
Among other reasons, the model you have requested is “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s
Eyes Only” under the Protective Order and cannot be used in open court. The model, itself,
also is not part of the district court’s preliminary injunction record, and Samsung has failed
to provide the Clerk of the Court with the required 14-day notice in advance of the argument
for use of such a visual aid. Fed. Cir. R. 34(c)(1). Moreover, because the actual model was
not before the district court when it ruled on the preliminary injunction, Samsung was
required to (but did not) provide Apple with written notice at least 21-days prior to oral
argument. Fed. Cir. R. 34(c)(2).
Finally, in light of Samsung’s request for Apple to bring a model subject to the Protective
Order to open court, Apple reminds Samsung of its obligations under the Protective Order at
the Federal Circuit argument. Samsung’s counsel should ensure that no confidential
information is disclosed during her presentation of argument before the Court, and Apple
objects to the disclosure of any information subject to the Protective Order.
Sincerely,
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

dc-672961