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

Filing 996

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Cyndi Wheeler In Support Of Apples Administrative Motion To File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony, #2 Declaration Of Mia Mazza In Support Of Apples Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony, #3 [Proposed] Order Granting Apples Administrative Motion To File Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike, #4 Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony Based On Undisclosed Facts And Theories, #5 Declaration Of Marc J. Pernick In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony Based On Undisclosed Facts And Theories, #6 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 8, #7 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 10, #8 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 11, #9 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 12, #10 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 16, #11 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 17, #12 Exhibit Pernick Decl. Ex. 19, #13 Declaration Of Michel Maharbiz, Ph.D. In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony, #14 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. A, #15 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. B, #16 [Proposed] Order Denying Samsungs Motion To Strike Expert Testimony (Dkt. No. 936))(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modified on 6/3/2012 pursuant to General Order No. 62, attachment #1 and #2 Sealed (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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]

10

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]

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
17
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
21
22
23
24

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,

DECLARATION OF MICHEL
MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE
EXPERT TESTIMONY

Defendants.

25
26

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION

27
28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

1

I, Michel Maharbiz, Ph.D., declare as follows:

2

1.

3

Berkeley.

4

2.

I am an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at

I submit the following Declaration on behalf of plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”). If

5

called as a witness in this action, I am competent to testify of my own personal knowledge, to the

6

best of my recollection, as to the matters set forth in this Declaration.
3.

7

I reserve the right to supplement or amend this Declaration, if additional facts and

8

information that affect my opinions become available. My Declaration is based on the materials

9

that have been available to me up to the date of this Declaration.
4.

10

I am being compensated for my work in connection with this matter at the rate of

11

$300 per hour. I also get reimbursed for reasonable travel and out-of-pocket expenses in relation

12

to my work on this case. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this case.

13

Neither the amount of my compensation nor my hourly billing rate depends on whether I am

14

obligated to testify at deposition or trial.

15

I.

16

PROFESSIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
5.

I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the

17

University of California at Berkeley (“Berkeley”) in 2003. I received a Bachelor’s of Science

18

degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Cornell University in 1997. My

19

Ph.D. thesis was on the topic of microfabrication and miniaturization of instrumentation. Before I

20

joined the faculty of Berkeley, I was an Assistant Professor at the Electrical Engineering and

21

Computer Science Department at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

22

6.

I am currently an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer

23

Science (“EECS”) at Berkeley. I am also a Co-Director of the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator

24

Center (BSAC), which is the National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative

25

Research Center for Microsensors and Microactuators. BSAC conducts industry-relevant,

26

interdisciplinary research on micro- and nano-scale sensors, moving mechanical elements,

27

microfluidics, materials, processes and systems that combines knowledge of integrated-circuit,

28

biological, and polymer technologies.
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

1

1

7.

The courses I have taught at Berkeley include EE147 (“Introduction to

2

Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)”), EE40 (“Introduction to Microelectronic Circuits”),

3

CS150 (“Components and Design Techniques for Digital Systems”) and EE105

4

(“Microelectronic Devices and Circuits”). My classes have covered the topics of touch screens

5

and touch sensor panels. In EE40, for example, I have presented publicly available teardowns of

6

tablets and their touch screens to demonstrate such topics as how a touch screen works, the ITO

7

layers, capacitance, and fabrication.

8

8.

A list of my publications is included in my Curriculum Vitae (attached hereto as

9

Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae), and includes a textbook on circuits

10

as well as more than 40 journal and technical conference publications in high impact venues. The

11

textbook I have coauthored, “Circuits,” covers the topics of touch screens and touch sensor panels

12

and has detailed discussion of many of the components relevant to U.S. Patent 7,663,607 (“the

13

’607 Patent”) (attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the ’607 Patent). It also

14

includes a technology brief that analyzes and compares touch screen technologies.

15

9.

My research at Berkeley has covered a variety of topics, including the extreme

16

miniaturization of electronic systems for neural recording and stimulation, microfabrication of

17

flexible polymer microelectrocorticography arrays, energy scavenging devices for ultra-low

18

power CMOS circuits, and microfluidic component design among others. My current research

19

interests include building micro/nano interfaces to cells and organisms and exploring bio-derived

20

fabrication methods. I was the recipient of a 2009 NSF Career Award for research into

21

developing microfabricated interfaces for synthetic biology. I am a Senior Member of the IEEE

22

(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

23

10.

I am a cofounder of TweedleTech, a company that applies human interface design

24

principles to create a radio frequency ID based sensor device that detects and identifies multiple

25

components placed on it through the use of a matrix of row and column electrodes. The sensor

26

detects and identifies radio frequency tags that are placed over a platform or substrate and

27

includes a display component in the form of a projector.

28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

2

11.

1

My research activities have been funded by DARPA, NSF, NIH, and the U.S.

2

Army. My research has also been partially funded over the last several years by grants from

3

private companies. Such grants are usually designated as intended to support a specific research

4

project or research center, and are not gifts to me personally.
12.

5

As of February 18, 2012, I am listed as co-inventor of U.S. Patent Application

6

Nos. 20100331083, 20100004062, and 20090085427. Each is accessible via

7

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html.

8

II.

9

BACKGROUND OF THE ’607 PATENT INVENTION
13.

If called to testify at trial on the topic of the definition of a person of ordinary skill

10

in the art for the ’607 Patent, I expect to testify regarding the skill, education, and experience that

11

a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had at the time of the invention of the

12

’607 Patent. In my opinion, the relevant art involves multipoint touchscreens. In my opinion, a

13

person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ’607 Patent at the time of the invention would

14

have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, computer engineering, or an

15

equivalent, and two or more years of experience working with input devices.

16

14.

The ’607 Patent discloses an elegant touch-screen solution for electronic devices,

17

particularly graphics-based mobile or hand-held devices that have high-resolution displays and

18

require human interaction. As more fully developed below, the claimed inventions of the ’607

19

Patent relate to a specific configuration of conductive lines and circuit elements that make up the

20

touch panel in a display arrangement. The ’607 Patent claims recite an innovative combination of

21

elements including the use of a mutual capacitance touch screen in a truly transparent display that

22

can simultaneously detect and generate signals representing the specific location of distinct

23

multiple points of actual or near contact.

24

15.

The ’607 Patent relates to a touchscreen that implements novel functions as

25

compared to prior and contemporaneous touchscreen designs. While touchscreens had existed in

26

various forms prior to the ’607 Patent, for example resistive touchscreens, self-capacitance

27

touchscreens, electromechanical touchscreens, optical touchscreens, and surface acoustic wave

28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

3

1

touchscreens, all prior touchscreen technologies lacked certain features or combination of

2

features.

3

16.

The ’607 Patent discloses a transparent capacitive touch sensor that for the first

4

time offered true multitouch sensing capability. Multitouch sensing capability is the ability to

5

independently and unambiguously recognize and track two, three, four, five or more finger

6

touches as well as the contact of other things like the palm of a hand. The inventors of the ’607

7

Patent pointed out in the specification (e.g., column 1, line 63 through column 2, line 22) of their

8

patent that the prior systems “lack the ability to track multiple points of contact simultaneously”

9

because, for example, in such systems “an average of all simultaneously occurring touch points

10

are determined and a single point which falls somewhere between the touch points is reported” or

11

it was “impossible to discern the exact position of multiple touch points that fall on the same

12

horizontal or vertical lines due to masking. In either case, faulty results are generated.” Instead

13

of these inadequate prior systems, the ’607 Patent inventors developed a new transparent touch

14

panel that (as recited in independent Claim 1) would detect multiple touches or near touches “that

15

occur at a same time and at distinct locations” and “produce distinct signals representative of a

16

location of the touches on the plane of the touch panel for each of the multiple touches” that can

17

be input on the touch panel.

18

17.

One aspect of the unique combination of claimed elements of the ’607 Patent was

19

the implementation of a special arrangement of circuit elements specifically designed to enable

20

precise sensing of capacitive coupling in the transparent multitouch sensor called a virtual

21

ground charge amplifier, which is exemplified in Figure 13 of the ’607 Patent. A virtual ground

22

charge amplifier includes a capacitor in a negative feedback loop around the amplifier used for

23

detection. By virtue of there being negative feedback and ground at the non-inverting input

24

terminal, the amplifier creates a “virtual ground” at the inverting input terminal. The term

25

“virtual ground” is a term of art. By virtue of there being a capacitor designed into the feedback

26

path, the circuit functions as a charge amplifier: it produces a voltage which is the time integral of

27

the current entering at the input; the time integral of current is charge. (’607 Patent, column 17,

28

lines 48-61.) The “virtual ground charge amplifier” allows the circuit to integrate the current per
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

4

1

unit of time for the purpose of, for example, sensing charge on the capacitor in a manner that is

2

robust to the impact of parasitics in the device.

3
4

III.

THE ’607 PATENT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY DEFINES A VIRTUAL
GROUND CHARGE AMPLIFIER.

5

18.

A person of ordinary skill in the art, after reading the ’607 Patent, would have

6

understood immediately that use of the term “virtual ground charge amplifier” in Claim 8 of the

7

’607 Patent referred to column 17 lines 36 through 61 and the circuit depicted in figure 13 of the

8

patent. The ’607 Patent only refers to any type of amplifier in three places: Claim 8 (“a virtual

9

ground charge amplifier coupled to the touch panel”), Figure 13 (3:58-59 states “FIG. 13 is a

10

diagram of a charge amplifier, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention”),

11

and column 17 lines 37 through 61.

12
13

19.

unambiguously in the specification (column 17, lines 47-61) with reference to Figure 13:

14

FIG. 13 is a diagram of an inverting amplifier 240, in accordance
with one embodiment of the present invention. The inverting
amplifier 240 may generally correspond to the filter 236 shown in
FIG. 12. As shown, the inverting amplifier includes a non inverting
input that is held at a constant voltage (in this case ground), an
inverting input that is coupled to the node and an output that is
coupled to the capacitive sensing circuit 230. The output is coupled
back to the inverting input through a capacitor. During operation,
the input from the node may be disturbed by stray capacitance
effects, i.e., parasitic capacitance. If so, the inverting amplifier is
configured to drive the input back to the same voltage that it had
been previously before the stimulus. As such, the value of the
parasitic capacitance doesn't matter.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The concept of the “virtual ground charge amplifier is explained precisely and

20.

This part of the patent specification plainly states that the “noninverting input” is

22

held constantly at ground and the “inverting amplifier is configured to drive the input back to the

23

same voltage that it had been previously before the stimulus,” namely, to ground. As everyone of

24

even less than ordinary skill in the art knows, “ground,” sometimes called “Earth” is the reference

25

point in an electrical circuit from which other voltages are measured and is commonly a current

26

return path to the Earth. The “virtual” part of the description “virtual ground” means that the

27

circuit holds the voltage at a “ground” level but does not actually provide a return path for current

28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

5

1

to ground. This is a simple and direct explanation of the concept of using a “virtual ground” in

2

the “charge amplifier.”

3

21.

I do not believe that anyone of even ordinary skill in the art could miss the direct

4

connection between Claim 8 and the circuit elements depicted in Figure 13 and described exactly

5

in Column 1, lines 36 to 61 of the ’607 Patent. The words “virtual ground charge amplifier” are

6

not ambiguous and are plainly discernible to anyone of even ordinary skill in the art.

7

22.

I also conclude that it would have been self-evident to Samsung and to its expert

8

Dr. Von Herzen that the accused Samsung devices (the Galaxy Tab 7.0 and 10.1 devices)

9

included a “virtual ground charge amplifier.” I understand from Apple’s counsel that in its

10

August 26, 2011 Infringement Contentions, Apple told Samsung that it believed that the “virtual

11

ground charge amplifier” is found in the circuitry of Samsung’s devices and that the specific chip

12

in which that circuit is found would be identified in discovery. I also understand that Samsung

13

first identified the chips used in the accused devices on March 16, 2012, in its Supplemental

14

Response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 81. The information provided on March 16, 2012 in fact

15

was incorrect, and Samsung revised its response on March 22, 2012, in its Second Supplemental

16

Response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 81. I have also been informed that on the eve of the close

17

of fact discovery, the document

18

was finally produced in this litigation. It was produced

19

by Samsung as SAMNDCA10903768-783 on February 19, 2012. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is

20

a true and correct copy of SAMNDCA10903768-783, Apple also received this document from

21

Atmel (designated ATMEL-SAMSUNG00000286-301) on February 22, 2012. Attached hereto

22

as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of ATMEL-SAMSUNG00000286-301. This document

23

shown in the top figure below (SAMNDCA10903771)

24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

23.

From this information it is plain that Samsung and, with any investigation

whatsoever, its expert Dr. Von Herzen, knew full well the precise circuit in the accused devices
that was the “virtual ground charge amplifier.” In my March 22, 2012 Infringement Expert
Report, I concluded based in part on this document, that the Accused Samsung Products
contained a virtual ground charge amplifier.

28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

7

1

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

2

foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed this 31st day of May, 2012, at

3

Berkeley, California.

4
5

/s/ Michel Maharbiz
Michel Maharbiz

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MICHEL MAHARBIZ, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT.
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3150815

8