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

Filing 144

Declaration of Heather H. Martin in Support of 142 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 142 ) (Candido, Amy) (Filed on 4/28/2012)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 13 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th  555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)  williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Patrick M. Shields (Bar No. 204739)  patrickshields@quinnemanuel.com 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   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION   APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,   vs.  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,  Defendant.  CASE NO. 12-cv-00630-LHK SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INTERROGATORIES  Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Samsung 2 Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications 3 America, LLC, (“Samsung”) submit the following objections and responses to Plaintiff Apple 4 Inc’s (“Apple’s”) First Set of Preliminary Injunction Interrogatories to Defendants. 5 Samsung expressly incorporates the following General Objections as though set forth fully 6 in response to each of the following individual interrogatories and, to the extent that they are not 7 raised in any particular response, Samsung does not waive those objections. 8 9 GENERAL OBJECTIONS The following general objections apply to each and every interrogatory propounded by 10 Plaintiff, and are incorporated into each of the following responses by reference as if set forth fully 11 therein: 12 1. Samsung objects to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” contained in Apple’s First 13 Set of Interrogatories to the extent they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 2. Samsung objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 15 “Defendants” as overly broad to the extent it requires Samsung to pursue information from 16 individuals no longer employed by Samsung whose data is not currently in the possession of 17 Samsung. Samsung further objects to Apple’s Definition of “Samsung,” “You,” “Your,” and 18 “Defendants” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous to the extent it does not define “affiliates,” 19 and also to the extent that it requires Samsung to potentially seek information from thousands of 20 people. Samsung will respond to interrogatories based on a reasonable inquiry of individuals 21 expected to possess the requested information. 22 3. Samsung objects to these interrogatories on the ground and to the extent they seek 23 information not relevant to a determination of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed 24 February 8, 2012. Such discovery is not authorized at this time under the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure or under the Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule 26 for Preliminary Injunction Motion. Samsung will provide information that is reasonably likely to 27 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary 28 Injunction. Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -2SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 4. Samsung objects generally to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit 2 information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product 3 doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable 4 privilege or immunity. Any inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be deemed a 5 waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable 6 privilege or immunity recognized by statute or case law. Samsung will exchange with Apple a 7 log of withheld documents at a time agreed to by counsel for the parties. Samsung objects 8 generally to the logging of privileged documents that were created on or after the date of filing of 9 the original Complaint (on February 8, 2012). Samsung will not log privileged documents that 10 were created on or after February 8, 2012. 11 5. Samsung objects to these interrogatories on the ground and to the extent they are 12 vague and ambiguous. Samsung in its responses will identify any terms it believes are vague and 13 ambiguous and will assume a reasonable meaning for each such term. 14 6. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek 15 information from outside a reasonable time period or from a point other than a reasonable time, or 16 seek information about products outside the United States, on the ground that such information is 17 irrelevant. 18 7. Samsung objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek to compel 19 Samsung to generate or create information and/or documents that do not already exist. 20 8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories on the ground and to the extent 21 that they prematurely call for contentions, identification of prior art, or identification of witnesses 22 at this stage of the litigation. Samsung will provide its contentions regarding non-infringement, 23 invalidity, and other issues according to the procedural schedule established by the Court, 24 including the Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule for 25 Preliminary Injunction Motion. 26 9. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative or cumulative 27 of another interrogatory or other discovery. 28 10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is compound and comprises Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -3SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 discrete subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 2 11. Samsung expressly reserves the right to respond to any or all of the interrogatories 3 by specifying documents wherein the responsive information may be ascertained pursuant to Rule 4 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 12. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek 6 confidential proprietary or trade secret information of third parties. Samsung will endeavor to 7 work with third parties to obtain their consent, if necessary, before identifying or producing such 8 information and/or documents. 9 13. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories on the grounds that they are 10 overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 11 discovery of admissible evidence. 12 14. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the ground that they are overly broad, 13 unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent they purport to require Samsung to search its 14 facilities and inquire of their employees other than those in its facilities and employees that would 15 reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Samsung’s responses are based upon (1) 16 a reasonable search and investigation of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to 17 contain responsive information, and (2) inquiries of Samsung’s employees and/or representatives 18 who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information. 19 15. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds that they seek information 20 already in the possession of Apple, publicly available, or as readily available to Apple as it is to 21 Samsung. 22 16. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the grounds and to the extent that they 23 seek legal conclusions or call for expert testimony. Samsung’s responses should not be construed 24 to provide legal conclusions. 25 17. Samsung objects to the interrogatories on the ground that discovery is continuing 26 in this action, and Samsung has not yet completed its factual investigation. The following 27 responses reflect the information reasonably available to Samsung at this time. Samsung reserves 28 its right to amend or supplement these responses and any production of documents as additional Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -4SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 discovery and investigation continue, in the event that additional information is disclosed, or in 2 the event of error, inadvertent mistake, or omission. 3 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, Samsung responds and 4 further objects as follows: 5 6 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 7 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 9 Identify any and all code names, internal names, nick names, model numbers, or other 10 identifying information used by Samsung to identify or otherwise refer to the Samsung Galaxy 11 Nexus as well as any of the accused technologies implemented on the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, 12 including but not limited to, all versions of Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich, Slide to Unlock, 13 Text Correction, Unified Search and Special Text Detection and identify the person(s) most 14 knowledgeable about the response to this interrogatory. 15 16 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 17 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 18 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it is vague and ambiguous with 19 regard to the terms “code names,” “internal names,” “nick names,” and “other identifying 20 information; (ii) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible to the extent it seeks information about 21 any “accused technologies” that are not specifically identified in the interrogatory; (iii) it is overly 22 broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information not relevant to Apple’s Motion for 23 a Preliminary Injunction; and (iv) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in 24 separate interrogatories. 25 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung 26 responds as follows: 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -5SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 While in development, Samsung's Galaxy Nexus was sometimes referred to within 2 Samsung as “Proxima” or “Nexus Prime.” Samsung model numbers for the Galaxy Nexus include 3 I515 and GT-I9250. 4 Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich is sometimes referred to within Samsung as “ICS.” 5 The technology identified in the interrogatory as “Slide to Unlock” is sometimes referred 6 to within Samsung as “Slide to Unlock.” 7 The technology identified in the interrogatory as “Text Correction” is sometimes referred 8 to within Samsung as “predictive text.” 9 The technology identified in the interrogatory as “Unified Search” is sometimes referred to 10 within Samsung as “Quick Search.” 11 The technology identified in the interrogatory as “Special Text Detection” is a feature of 12 what is sometimes referred to within Samsung as “Browser.” 13 Jisun Park, Principal Engineer, Systems Software, R&D, is knowledgeable regarding the 14 information contained in this response. 15 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 17 Identify from the source code produced in response to Request Nos. 9-13 in Apple’s First 18 Set of Preliminary Injunction Requests for Production all files that relate to the accused features 19 and functionality of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, including Slide to Unlock, Text Correction, 20 Unified Search and Special Text Detection. Such identification should include, the name of the 21 file, the engineers, designers and authors responsible for that file, the specific accused feature to 22 which the identified file relates, and any differences between that file and the publicly available 23 version of the Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich source code and the engineers, designers and 24 authors of those differences, and identify the person(s) most knowledgeable about the response to 25 this interrogatory. 26 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -6SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: 2 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 3 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it seeks information that is outside 4 of Samsung’s possession, custody, or control, or that is equally available to Apple; (ii) it seeks to 5 elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work6 product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other 7 applicable privilege or immunity; (iii) it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant 8 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks 9 “all files” that relate to documents produced in response to Request Nos. 9–13; (iv) it is unduly 10 burdensome to the extent that it would require a comparative analysis of different versions of the 11 Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich source code; (v) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts 12 resulting in separate interrogatories; and (vi) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the 13 terms “files,” “relate to,” “responsible for that file,” “publicly available version of the Android 4.0 14 Ice Cream Sandwich source code,” and “engineers, designers and authors of those differences.” 15 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung 16 responds as follows: 17 The source code for the version of Ice Cream Sandwich used on Galaxy Nexus was written 18 by Google, not Samsung. Samsung does not have possession of the source code; Google provides 19 Samsung with object code in binary form to be installed onto the Galaxy Nexus. The binary 20 object code is unreadable by a human being. 21 22 INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 23 For all source code files or modules identified or referenced in any expert declaration 24 attached to Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, including the expert declarations of Dr. 25 Todd Mowry, Dr. Nathaniel Polish, Dr. Ravin Balakrishan and Dr. Karan Singh, identify whether 26 the file or module as referenced or identified is present in the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, or if it is 27 not, identify any differences between that file and module and the version of the file or module 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -7SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 that is present in the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and, identify the person(s) most knowledgeable 2 about the response to this interrogatory. 3 4 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 5 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 6 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it seeks information that is outside 7 of Samsung’s possession, custody, or control, or that is equally available to Apple; (ii) it seeks to 8 elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work9 product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other 10 applicable privilege or immunity; (iii) it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant 11 nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks 12 “source code files or modules” referenced in “any expert declaration attached to Apple’s Motion 13 for Preliminary Injunction, including the expert declarations of Dr. Todd Mowry, Dr. Nathaniel 14 Polish, Dr. Ravin Balakrishan and Dr. Karan Singh”; (iv) it is unduly burdensome to the extent 15 that it would require a comparative analysis of different versions of the Android 4.0 Ice Cream 16 Sandwich source code; (v) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in separate 17 interrogatories; and (vi) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the terms “module” and 18 “file.” 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung 20 responds as follows: 21 The source code for the version of Ice Cream Sandwich used on Galaxy Nexus was written 22 by Google, not Samsung. Samsung does not have possession of the source code; Google provides 23 Samsung with object code in binary form to be installed onto the Galaxy Nexus. The binary 24 object code is unreadable by a human being. 25 26 INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 27 Describe the facts and circumstances surrounding Samsung’s knowledge of the 28 Preliminary Injunction Patents, including but not limited to, whether or not Samsung was aware of Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -8SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 each of the Preliminary Injunction Patents prior to the filing of this lawsuit; when Samsung 2 became aware of each of the Preliminary Injunction Patents; how Samsung became aware of each 3 of the Preliminary Injunction Patents; and any efforts made to avoid infringement of each of the 4 Preliminary Injunction Patents; and, identify the person(s) most knowledgeable about the response 5 to this interrogatory, and locate and identify all documents which refer or relate to the facts and 6 assertions in the response or which were reviewed in preparing the response to this interrogatory. 7 8 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 9 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 10 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it seeks to elicit information subject 11 to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint 12 defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 13 immunity; (ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks “facts and 14 circumstances surrounding” Samsung's knowledge of the preliminary injunction patents; (iii) it is 15 overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks information not relevant to Apple’s Motion 16 for a Preliminary Injunction; (iv) it seeks information that is not relevant and not reasonably 17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (v) it is vague and ambiguous; (vi) it 18 calls for legal conclusions; and (vii) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in 19 separate interrogatories. 20 21 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 22 If you contend or believe that you do not infringe any asserted claim of the Preliminary 23 Injunction Patents, state with specificity the complete factual and legal bases for such contention 24 or belief, including a claim chart identifying which claim limitations are not found in the Samsung 25 Galaxy Nexus, the claim constructions or definitions used in supporting this contention or belief, 26 and if you believe that any claim or claim limitation is governed but 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6, identify 27 the factual and legal basis for that belief and the corresponding structure, material, or acts 28 described in the specification and equivalents thereof and further including an identification of all Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -9SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 documents and things supporting such contention or belief, and an identification of the persons 2 most knowledgeable of the facts supporting such contention or belief. 3 4 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 5 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 6 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that: (i) it prematurely seeks disclosure of 7 Samsung’s non-infringement contentions, in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this 8 Court’s Local Rules, the Court’s February 8, 2012 Order Setting Initial Case Management 9 Conference and ADR Deadlines, the Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting Briefing and 10 Hearing Schedule for Preliminary Injunction Motion; (ii) it seeks to elicit information subject to 11 and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense 12 privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity; (iii) it 13 is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Samsung to create 14 information or documents that do not already exist; (iv) it is vague and ambiguous and calls for 15 speculation, particularly as to the term “equivalents thereof”; and (v) it is compound and 16 comprises discrete subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 17 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 19 If you contend or believe that any asserted claim of the Preliminary Injunction Patents is 20 invalid and/or unenforceable, state with specificity the complete factual and legal bases for such 21 contention or belief, including an identification of all alleged prior art, a claim chart showing 22 where each limitation of each claim can be found in the alleged prior art, the claim constructions 23 or definitions used in supporting this contention or belief, and if you believe that any claim or 24 claim limitation is governed but 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6, identify the factual and legal basis for that 25 belief and the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and 26 equivalents thereof and an identification of all documents and things (including, but not limited to, 27 alleged prior art) supporting such contention or belief, an identification of the specific provision of 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -10SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 Title 35 upon which such contention or belief is based, and an identification of the persons most 2 knowledgeable of the facts supporting such contention or belief. 3 4 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 5 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 6 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that: (i) it prematurely seeks disclosure of 7 Samsung’s invalidity and unenforceability contentions, in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, the Court’s February 8, 2012 Order Setting Initial Case 9 Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, the Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting 10 Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Preliminary Injunction Motion; (ii) it seeks to elicit information 11 subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the 12 joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 13 immunity; (iii) it is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Samsung 14 to create information or documents that do not already exist; (iv) it is vague and ambiguous and 15 calls for speculation, particularly as to the term “equivalents thereof”; and (v) it is compound and 16 comprises discrete subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 17 18 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 19 If you contend or believe that Apple has not been or will not be irreparably harmed by the 20 sale of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, state with specificity the complete factual and legal bases for 21 such contention or belief, including but not limited to all factual and legal bases covering any 22 contention or belief that the smartphone market is not undergoing a transformation whereby 23 consumers are purchasing their first smartphone, that customers are not loyal to the platform or 24 operating system of their first smartphone, and that Samsung is not marketing its smartphones to 25 first time smartphone buyers or customers and identify all documents and things relating to your 26 response, and any persons with knowledge regarding your response. 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -11SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 2 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 3 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that: (i) it prematurely seeks disclosure of 4 Samsung’s contentions regarding alleged irreparable harm, in violation of the Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure, this Court’s Local Rules, the Court’s February 8, 2012 Order Setting Initial Case 6 Management Conference and ADR Deadlines, the Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting 7 Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Preliminary Injunction Motion; (ii) it seeks to elicit information 8 subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the 9 joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 10 immunity; (iii) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the terms “smartphone market,” 11 “transformation,” and “loyal”; and (iv) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in 12 separate interrogatories. 13 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 15 Identify and describe in detail any analysis, review, consideration, or copying of, or 16 comparison against any Apple product or product feature in designing or developing, or 17 implementing a feature during the design and/or development of any Samsung smartphone or 18 tablet computer and identify all documents and things relating to your response, and any persons 19 with knowledge regarding your response. 20 21 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 22 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 23 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that: (i) it seeks to elicit information subject 24 to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint 25 defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 26 immunity; (ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks information not relevant to 27 Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; (iii) it seeks information that is not relevant and not 28 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (iv) it is vague and Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -12SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 ambiguous; and (v) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in separate 2 interrogatories. 3 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 5 For each of the accused features, including Slide to Unlock, Text Correction, Unified 6 Search and Special Text Detection, identify and describe in detail any analysis, whether internal or 7 external, including, but not limited to, any consumer study, consumer demand analysis, survey, or 8 report, or other analysis or discussion, and identify all documents and things relating to your 9 response, and any persons with knowledge regarding your response. 10 11 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 12 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 13 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that: (i) it seeks to elicit information subject 14 to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint 15 defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 16 immunity; (ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks information not relevant to 17 Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; (iii) it is vague and ambiguous, especially with 18 regard to the terms “analysis,” consumer study,” “consumer demand analysis,” “survey,” “report,” 19 and “other analysis or discussion”; (iv) it is vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible to the extent it 20 seeks information about any “accused features” that are not specifically identified in the 21 interrogatory; and (v) it is compound and comprises discrete subparts resulting in separate 22 interrogatories. 23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung 24 responds as follows: 25 The features identified in this interrogatory – Slide to Unlock, Text Correction, Unified 26 Search and Special Text Detection – were developed by Google, not Samsung. Samsung is 27 presently unaware of any consumer studies, analyses, or reports regarding these features. 28 Samsung's investigation is ongoing and, to the extent that Samsung's investigation subsequently Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -13SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 reveals the existence of any such consumer studies, analyses, or reports regarding these features, 2 then Samsung will supplement this response accordingly as well as produce responsive non3 privileged documents regarding any such consumer studies, analyses, or reports regarding these 4 features. 5 6 INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 7 For each of the following, identify all discussions, internally or with third parties, 8 regarding, or consideration of, the design, and implementation of, any of the accused features, 9 including (i) Slide to Unlock, (ii) Text Correction, (iii) Unified Search, and (iv) Special Text 10 Detection as implemented in any Samsung product, including but not limited to Samsung 11 smartphones and tablet computers, and identify the three persons most knowledgeable about such 12 discussions, designs, and implementation. 13 14 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: 15 In addition to its General Objections above, which it hereby incorporates by reference, 16 Samsung objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that: (i) it seeks to elicit information subject 17 to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint 18 defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 19 immunity; (ii) it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks information not relevant to 20 Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; (iii) it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and 21 neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the 22 extent that it seeks “all discussions . . . or consideration of” “any of the accused features”; (iv) it 23 seeks confidential proprietary or trade secret information of a third party (Google); (v) it is vague 24 and ambiguous, especially with regard to the term “consideration of”; (vi) it is vague, ambiguous, 25 and unintelligible to the extent it seeks information about any “accused features” that are not 26 specifically identified in the interrogatory; and (vii) it is compound and comprises discrete 27 subparts resulting in separate interrogatories. 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -14SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI INTERROGATORIES 1 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung 2 responds as follows: 3 Samsung is presently unaware of any non-privileged discussions, internally or externally, 4 regarding design or implementation of the four accused features – Slide to Unlock, Text 5 Correction, Unified Search and Special Text Detection – of Galaxy Nexus. Samsung's 6 investigation is ongoing and, to the extent that Samsung's investigation subsequently reveals the 7 existence of any such discussions, then Samsung will supplement this response accordingly as 8 well as produce responsive non-privileged documents regarding such discussions. 9 10 DATED: March 27, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 11 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 By /s/ Patrick M. Shields Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis William C. Price Patrick M. Shields Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK -15SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF PI 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?