Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
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)
Brian M. Buroker
Direct: +1 202.955.8541
Fax: +1 202.530.4200
March 29, 2012
VIA E-MAIL (PATRICKSHIELDS@QUINNEMANUEL.COM)
Patrick Shields, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Apple v. Samsung, 12-cv-630 (N.D. Cal.)
Samsung, by its failure to provide adequate, or in many cases, any responses to Apple’s first
set of interrogatories is, yet again, withholding critical and fundamental information that is
relevant to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction. As with the preliminary injunction
motion in the original case between the parties, Samsung’s failure to adequately provide
responses to Apple’s interrogatories in this action is severely prejudicial to Apple and
Apple’s ability to develop its case.
The Court’s February 22, 2012 Order Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Preliminary
Injunction Motion (Dkt. No. 37) (“Discovery Order”) provided a schedule, including an
explicit discovery schedule, to allow the parties to investigate and develop the facts related to
Apple’s preliminary injunction motion. In light of the compressed schedule and the need for
the parties to have information as quickly as possible, the Court not only permitted
discovery, but also shortened the amount of time by which the parties are required to respond
to discovery requests from thirty to twenty-one days. Samsung’s failure to abide by the
Court’s schedule and provide meaningful responses to Apple’s discovery requests prejudices
Apple’s ability to establish its case and violates both the letter and the spirit of the Court’s
For example, Samsung provided only a perfunctory response to Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3,
which sought information pertaining to the source code implemented in the Galaxy Nexus.
Samsung ignored the questions, and simply provided a conclusory response that it is not in
possession of any Android source code that is used by the Samsung Galaxy Nexus.
Further, Samsung has failed to provide any response to Interrogatory No. 4 regarding
Samsung’s knowledge of the preliminary injunction patents. Samsung’s awareness of the
patents clearly is relevant to issues such as the balance of the harms and the equitable
equation as to whether to issue a preliminary injunction.
March 29, 2012
Further, Samsung provides no response to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, and 7, which request
information regarding Samsung’s theories of non-infringement, invalidity and irreparable
harm. Samsung’s lack of a response is particularly egregious given that Samsung has sought
claim charts from Apple, and Samsung seeks immediate depositions from Apple’s technical
experts and employees. To the extent Samsung intends to question Apple’s witnesses
regarding these topics, Samsung’s failure to provide any information at all in answer to these
interrogatories severely prejudices Apple.
Samsung has also failed to provide a response to Interrogatory No. 8, which is directed to
whether Samsung considered or copied any feature of Apple products in developing its
smartphones or tablet computers. This interrogatory goes to the heart of Apple’s motion for
preliminary injunction and Samsung’s lack of denial is telling. The complete failure of
Samsung to provide any response to this interrogatory is unacceptable.
Samsung has also provided only perfunctory responses to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10,
which focus on Samsung’s development and use of the accused features and the relationship
between the accused features and consumer demand. If Samsung intends to rebut Apple’s
contention that there is a nexus between the accused features and the consumer demand for
the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Samsung must immediately supplement its
response to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10.
To the extent Samsung questions any Apple witness regarding any of the foregoing or
attempts to present evidence or argument, whether through a Samsung, third-party, or expert
witness, through documentary evidence or through any briefing or motions before the Court,
Apple will move to preclude and/or strike such argument or evidence.
Please consider this letter Apple’s request to meet and confer on these issues and please
confirm by 5:00 PM on Monday April 2, 2012 that Samsung will immediately supplement its
responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2-10.
Brian M. Buroker
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?