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

Filing 1607

ORDER ON APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG'S DISCLOSURES RE: 1593-3. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/6/2014. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
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,
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES

Apple has filed objections to Samsung’s disclosures. ECF No. 1593-3. Samsung has filed a
response. ECF No. 1592. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case,
and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on
Apple’s objections as follows:
Exhibit
Number
DiCarlo Depo.
Transcript
DX 338

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Overruled.
Overruled. Apple cannot raise the issue of validity during its affirmative case.
Samsung bears the burden of proof regarding the invalidity of Apple’s patents,

1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

and is thus entitled to make the first presentation at trial regarding the issue of
validity.
Mowry rebuttal Sustained.
expert report
DX 411
Overruled.
DX 430
Overruled.
SDX 2351
Sustained.
Snoeren Depo. Sustained.
Transcript and
Deposition
Exhibits 1-4
APLNDC630- Sustained.
0000879654

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Apple also requests to seal DX 411, DX 415, DX 430, PX 128, and Apple’s Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 25, 26, 41, 42 (Dated October 4, 2013). ECF No. 1593-3.
Having considered Apple’s motion, and compelling reasons having been shown, the Court
seals the following documents as follows:
Exhibit
DX 411
DX 415
PX 128
DX 430

Apple’s
Supplemental
Responses to
Interrogatories
Nos. 25, 26,
41, 42 (Dated
October 4,
2013)

COURT’S RULING ON SEALING REQUEST
GRANTED, with the exception of pages 1, 2, and 32 which will not be sealed.
GRANTED in full.
GRANTED in full.
GRANTED as to pages 2, 3, and 5, and DENIED as to page 1, 4, and 6. Page 1 is
the cover page. Page 6 contains only the Apple logo. The information contained
in page 4 is not sealable.
GRANTED as to the source code information on pages 83, 91, 336, 340.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES