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

Filing 1759

ORDER RE APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG'S DISCLOSURES RE 1741-3. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/21/14. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2014) Modified on 4/21/2014 (lhklc5, COURT STAFF).

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

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
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. )
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES
REGARDING SAMSUNG REBUTTAL
WITNESSES, GREENBERG, JEFFAY,
MOWRY, RINARD, WIGDOR, AND
VELLTURO

On April 20, 2014, Apple filed objections to Samsung’s disclosures. ECF No. 1740. On
April 20, 2014, Samsung filed a response. ECF No. 1741-3. 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:
APPLE OBJECTION
Samsung Rebuttal
Witnesses
Witness objection
Saul Greenberg
Testimony Beyond the

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

Overruled.
Sustained.
1

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

1
2

Scope of Recall of Witness
Kevin Jeffay
DX339 (1991 conference,
Embedded Buttons)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Todd Mowry
SDX4032 (comparison of
Mowry opinions)
Collaborative,
Programmable Intelligent
Agents
Martin Rinard
JX54 (U.S. Patent No.
5,926,808 to Evans)
DX306 (“Information
Retrieval”)
Daniel Wigdor
Testimony Beyond the
Scope of Recall of Witness
Christopher Vellturo
VirnetX Deposition
Testimony
DX462 (summary of news
articles on supply shortages)

16

Overruled.
Overruled. This document may be used solely to refresh
recollection and will not be admitted in evidence.

Sustained.
Sustained.

Sustained.

Sustained.
Sustained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Overruled. Samsung has not asserted inequitable conduct as to
the ’647 patent. Questions related solely to inequitable conduct
will not be permitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. See ECF
No. 1573.

Dated: April 21, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

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