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

Filing 1766

ORDER RE SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE'S DISCLOSURES (NEW VERSION) re ECF No. 1740. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/21/2014. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2014)

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 SAMSUNG’S
OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S
DISCLOSURES

Samsung has filed objections to Apple’s disclosures. ECF No. 1740. Apple has 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
Samsung’s objections as follows:
Exhibit
Number
Samsung’s
“insufficient
identification”
of disclosures

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Overruled.

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

objection
Dr. Cockburn
Witness
objection
PDX 97.103
(Neonode and
Plaisant slide)
PDX 97.124
(Xrgomics
slide)

Overruled.
Sustained. Apple may use the slide but must delete the last sentence: “PTO ruled
‘721 valid.”
Sustained. Dr. Cockburn may not testify as to any opinion that Xrgomics fails to
disclose the claim limitation that “the current character string in the first area is
replaced with the suggested replacement character string if the user performs a
gesture on the suggested replacement character string in the second area” but
may testify as to his opinion that Xrgomics fails to disclose the claim limitation
that “the current character string in the first area is replaced with the suggested
replacement character string if the user activates a key on the keyboard
associated with a delimiter.”

Mr. Maccoun
Improper
Overruled.
Rebuttal
objection
(Maccoun may
not testify
regarding
Google and
Samsung)
PX 2003 (letter Sustained.
from Samsung
to Google)
PX 2004 (letter Sustained.
from Google to
Samsung)
Dr. Mowry
Witness
Overruled.
objection:
violation of
case narrowing
Witness
Overruled.
objection: new
infringement
theory on
rebuttal
Witness
Sustained.
objection: Rule
26 (Secondary
considerations)
Dr. Snoeren
Witness
Sustained.
objection
(opinion on
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

GSA 2.7)
Samsung requests to seal various documents. ECF No. 1740. Having considered Samsung’s
motion, and compelling reasons having been shown, the Court rules on the sealing requests as
follows:
Request

Court’s Ruling

PDX92.86

GRANTED.

PDX92.86A

GRANTED.

SDX3792
GRANTED.
JX 50A
(SAMNDCA630- GRANTED.
SC00057553-87;
SAMNDCA630SC00057951-57;
SAMNDCA630SC00057958-75).
The parties shall
renumber this
exhibit.
PX 2003

GRANTED.

15
16
17
18
19

PX 2004
GRANTED.
DX314A
GRANTED.
(MSFT_Code
170-416, 11271666, 2023-2025,
2089-2803, 29562957).

20
21
22

Dated: April 21, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES