In Re Apple Inc. et al

Filing 1

Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings by Apple Inc., Apple Retail Germany GMBH, Apple Sales International. (yeb)

1
2
3
4
5

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

Case No.:

In re Ex Parte Application of
APPLE INC.; APPLE RETAIL GERMANY
GMBH; and APPLE SALES
INTERNATIONAL,

12
13

DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE S.
HASKETT IN SUPPORT OF EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1782 GRANTING LEAVE TO
OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN
FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS

Applicants,

14

For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery from
Qualcomm Incorporated for Use in Foreign
Proceedings.

15

'12CV0147 LAB POR

16
17
18

I, Christine S. Haskett, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California,
declare as follows:

19
20
21
22
23

1.

I am an attorney with Covington & Burling, LLP, counsel to Apple Inc.

2.

I am familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration from personal

(“Apple”).

knowledge and documents I have reviewed.
3.

I submit this declaration in support of Apple’s Ex Parte Application for

24

an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use In Foreign

25

Proceedings. The application relates to foreign proceedings in Germany before the Mannheim

26

District Court, the Dusseldorf District Court, and the Higher District Court of Karlsruhe.

27
28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE S. HASKETT IN SUPPORT
OF § 1782 EX PARTE APPLICATION
Case No.:

1

1

4.

Apple Retail Germany GmbH is the defendant in Case Nos. 4a O 69/11,

2

4a O 116/11, and 4a O 117/11 pending in the Dusseldorf District Court. These actions were all

3

filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. on April 12, 2011.

4

5.

Apple Sales International is the defendant in Case No. 6 U 136/11,

5

pending in the Higher District Court of Karlsruhe and filed on December 14, 2011, which is an

6

appeal of a decision of the Mannheim District Court in Case No. 7 O 122/11, filed by Motorola

7

Mobility, Inc. on April 1, 2011.

8

6.

9
10

O 230/11, both filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. on April 1, 2011 in the Mannheim District
Court.

11
12

7.

Apple Inc. is the defendant in Case Nos. 7 O 169/11 and 7 O 443/11, filed

by Motorola Mobility, Inc. on April 26, 2011 in the Mannheim District Court.

13
14

Apple Sales International is the defendant in Case Nos. 7 O 229/11 and 7

8.

The Mannheim and Dusseldorf District Courts determine liability and,

upon a finding of infringement, may enter an injunction and order the infringer to pay damages.

15

9.

In Cases Nos. 4a O 69/11, 6 U 136/11, 7 O 122/11, 7 O 169/11 Motorola

16

asserts that Apple products infringe European Patent No. EP 1 010 336 (“the ’336 cases”). In

17

Cases Nos. 4a O 117/11, 7 O 230/11, and 7 O 443/11, Motorola asserts that Apple products

18

infringe European Patent No. EP 1 053 613 (“the ’613 cases”).

19

10.

Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) is headquartered in San Diego,

20

California, which is within the Southern District of California. See 2010 Qualcomm 10K, a true

21

and correct excerpt of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

22

11.

Qualcomm is not a party to the German Actions.

23

12.

The Apple products accused of patent infringement in the ’336 cases and

24

the ’613 cases contain semiconductor chips manufactured by Qualcomm and its affiliates. The

25

functionalities accused by Motorola in the ’336 cases and the ’613 cases generally relate to the

26

wireless communications chips within the iPhone and iPad, some of which are supplied by

27

Qualcomm.

28
DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE S. HASKETT IN SUPPORT
OF § 1782 EX PARTE APPLICATION
Case No.:

2

13.
2

opinion in In re Am. Petroleum Institute, 11-80008-JF (PSG) (N.D. Cal.).

3
4

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a September 19,

2008 opinion in Mirana v. Battery Tai-Shing Corp., No. 08-80142 (N.D. Cal.).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the

5
6

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an April 7, 2011

foregoing is true and correct.

~~

7
8

Date: January 17,2012

hristine S. Haskett

9
10
II
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25

26
27
28
DECLARAnON OF CHRISTINE S. HASKETT IN SUPPORT
OF § 1782 EX PARTE APPLlCATION

Case No..

3