Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 342

NOTICE to Take Deposition of Apple Inc. on June 1, 2011 by Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc..(Smith, Rodger)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NOKIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 09-791 (GMS)

APPLE INC.,

)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA INC.,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendants. )

NOKIA’S FIFTH NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
TO APPLE INC. PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Nokia
Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively “Nokia”), will take deposition of Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
commencing on June 1, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at the offices of Nokia’s counsel, Alston & Bird LLP,
Two Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112, and
continuing day-to-day until completed.
Apple shall designate one or more of its officers, directors or managing agents, or
other persons with knowledge of the matters set forth in Attachment A of this notice to appear
and testify on its behalf at the deposition. The persons so designated shall testify as to matters
known or reasonably available to Apple. Apple is requested to provide Nokia with written
notice, at least five days in advance of the deposition, of: (a) the name and employment position

of each designee who has consented to testify on behalf of Apple in response to this Notice; and
(b) all matters set forth below as to which each such designee has agreed to testify on behalf of
Apple.
The examination will be taken before a Notary Public or other person authorized
to administer oaths and will be recorded stenographically and by video.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II

OF COUNSEL:
Patrick J. Flinn
Peter Kontio
John D. Haynes
Mark A. McCarty
Adam J. Biegel
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
[phone]

Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Nokia Corporation and
Nokia Inc.

April 27, 2011
4223632.1

-2-

ATTACHMENT A
DEFINITIONS
1.

“Apple” means Apple Inc., and any of its present or former affiliates,

predecessors, successors, subsidiaries (whether owned directly or indirectly), assigns, divisions
and operating units thereof, employees, agents, representatives, directors, officers, and entities
under common control with Apple Inc.
2.

“Nokia” means Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc, including their

predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries (whether owned directly or indirectly), affiliates,
divisions and operating units thereof, agents and entities under common control with them.
3.

“Person”

or

“persons”

shall

mean

an

individual,

corporation,

proprietorship, partnership, association, or any other entity.
4.

“FRAND” shall mean fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

5.

“RAND” shall mean reasonable and demonstrably free of any unfair

discrimination.
6.

“IPR(s)” means and refers to any intellectual property right and includes

but is not limited to patents and patent applications.
7.

“Accused Apple Product(s)” means and refers to the Apple products

identified in Counts I-XVI of Nokia’s Complaint, including at least the Apple iPhone, the Apple
iPhone 3G, the Apple iPhone 3GS, the Apple iPhone 4 for AT&T, the Apple iPhone 4 for
Verizon, the Apple iPad, the Apple iPad 2, the Apple iPad 3G, the Apple iPad 2 3G, the Apple
iPod Touch, the Apple MacBook, the Apple MacBook Pro, the Apple MacBook Air, all other
Apple products with functionality that come within the scope of any claim of the Asserted
Nokia Patents, and all Apple products identified in Nokia’s initial and all supplemental
responses to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 20.

8.

“Relevant Standards” means GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, and 802.11.

9.

“SSO” means any standards-setting organization responsible for

establishing technical standards related to GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, or 802.11.
TOPICS OF EXAMINATION
1.

The circumstances surrounding Apple’s declaration of any Apple patents

as potentially essential to any of the Relevant Standards, including the individual Apple
employees involved in such declaration.
2.

All statements or positions made by or taken by Apple or any of Apple’s

employees, officers, agents, or representatives regarding FRAND licensing terms or FRAND
licensing commitments, undertakings, or obligations, RAND licensing terms or RAND licensing
commitments, undertakings, or obligations, or the rules or requirements of any SSO that relate to
IPR.
3.

All statements or positions made by or taken by Apple or any of Apple’s

employees, officers, agents, or representatives regarding any contractual rights or obligations
arising from participation in any SSO, membership in any SSO, declaration or disclosure of any
patent to any SSO as essential or potentially essential, or any FRAND or RAND commitments or
undertakings.
4.

Any analysis by Apple of patents held by third-parties that have been

declared essential to the Relevant Standards.
5.

Any estimates, forecasts, reserves or provisions prepared or recorded by

Apple for costs Apple would incur in connection with royalties payable on any Accused Apple
Product for patents declared essential to the Relevant Standards.

-2-

6.

Apple’s forecasted, estimated, or projected unit sales, revenue, costs, or

profit margin for any Accused Apple Product.
7.

Apple’s actual unit sales, revenue, costs, or profit margins for any

Accused Apple Product.
8.

Independent determinations of whether a declared essential patent is

actually essential to any of the Relevant Standards, whether by Apple, on behalf of Apple, or
otherwise known to Apple.
9.

The identity and title of any current or former Apple employees or agents

involved in Apple participation in an SSO, and the nature of their involvement.
10.

Apple’s understanding of the meaning of the IPR policies or procedures of

any SSO, including any policies or procedures for complying with the IPR policies or procedures
of any SSO.
11.

Apple’s policies and procedures for determining whether and when to

declare a patent as essential to any SSO.
12.

Apple’s understanding of how the telecommunications industry interprets

the IPR policies of any SSO.
13.

Apple’s participation in any SSO.

14.

Apple’s, or the industry’s, analysis of the “available alternative

technologies” identified by Apple in its Supplemental Responses to Nokia Interrogatory No. 1,
including the technical merits of the technologies identified in Apple’s Supplemental Responses.
15.

Apple’s incentive or award policies for inventors who file patents, and for

patents that may be declared essential to a standard.

-3-

16.

Apple’s evaluations or analyses of the relative advantages and

disadvantages of any actual or potential alternative technologies to those Apple or any party
acting on behalf of Apple has successfully proposed for inclusion in any of the Relevant
Standards.
17.

All actual or potential litigation or arbitration threatened or filed by or

against Apple in which: (i) any party has alleged or asserted claims, counterclaims, or defenses
contending that another party has engaged in improper conduct before an SSO; or (ii) the dispute
has involved the licensing of purportedly essential technologies at FRAND or RAND royalty
terms.
18.

The facts surrounding the exclusion of competitors (including the

competitors identified in Apple’s Supplemental Responses to Nokia Interrogatory No. 3) from
the Input Technologies Market (as defined by Apple in Paragraph 100 of Apple’s Counterclaims)
as a result of Nokia’s alleged misconduct.
19.

The facts and circumstances surrounding any increase in costs associated

with the manufacture and/or sale of wireless communications devices as a result of Nokia’s
alleged misconduct.
20.

The identity of any Nokia patent that Apple has determined is actually

essential to a technical specification in the Relevant Standards.

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 27, 2011, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to:
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire
David E. Moore, Esquire
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
I further certify that I caused to be served copies of the foregoing document on
April 27, 2011, upon the following in the manner indicated:
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire
David E. Moore, Esquire
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
Hercules Plaza – 6th Floor
1313 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

William F. Lee, Esquire
Mark D. Selwyn, Esquire
WILMERHALE
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Nina S. Tallon, Esquire
Joseph J. Mueller, Esquire
WILMERHALE
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Victor F. Souto, Esquire
WILMERHALE
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Kathryn Zalewski, Esquire
WILMERHALE
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Kenneth H. Bridges, Esquire
Michael T. Pieja, Esquire
BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS LLP
540 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)

-2-