Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 159

RESPONSE/REPLY to 95 Affidavit, Supplemental Claim Construction Brief by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Haskett, # 2 Exhibit #1- Hearing Transcript, # 3 Exhibit #2- Presentation, # 4 Exhibit #3- Contentions, # 5 Exhibit #4- EP0847654B1, # 6 Exhibit #5- Comparison, # 7 Exhibit #6- Translation, # 8 Exhibit #7- Rule 43)(Pace, Christopher)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-UU

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim-Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE SAUNDERS HASKETT
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF
APPLE INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

I, Christine Saunders Haskett, hereby declare:
1.

I am a partner with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, counsel of record for

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned matter. The matters referenced in this declaration
are based on personal knowledge and if called as a witness I could, and would, testify
competently to these matters.
2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of

the Markman hearing held in this matter on October 18, 2011.
3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Apple’s

Markman Presentation Regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119.
4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Motorola’s Infringement

Contentions regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119, served May 18, 2011.
5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of European Patent No. EP

0847654 B1.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a side-by-side comparison of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.

5,754,119 and claim 1 of European Patent No. EP 0847654 B1, prepared by Apple for this
supplemental brief.
7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the English translation of

Motorola’s Reply Brief in Case No. 7 O 229/11 in the Mannheim Regional Court, Germany.
8.

Rule 43 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents requires that the claims in

European patents “define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical
features of the invention.” The Rule further specifies that “[w]herever appropriate, claims shall
contain: (a) a statement indicating the designation of the subject-matter of the invention and
those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but

1

which, in combination, form part of the prior art; and (b) a characterising portion, beginning with
the expression "characterised in that" or "characterised by" and specifying the technical features
for which, in combination with the features stated under sub-paragraph (a), protection is sought.
See Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Rule 43(1), attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on October 26, 2011 at San Francisco, California.

__/s/ Christine Saunders Haskett________
Christine Saunders Haskett

2