Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 185

RESPONSE in Opposition re 178 MOTION to Strike Motorola's Supplemental Infringement Contentions filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14)(Giuliano, Douglas)

EXHIBIT 10

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | san francisco

50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 | TEL: [phone]

FAX:

[phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

November 1, 2011
VIA E-MAIL
Jill Ho, Esq.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 10-cv-3580

Dear Jill:
I write to follow up on Motorola's requests for production of documents in this case. To date,
Apple has produced no documents responsive to many of Motorola Mobility's document requests
and necessary for Motorola to evaluate the merits of its and Apple’s claims and defenses.
Among other things, it appears to us that Apple has failed to provide a sufficient production of
documents on the following subject matters:
1. How Apple accused products filter html images. Documents concerning this subject
are responsive to : (1) Motorola Mobility’s RFP No. 64, which requires production of
"[a]ll documents and things that support, contradict, refute, or otherwise relate to
Counterclaim-Defendants' allegations and contentions contained within the Complaint or
Answer, Reply, and Counterclaims, including without limitation any documents
supporting Mobility's allegations that Apple has infringed and is infringing the Mobility
Asserted Patents;" (2) Motorola Mobility’s RFP No. 66, which requires production of
“[a]ll documents concerning the operation and design of any Apple Accused
Instrumentality;” (3) Motorola Mobility’s RFP No. 70, which requires production of
“[a]ll documents which constitute product definition sheets, trade literature, specification
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10010 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Building, 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, 107-0052 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

sheets, technical data sheets, papers, abstracts, speeches, descriptive documents of any
kind concerning any Apple Accused Instrumentality;” (4) Motorola Mobility’s RFP No.
71, which requires production, for each accused Apple instrumentality, of “a copy of each
instruction manual, service manual, schematic, customer instruction sheet or brochure,
product specification, data sheet, product announcement, press release, text of
explanatory article, speech, lecture, or product roadmap (including, without limitation,
information electronically disseminated or made available),” and (5) Motorola Mobility's
RFPs Nos. 1, 48, 56, 58, 61, 67, and 68.
2. If and how Apple accused products, as a result of a filter, exclude any data when
downloading to a user's device. Documents concerning this subject are responsive to
the above-listed RFPs.
3. Apple's MobileMe and iCloud server architecture, including host servers and
communications servers, and how the Apple accused products interact with the
network of the mobile carriers. Documents concerning this subject are responsive to
the above-listed RFPs.
4. The "Load Remote Images" option on the iPhone, iPad and iMac computers, the
uses of that option, and the reason or reasons Apple provides that option.
Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs.
5. Apple's authentication system for the App Store and iTunes, and the use of that
authentication system. Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the abovelisted RFPs. Although Apple has produced a few scattered documents that peripherally
concern these subjects, Apple has produced no documents containing relevant details
6. Apple’s “Fairplay” encryption system. Documents concerning this subject are
responsive to the above-listed RFPs.
7. How Apple’s system recognizes a device requesting authorization of an app.
Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs. Although
Apple has produced a few documents that peripherally concern these subjects, Apple has
produced no documents containing relevant details.
8. Apple's "UDID" number, how that number is used to authenticate a device, and/or
any other reference used to authenticate a device. Documents concerning this subject
are responsive to the above-listed RFPs. Although Apple has produced a few scattered
documents that peripherally concern these subjects, Apple has produced no documents
containing relevant details.
9. The mechanical structure of the iPhone 4 and 4S, including these accused products'
antennae, accompanying "bumpers," and other details. Documents concerning this
subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs. Although Apple has produced a few
scattered documents that peripherally concern these subjects, Apple has produced no
documents containing relevant details.

2

10. The effect that the external antenna and bumper have on reception. Documents
concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs. Although Apple has
produced a few scattered documents that peripherally concern these subjects, Apple has
produced no documents containing relevant details.
11. Apple's decision to use the antenna design of the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs. Although
Apple has produced a few scattered documents that peripherally concern these subjects,
Apple has produced no documents containing relevant details.
12. How Apple synchronizes message status among multiple devices, and how Apple’s
MobileMe and iCloud services are used to synchronize a user’s message status.
Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs.
13. How Apple’s devices determine whether an address is already in the user’s contacts.
Documents concerning this subject are responsive to the above-listed RFPs.
14. The options provided to the user based on the determination that an address is or is
not already in the user’s contacts. Documents concerning this subject are responsive to
the above-listed RFPs.
Additionally, please promptly make source code available for categories 1-8 and 12-14.
By November 7, for each category of documents and source code, please confirm that Apple will
make source code available will supplement its production or confirm that no such documents
exist. Also inform us when we can expect the production and source code will be made
available.
Apple has previously justified its lack of document production by pointing to the parties'
agreement to cross-produce documents from other cases. See, e.g., August 18, 2011, 5:25 p.m.
e-mail from Apple counsel Jill Ho to Motorola counsel Matt Korhonen. Despite the crossproduction agreement, however, Apple's production to date contains no documents regarding the
specific issues above, except for a few that peripherally touch on certain of these subjects, and so
Apple's document production continues to be deficient.
As always, we remain willing to meet and confer to resolve any discovery issues, and hope that
you similarly remain willing to work together on these issues in a timely and efficient manner.

Very truly yours,
/s/
David Perlson
02426.51679/4422273.2

3