Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 218

AFFIDAVIT signed by : Jill Ho. re 217 Response in Opposition to Motion Declaration of Jill Ho in Support of Apple's Opposition (D.E. 217) by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Pace, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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

DECLARATION OF JILL HO IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTOROLA’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE TO
SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS

I, Jill Ho, declare under penalty of perjury, that the following is true and correct:
1.

I am a member of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice in this

action and an associate at the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, counsel of
record for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned matter. The matters referred to 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 here to as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of court’s order granting

motion to strike dated December 6, 2011 (D. E. 198).
3.

Attached here to as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an email sent from Jill

Ho to Catheleen Garrigan dated December 6, 2011.
4.

Attached here to as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email sent from

Cathleen Garrigan to Jill Ho dated December 8, 2011.
5.

Attached here to as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a webpage from

www.tweaker.net, bearing production numbers FL-Apple0100821-22.
6.

Attached here to as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a webpage from

www.wikipedia.org, bearing production numbers FL-Apple0100823-25.
7.

Attached here to as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a webpage from

www.mobile.softpedia.com, bearing production numbers FL-Apple0100907-10.
8.

Attached here to as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a webpage screen shot

from www.gsmarena.com, bearing production numbers FL-Apple0100958-60.
9.

Attached here to as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from

Exhibit D to Motorola’s Invalidity Contentions served on June 20, 2011.

2

10.

Attached here to as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Plug

and Play BIOS Specification, Ver. 1.0A dated May 5, 1994.
11.

Attached here to as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.

6,282,646.
12.

Attached here to as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.

7,380,116.
13.

Attached here to as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the

hearing transcript of the technology tutorial held before Judge Ungaro on October, 6,
2011.
14.

I have met and conferred multiple times with attorneys from Quinn Emanuel

Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, counsel for Motorola, regarding Motorola’s service of
supplemental invalidity contentions.
15.

On December 2, 2011, I discussed the additional references included in

Motorola’s amended invalidity contentions served on November 30, 2011 with Cathleen
Garrigan and Marshall Searcy. U.S. Patent No. 7,100,185 was not mentioned during that
conversation.
16.

On December 20, 2011, after the Court denied Motorola’s Motion to Amend the

Procedural Schedule to Serve Supplemental Invalidity Contentions for failing to include a
certificate of good faith conference, I again met and conferred with Cathleen Garrigan
and Marshall Searcy regarding Motorola’s amended invalidity contentions. During this
conversation, I indicated that Apple may be willing to consent to the additional prior art
references asserted against the ’849 patent, but I needed to investigate further.

3

17.

On December 23, 2011, I again met and conferred with Cathleen Garrigan. I

confirmed that Apple was not aware of International Publication Number WO 01/77792
A2 or the Neonode N1 mobile phone until those references were asserted by Samsung to
in proceedings before the Netherlands court. I further stated that it was my belief that
Apple did not possess documents concerning those references until August 3, 2011. This
was based on dates I had seen on some of the Neonode documents Apple produced to
Motorola on September 13, 2011.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 17, 2012 at Redwood Shores, California
_______/s/ Jill Ho______________
Jill Ho

4