APPLE inc. and NEXT Software Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc

Filing 3

DECLARATION of Brian Cannon in Support re: 1 MOTION to Compel DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSTION FROM JEFFERSON HAN AND PERCEPTIVE PIXEL. Other Court Name: NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Other Court Case Number: 11CV8450. (Filing Fee $ 46.00, Receipt Number 465401029188) MOTION to Compel DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSTION FROM JEFFERSON HAN AND PERCEPTIVE PIXEL. Other Court Name: NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. Other Court Case Number: 11CV8450. (Filing Fee $ 46.00, Receipt Number 465401029188). Document filed by Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(wb)

OFFICE COPY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
APPLE iNC. and NeXT SOFTWARE,
iNC. (f/k/a NeXT COMPUTER, iNC.),

)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

)

CASNO

)

)

V.

)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOJS

)

MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.

)
)

CIVIL ACTION

)

Defendants.

)

DECLARATION OF BRIAN CANNON IN SUP
COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND DEPOSITION FROM JEFFERSON HAN
AND PERCEPTIVE PIXEL

I, Brian Cannon, hereby declare as follows:
I am a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, counsel for Motorola
Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "Motorola"). 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.
1.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the complaint filed by

Apple in the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 1 0-cv-662-BBC, without attachments.
2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the transfer order

transferring this matter to the Northern District of Illinois.
3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the order assigning this

case to Hon. Richard A. Posner sitting by designation.
4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the order setting the trial

date for June 11, 2012.
5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of U.S. Patent

No. 7,479,949.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from

Perceptive Pixel's website, found at http://www.perceptivepixel.comlabout/executive-team/.
7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from TED's

website, found at http://www.ted.com/pages/registration.
8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a document bearing the

production label MOTO-APPLE-0007 162767.
9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a document bearing the

production label MOTO-APPLE-0007 162825.

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a document bearing the

production label MOTO-APPLE-0007 162826-27.
11.

On September 12, 2011, Motorola served subpoenas for documents and a

deposition upon Jefferson Han and Perceptive Pixel. A true and correct copy of the subpoena to
Mr. Han is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
12.

A a true and correct copy of the subpoena to Perceptive Pixel is attached hereto as

Exhibit 12.
13.

I, or other attorneys at Quinn Emanuel representing Motorola, met and conferred

with Mr. Han's counsel numerous times, beginning September 21, 2011, in an attempt to obtain
the requested discovery. On October 14, 2011, Han and Perceptive Pixel informed me that they
had retained new counsel. See Exhibit 13. The email from Han's counsel requested that
Motorola, Samsung and HTC all coordinate with respect to the requested discovery. We agreed.
14.

The parties continued to meet and confer as reflected in the chart attached hereto

as Exhibit 14; the email correspondence is attached as Exhibit 13. As reflected in the written
correspondence there were several meet and confer conferences.
15.

On November 22, 20111 received Perceptive Pixel's responses and objections to

the subpoena. A true and correct copy of those responses is attached as Exhibit 15. Perceptive
Pixel stated that it would produce source code, if any was found. I have not received responses
and objections to the subpoena of Han.
16.

No source code or documents from either Han or Perceptive Pixel have been

produced as of this date. We understand through HTC's counsel that Han and Perceptive Pixel
will not be looking for documents and will not schedule a deposition.

2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
2012 in Redwood Shores, California.

Brian Cair