Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Samsung Reply 073012

Samsung Reply 073012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 34 |Likes:
Published by Larry Dignan

More info:

Published by: Larry Dignan on Jul 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S RESPONSES TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO STRINGER CROSS EXHIBITS
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPCharles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com50 California Street, 22
nd
FloorSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600Facsimile: (415) 875-6700Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.comVictoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5
th
FloorRedwood Shores, California 94065Telephone: (650) 801-5000Facsimile: (650) 801-5100Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com865 S. Figueroa St., 10th FloorLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 443-3000Facsimile: (213) 443-3100Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,vs.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,Defendants.CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S RESPONSES TO APPLE’SOBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATED CROSSEXAMINATION EXHIBITS OFCHRISTOPHER STRINGER
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1460 Filed07/30/12 Page1 of 7
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -1-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S RESPONSES TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO STRINGER CROSS EXHIBITS
 
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and SamsungTelecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) respectfully submits the followingresponses to the objections raised by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) with respect to the exhibits designatedfor use during the cross-examination of Apple’s designer, Christopher Stringer. Apple’sobjections should be denied because Apple provides no basis for excluding any of them.
Exhibit Samsung’s ResponseDX504
Judge Grewal’s order cited by Apple (Dkt. 1144) grantedApple’s motion to strike portions of Samsung’s expert reportsbased on certain theories and/or prior art. Judge Grewal’sorder did
not 
exclude DX504 in its entirety or its admissioninto evidence through witnesses other than Samsung’s experts.Moreover, Samsung is entitled to use this reference forimpeachment purposes in cross-examining Apple’s designwitnesses, including Mr. Stringer.
DX511
DX511 is admissible for several reasons beyond serving as aprimary reference in an invalidity analysis, including forestablishing the level of ordinary skill, rebutting allegations of copying, and non-infringement. Moreover, Samsung isentitled to use this reference for impeachment purposes incross-examining Apple’s design witnesses, including Mr.Stringer. Accordingly, no limiting instruction is required, asApple argues.
DX562
Judge Grewal’s order (Dkt. 1144) did not strike – and Apple’sproposed order did not mention – DX562, which is an internalApple e-mail regarding Sony’s influences on Apple design.This exhibit is relevant to at least design patent functionalityand non-infringement, trade dress functionality, and allegedcopying. After having delayed production of emails andwitnesses relating to the influence of Sony designs during factdiscovery, Apple cannot now argue that Samsung’s theoriesare untimely. This is particularly true in the context of crossexamination of witnesses, such as Mr. Stringer, who Appleoffers to testify regarding the origins of the iPhone design.
DX623
DX623 are CAD drawings reflecting Apple’s attempts toemulate Sony designs. This exhibit is admissible for all of the same reasons as DX562.
DX624
DX624 is an article regarding the influence of Braun designson Apple products. This exhibit is relevant to at least designpatent functionality and non-infringement, trade dressfunctionality, and alleged copying. Contrary to Apple’sarguments, DX624 was timely disclosed during expertdiscovery and marked during expert depositions.Accordingly, Apple has had ample notice and ability to
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1460 Filed07/30/12 Page2 of 7
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -2-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S RESPONSES TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO STRINGER CROSS EXHIBITS
 
question Samsung’s expert witnesses on this exhibit, includingat the April 25, 2012 Deposition of Christopher Mount.Samsung is entitled to use this reference for impeachmentpurposes in cross-examining Apple’s design witnesses,including Mr. Stringer.
DX628
DX628 is relevant to invalidity and non-infringement of Apple’s asserted design patents and trade dress. Thisdocument was timely produced and marked during expertdiscovery, including at the April 27, 2012 Deposition of Russell Winer. Samsung is entitled to use this reference forimpeachment purposes in cross-examining Apple’s designwitnesses, including Mr. Stringer.
DX649
DX649 is an article circulated among Apple designersregarding Sony’s achievements in electronic design. Thisexhibit is admissible for all of the same reasons as DX562.
DX678
Contrary to Apple’s argument, DX678 was not included in theprior art references stricken by Judge Grewal’s Order. Nordid Apple’s proposed order mention this reference. Apple’sargument is merely an attempt to stretch the bounds of JudgeGrewal’s focused Order beyond all bounds to include virtuallyany prior art reference. DX678 has not been excluded by anyOrder. On the contrary, this exhibit was disclosed during theearly stages of discovery, and is relevant to invalidity, non-infringement and other issues.
DX690
DX690 is CAD drawings reflecting Apple’s attempts toemulate Sony designs. This exhibit is admissible for all of the same reasons as DX562.
DX691
DX691 is a video clip in which the head of Apple industrialdesign, Jonathan Ive, discusses Apple’s design concepts for theiPhone. It is relevant to non-infringement, invalidity,functionality, and Apple’s design influences. Accordingly,DX691 is likely to be highly relevant to Mr. Stringer’stestimony as a member of Apple’s industrial design team.
DX708
DX708 is an Apple report describing the results of a tear-downof a Samsung smartphone. This report is relevant to at leastcopying and to impeach Mr. Stringer’s testimony regardingApple’s analysis of competitor products.
DX740
DX740 are photos of the 035 mockup that were prepared byApple and submitted as part of the D’889 prosecution history.This exhibit is admissible for all of the same reasons asDX740.
DX741
DX741 is the 035 mockup that Apple disclosed duringprosecution as an embodiment of the D’889 patent. Thismockup is relevant to at least invalidity and non-infringement.Samsung has never been precluded from relying on the 035mockup, as Apple contends. Instead, Apple’s previous
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1460 Filed07/30/12 Page3 of 7

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->