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
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Apple s List of Infringing Products

Apple s List of Infringing Products

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20,809|Likes:
Published by Zack Whittaker
c/o U.S. District Court
c/o U.S. District Court

More info:

Published by: Zack Whittaker on May 14, 2013
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

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
A
PPLE
I
 NC
.’
S
L
IST OF
A
CCUSED
P
RODUCTS
 P
URSUANT TO
C
OURT
O
RDER OF
A
PRIL
24,
 
2013
 
C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
5:12-
CV
-00630-LHK 
 
(PSG)
JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552) jkrevitt@gibsondunn.comH. MARK LYON (CA SBN 162061)mlyon@gibsondunn.comGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP1881 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1211Telephone: (650) 849-5300Facsimile: (650) 849-5333MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comRICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)rhung@mofo.comMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice)william.lee@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, Massachusetts 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000MARK D. SELWYN (CA SBN 244180)mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,Defendants.CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK(PSG)
APPLE INC.’S LIST OF ACCUSEDPRODUCTS PURSUANT TO COURTORDER OF APRIL 24, 2013
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,v.APPLE INC., a California corporation,Counterclaim-Defendant.
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document514 Filed05/13/13 Page1 of 6
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
A
PPLE
I
 NC
.’
S
L
IST OF
A
CCUSED
P
RODUCTS
P
URSUANT TO
C
OURT
O
RDER OF
A
PRIL
24,
 
2013
 
1C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
5:12-
CV
-00630-LHK 
 
(PSG)
Pursuant to the Court’s April 24, 2013 Order, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby identifies the 22accused products to which it has limited its infringement assertions. (D.I. 471.)
Accused Products
1
 
1. Admire2. Captivate Glide3. Conquer 4G4. Dart5. Exhibit II 4G6. Galaxy Nexus7. Galaxy Note8. Galaxy Note 10.19. Galaxy Note II10. Galaxy Player 4.011. Galaxy Player 5.012. Galaxy Rugby Pro13. Galaxy SII14. Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch15. Galaxy SII Skyrocket16. Galaxy S III17. Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus18. Galaxy Tab 8.919. Galaxy Tab 2 10.120. Illusion21. Stratosphere
1
Samsung recently released its newest smartphone, the Galaxy S4, which began shipping in lateApril 2013. Based on Apple’s analysis of the Galaxy S4, Apple has concluded that it is an infringingdevice and accordingly intends to move for leave to add the Galaxy S4 as an infringing product.Upon the grant of such motion, Apple will eliminate (without prejudice) one of the Accused Productsnamed herein, so that it will continue to accuse only 22 products of infringement at this stage of thelitigation.
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document514 Filed05/13/13 Page2 of 6
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
A
PPLE
I
 NC
.’
S
L
IST OF
A
CCUSED
P
RODUCTS
P
URSUANT TO
C
OURT
O
RDER OF
A
PRIL
24,
 
2013
 
2C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
5:12-
CV
-00630-LHK 
 
(PSG)
22. Transform UltraConsistent with this Court’s Order, and the Court’s guidance at the April 24 CaseManagement Conference, Apple has identified (and separately counted) specific Samsung products – not product lines.
See
April 24, 2013 CMC at 38-40. For example, Apple separately accuses theSamsung Galaxy Nexus, the Samsung Galaxy SII, and the Samsung Galaxy SIII, rather thansingularly accusing the Samsung Galaxy product line. Indeed, Apple identifies Samsung’s productsin the same way that
Samsung 
identifies its own products to its customers. This approach isconsistent with the Court’s orders, and will simplify the presentation to the jury because products – asopposed to product lines – share common features and, hence, common infringement theories and proof.As Apple explained during the CMC, Samsung has sought to limit the exposure it faces in thiscase by limiting the number of products at issue (despite common liability issues and proof).
 Id.
at20-22. Over Apple’s objections, this Court ordered that each party was limited to presenting amaximum of ten specific products at trial – a number Samsung gladly accepted. Not content withthat ten-product limitation, during the parties’ recent discussions, Samsung has further contended thatApple must actually count each specific Samsung product as
multiple
 products. Specifically,Samsung asserted that Apple must separately count each product by (1) carrier and (2) operatingsystem version; thus, a single product would count as multiple products if it is used with differentcarriers or if it uses different versions of operating system. According to Samsung, for example, theGalaxy Nexus activated on Sprint must be counted separately from the Galaxy Nexus activated onVerizon; and the Galaxy Nexus operating on Sprint running Android version 4.0 must be countedseparately from the Galaxy Nexus operating on Sprint, but running Android version 4.1. Incombination with this Court’s prior ruling, Samsung’s methodology would drastically limit theaccused Samsung products (and Samsung’s exposure) because Samsung has offered the Galaxy Nexus alone on more than five carriers (
e.g.,
AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, MetroPCS), andwith more than one Android operating system version on each network.There is no justification – nor has Samsung offered one – for counting a single Samsung product (such as the Galaxy Nexus) as multiple products just because multiple carriers offer the
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document514 Filed05/13/13 Page3 of 6

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)//-->