Pursuant to this Court’s Order of April 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 471), the parties jointly submit thisJoint Status Report concerning their discussions about a potential stipulation regarding representative products.
1. Apple’s Position
At the April 24, 2013 Case Management Conference (“April 24 CMC” or “CMC”), in inorder to simplify the case for trial and avoid “a really complicated verdict form,” the Court orderedthe parties to reduce the number of accused products in stages, with an eventual reduction of accused products to ten at trial.
April 24, 2013 Hr’g Tr. at 67.
In response to concerns from Apple that a reduction in accused products would allowSamsung to evade a remedy on products in this case, and also result in follow-on litigation for such products, the Court: (1) made clear that withdrawn products would be dismissed without prejudice,and (2) “strongly encourage[d]” the parties to reach a stipulation on representative products to avoidthe need for follow-on litigation regarding currently-accused products that would not be tried in thiscase.
at 13, 67.Since the April 24 CMC, however, Samsung has seized upon the Court’s trial managementtool, by concocting highly misleading positions regarding both the identification of products and theuse of representative products, in order to drastically limit its exposure in this case.At the time of the April 24 CMC (and still), Apple identified 22 Samsung accused products.
As explained below, Apple identified products as they have been understood throughout this case andconsistent with how Samsung identifies its own products; thus, for example, the Galaxy Nexus,Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note II are three separate products.At no time during the April 24 CMC and its lengthy discussion of the numbers of accused products (or any other time before the CMC) did Samsung disagree with the manner in which Applecounted products. But once the Court limited the number of products for trial, Samsung suddenlydevised a new approach to counting its “products” that would transform each Samsung product into
Apple is not attempting to add a “23rd product” to the case, as Samsung claims. Apple has moved for leave to addSamsung’s recently introduced Galaxy S4 product into the case. In its motion papers, Apple made clear that it wouldwithdraw one of the currently accused products in its place.
Dkt. No. 525 at 9 (May 21, 2013).
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document584 Filed06/07/13 Page2 of 29