Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-07-05 Davis Declaration in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion for Relief

13-07-05 Davis Declaration in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion for Relief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 378|Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
Davis declaration in support of Apple's July 5, 2013 opposition to Samsung's motion for relief from case management order with a view to the November 2013 limited damages retrial in the parties' first California litigation (N.D. Cal., case no. 11-cv-01846)
Davis declaration in support of Apple's July 5, 2013 opposition to Samsung's motion for relief from case management order with a view to the November 2013 limited damages retrial in the parties' first California litigation (N.D. Cal., case no. 11-cv-01846)

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Florian Mueller on Jul 06, 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

07/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
D
AVIS
D
ECLARATION
ISO
 
A
PPLE
S
O
PPOSITION TO
S
AMSUNG
S
A
DMINISTRATIVE
M
OTION RE
:
 
CMC
 
O
RDER 
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)sf-3304828
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONSAMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany,Defendants.Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
DECLARATION OF JULIE L. DAVIS,CPA, IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’SOPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’SADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FORRELIEF FROM APRIL 29, 2013 CASEMANAGEMENT ORDER
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. KohHAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)hmcelhinny@mofo.comMICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comRACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)rkrevans@mofo.comERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)ejolson@mofo.comMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.WILLIAM F. LEEwilliam.lee@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2330 Filed07/05/13 Page1 of 3
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
D
AVIS
D
ECLARATION
ISO
 
A
PPLE
S
O
PPOSITION TO
S
AMSUNG
S
A
DMINISTRATIVE
M
OTION RE
:
 
CMC
 
O
RDER 
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
1
sf-3304828
 I, Julie L. Davis, CPA, declare as follows:1.
 
I am a Principal at Davis & Hosfield Consulting LLC, located at 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2150, Chicago, Illinois 60606. I have been retained by Apple Inc. to serve as adamages expert in the above-captioned matter. I have been providing audit and financialconsulting services to attorneys and corporate clients for over thirty-five years, and have worked on at least 300 intellectual property disputes over the course of my career.2.
 
I submitted an expert report in this matter on June 24, 2013. I understand thatrelevant portions of that report are attached to declarations submitted with Apple’s opposition.3.
 
Before I began working on my expert report, I carefully reviewed the Court’sMarch 1, 2013 Order re: Damages (“March 1 Order”), the April 29, 2013 Case ManagementOrder, and the April 29, 2013 Case Management Hearing Transcript.4.
 
In preparing my report, I was mindful of the Court’s ruling in the April 29 CaseManagement Order that the new trial on damages will be limited to “correct[ing] the erroneousnotice dates,” and that the parties must not “expand the scope of the damages trial by relyingupon: (1) new sales data, including any sales after June 30, 201[2]; (2) new products; and (3) newmethodologies or theories.”
See
June 24 Expert Report ¶ 89.5.
 
I therefore prepared a calculation of the money damages to which Apple is entitled for Samsung’s infringement of the patents and products at issue in the new trial using the samedamages model and methodologies described in the expert reports and supplements prepared byTerry Musika of Invotex Group (“Invotex”). I used the same models and software tools,including certain Access databases and Excel spreadsheets prepared previously by Invotex inconnection with the preparation of Mr. Musika’s reports, supplements, and trial testimony. Iworked with the same staff at Invotex that Mr. Musika used to support him in his analysis of Apple’s damages. Except as specifically described in my report, I used as inputs the same datathat Mr. Musika used as inputs to his model.
See
June 24 Expert Report ¶ 89.6.
 
As Mr. Musika noted in his original expert report dated March 22, 2012, hecreated a methodology and a model that could be adjusted to address differences regarding which products were included, which intellectual property was included, and the date on which Samsung
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2330 Filed07/05/13 Page2 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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