14-01-16 Apple Reply in Support of Permanent Injunction Against Samsung

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJ UNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

HAROLD J . MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. J ACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
ERIK J . OLSON (CA SBN 175815)
ejolson@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN J OSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.
APPLE INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF ITS RENEWED MOTION FOR A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Date: J anuary 30, 2014
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
J udge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2925 Filed01/16/14 Page1 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. Samsungs Infringement Has Irreparably Harmed Apple. ...................................... 2
1. Dr. Hausers survey is strong evidence of a causal nexus. ......................... 2
2. Consumer research and reviews demonstrate the importance of the
features claimed by Apples utility patents. ................................................ 7
3. Samsungs copying confirms the existence of a causal nexus. ................... 8
B. Monetary Damages Are Inadequate To Compensate Apple. .................................. 9
1. Apple did not offer to license the asserted patents to Samsung in
2010. ............................................................................................................ 9
2. The parties recent settlement discussions do not suggest that
damages would be adequate. ..................................................................... 10
3. Apples limited past licensing practices do not suggest that damages
would be adequate to compensate for Samsungs infringement. .............. 10
C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Entry Of An Injunction. ................................. 12
D. The Public Interest Favors An Injunction. ............................................................ 13
E. The Court Should Not Delay Enforcement Of Any Injunction During The
915 Reexamination Proceedings. ......................................................................... 14
F. There Is No Need For An Evidentiary Hearing. ................................................... 15
III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc.,
694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 9
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 8

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................ passim

Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.,
717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 2
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 2
Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc.,
699 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 1
Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg,
849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......................................................................................... 13, 14
Funai Electric Co. v. Daewoo Electronics Corp.,
616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 8
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,
904 F. Supp. 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ..................................................................................... 3
Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.,
702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 1
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.,
659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 2
TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
929 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................ 3, 4
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
451 F. Appx 935 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

iii

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
28 U.S.C. 1295 ........................................................................................................................... 14
37 C.F.R.
41.31 ..................................................................................................................................... 14
41.39 ..................................................................................................................................... 14
41.43 ..................................................................................................................................... 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

I. INTRODUCTION
As the Court recently noted, Apple has been awaiting resolution of its request for a
permanent injunction for nearly a year and a half following the jurys infringement verdict.
(Dkt. 2913 at 3.) Yet Samsung persists in its strategy of delayseeking to extend the briefing
schedule for Apples renewed motion, belatedly moving for discovery relating to Apples
negotiations with Samsung, requesting an evidentiary hearing even though the record is already
fully developed, and asking the Court to stay enforcement of any injunction with respect to the
915 patent. Samsung also filed more than a thousand pages of documents, including 17
declarations, in response to Apples 10-page renewed motion. Samsungs voluminous filings are
an attempt to avoid the Courts page limitations and contain expert opinions that were not timely
disclosed. The Court should strike those materials, just as it did before. (See Dkt. 2212.)
1

Samsungs attempts to complicate and delay these proceedings should not detract from the
merits, which overwhelmingly support entry of an injunction. Accordingly, the Court should
enjoin Samsung from further infringement of Apples 381, 915, and 163 patents.
II. ARGUMENT
Samsung attempts to portray the four-factor test for injunctive relief as so stringent as to
be essentially impossible to satisfy. (Opp. at 1, 2.) But the Federal Circuits decision in Apple III
was made against the backdrop of repeated holdings that the analysis must proceed with an eye
to the long tradition of equity practice granting injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement
in the vast majority of patent cases. Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics
Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547
U.S. 388, 395 (2006) (Roberts, C.J ., concurring)). Thus, in traditional cases involving
infringement by a direct competitorsuch as herethe winner of a judgment of validity and
infringement may normally expect to regain the exclusivity that was lost with the infringement.
Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also

1
To the extent the Court does consider Samsungs declarations, Apple has cited the
responsive declarations that it previously filed: Dkt. 2127 (Singh Declaration), and Dkt. 2130
(Hauser Declaration). If the Court requests, Apple will refile those materials.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Robert
Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Samsung has shown no
reason to depart from that longstanding precedent. Instead, applying the Federal Circuits
guidance for these remand proceedings to the evidentiary record compels the traditional result: a
permanent injunction against further infringement by Apples direct competitor.
A. Samsungs Infringement Has Irreparably Harmed Apple.
Samsung does not dispute the Courts prior finding that Samsungs sale of infringing
products has irreparably harmed Apple. (Dkt. 2197 at 5-7.) Samsung challenges only whether
there is a sufficient causal nexus between Samsungs infringement and the irreparable harm to
Apple. There certainly is. While Samsung separates and attacks the individual pieces of Apples
evidence of a causal nexus, the Federal Circuit instructed that the Court must consider that
evidence as a whole. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. (Apple III), 735 F.3d 1352, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (On remand, the court must assess whether Apples other evidence, including its ease-
of-use evidence and evidence of copying, in combination with Dr. Hausers survey evidence,
suffices to establish irreparable injury.). When viewed collectively, the evidence is more than
sufficient to demonstrate a causal nexus that satisfies the irreparable harm factor.
1. Dr. Hausers survey is strong evidence of a causal nexus.
To demonstrate the requisite causal nexus, Apple must show some connection between
the patented feature and demand for Samsungs products, which can be shown in a variety of
ways. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364. One way is to provide evidence that a feature significantly
increases the desirability of a product incorporating that feature. Id. at 1368. Evidence that
customers are willing to pay a significant price premium for a feature means that it significantly
increases the desirability of the product. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recognized as much when it
explained the type of proof sufficient to show a causal nexus. Id.
Samsungs argument (Opp. at 6-7) that Dr. Hausers survey is not evidence of the
desirability of the patented features contradicts the principles articulated by the Federal Circuit in
Apple III. Dr. Hausers survey on its face shows that Samsung customers are willing to pay a
substantial price premium for the specific features enabled by Apples utility patents (Dkt. 2739
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

at 528:13-22), which demonstrates a substantial demand for the features enabled by the patents
in this case (id. at 530:9-12). Samsung challenges the use of conjoint analyses generally as
evidence of consumer demand, but courts routinely recognize the reliability of those methods,
including studies by Samsungs own experts measuring consumers willingness to pay. See, e.g.,
TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1020-27 (N.D. Cal. 2013);
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 1109, 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2012).
Samsung is also incorrect in arguing that Dr. Hausers survey is not evidence that a
patented feature significantly increases the price of a product. (Opp. at 5 (internal quotation
marks omitted).) Samsung suggests that willingness to pay has nothing to do with a products
price. As Dr. Hauser testified, however, a price premium is really a willingness to pay. Its
market demand. (Dkt. 2739 at 519:19-22.) The final market price is a function of supply and
demand, but when a firm decides to price a product, theyll take into consideration what people
are willing to pay with respect to demand. (Id. at 519:23-520:7.) Higher demand thus leads to
higher prices. In any event, Samsung never explains why Apple must predict the actual market
priceespecially since Dr. Hausers survey directly addresses the relevant question of consumer
demand for the patented features. Apple III requires no more than that. 735 F.3d at 1368.
Samsung quibbles with Dr. Hausers methodology and suggests alternative inquiries that
Dr. Hauser could have made. (Opp. at 4-10.) But none of Samsungs criticisms undermines the
reliability of Dr. Hausers survey or its ability to show that Samsungs products are significantly
more desirable because of Apples utility patents. The Court previously rejected Samsungs
challenge to the reliability of Dr. Hausers methodology when it denied Samsungs Daubert
motion. (Dkt. 1157 at 13-14.) Samsung has never offered an alternative study challenging Dr.
Hausers conclusions or subjected its experts who criticize Dr. Hausers survey to cross-
examination at trial. In a footnote, Samsung attempts to sidestep those issues by saying that the
parties arguments relating to Dr. Hausers survey in connection with Samsungs J MOL motion
are inapplicable (Opp. at 4 n.2), but two juries have already rejected Samsungs criticisms of Dr.
Hausers survey in awarding lost profits to Apple. Moreover, Samsungs arguments as to Dr.
Hausers survey are either factually incorrect or inconsistent with the applicable legal standard.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

First, Samsung challenges the reliability of Dr. Hausers survey because it included only
six of the hundreds of features in smartphones and tablets. (Opp. at 8.) But it is not possible to
design a survey that tests all a products features, especially in a complex multi-feature product
like a smartphone or tablet. (Dkt. 2739 at 523:17-25; Dkt. 2840 at 590:19-591:2, 610:7-18.)
Consumer preferences are too complexand the principles of equity are too flexiblefor that to
be the correct standard. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364. Nor is it necessary to evaluate every other
feature to assess the demand for the features claims by Apples patents. See TV Interactive, 929
F. Supp. at 1026 (rejecting Daubert challenge based on the failure to test additional features
because testing six or fewer features is the accepted methodology in a conjoint analysis). Dr.
Hauser explained that he used consumer interviews to carefully select other important features to
include in his survey and chose a sufficient number of those other features to ensure that the
survey accurately measured demand for the specific patented features. (Dkt. 2739 at 524:1-16;
Dkt. 2840 at 610:19-611:1; see also Dkt. 2130 31-34.) To the extent Samsung suggests that
more is required,
2
it is inviting the Court to apply the type of rigid rule concerning proof of a
causal nexus that the Federal Circuit expressly rejected. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364.
Second, Samsung is incorrect that Dr. Hauser did not include appropriate non-infringing
alternatives in his survey. (Opp. at 8.) On the contrary, Dr. Hauser explained that he included
non-infringing alternatives for each patented feature, which he selected with the help of technical
experts. (Dkt. 2840 at 587:7-11; see also Dkt. 2130 44-46.) Samsung argues that Dr. Hauser
should have included other non-infringing alternatives based on the first jurys verdict or the prior
art (Opp. at 8), but Samsung has not shown that these products were viable alternatives.
3
(See
Dkt. 2908 at 13-18.) Nor has Samsung presented evidence that consumers would prefer those
alternatives to the non-infringing alternatives that Dr. Hauser actually used. The Intercept

2
Even if more were needed, Dr. Hausers testimony that but for these features, a lot of
these people would not buy the phones at issue in this case satisfies even the most stringent
causal nexus standard. (Dkt. 2739 at 551:13-18.) Samsung has no basis to complain (Opp. at 7
n.6) that this testimony contains a supposedly undisclosed opinion when it was directly
responsive to Samsungs own question on cross-examination.
3
It is not clear how Samsung envisions that Dr. Hauser could have included the prior art
that Samsung identifies (Opp. at 8 n.7), as none of those products is a smartphone or tablet.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

(J X1009), for example, ranked near the bottom of a consumer satisfaction survey (PX69.84-.85)
and lowest among Samsung phones with respect to touchscreen features (PX69.102). In any
event, Samsungs argument that Dr. Hauser had to test every potential non-infringing alternative
would set an impossible standard for most patentees to meet.
Third, Samsung argues that Dr. Hausers survey was unrealistic or biased because it did
not use real money or real images of real products, did not include an option to make no
choice at all, and used animation descriptions to depict the patented features. (Opp. at 9.)
Samsung has not conducted any alternative study measuring the supposed biases introduced by
Dr. Hausers survey design and provides no evidenceonly speculation from its expertsthat
any aspects of the survey design affected the results that Dr. Hauser obtained. Nor could it. Dr.
Hausers survey design conformed with well-accepted methods of gauging realistic consumer
choices. (Dkt. 2739 at 521:12-522:6 (Its really meant to be a very realistic description to the
consumer. Its something that weve been using for a long time and they find realistic and they
find it very comfortable to actually make choices.); id. at 523:20-25 (And this is the way that
we do it in the industry. Its a very accepted form of doing a conjoint analysis.).) For example,
as Dr. Hauser explained, it is very rare to conduct a conjoint analysis using real money. (Id. at
515:12-20.) But that does not affect whether the study reliably measures consumer demandas
confirmed by a study funded by the National Science Foundation. (Id. at 516:11-517:1.) In fact,
Samsungs own experts routinely employ the same methods to determine consumer preferences
without using real dollars and have acknowledged that the use of hypothetical dollars does not
undermine the surveys accuracy. (Selwyn Decl. Ex. A at 54:2-57:3.) Samsung cannot now
credibly take the opposite position to challenge Dr. Hausers conclusions.
Fourth, Samsung inconsistently argues that Dr. Hausers results are so large as to be
divorced from the real world (Opp. at 5 n.4) but so small as to be nominal (id. at 6).
Samsung cannot have it both ways. Regardless, Dr. Hauser reported that consumers were willing
to pay $39 and $100 price premiums for smartphones having a $199 base price without the
patented features. (PX30.) Those are significant price premiums, as Dr. Hauser testified. (Dkt.
2739 at 528:19-22.) Even when compared to the lifetime cost of a phone, neither Dr. Hauser nor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

any other witness suggested that the results reflected only a nominal willingness to pay.
4

Fifth, Samsungs argument that Dr. Hausers survey cannot support an injunction against
products not more than colorably different from those found to infringe is without merit. (Opp.
at 7.) Dr. Hausers survey was specific to the patented features, not any particular infringing
product. (See Dkt. 2739 at 550:23-551:2.) It makes no difference whether the patented features
are in the models found to infringe or in newer products containing the patented features; the
demand for the patented features shown by Dr. Hausers survey is the same.
Sixth, Dr. Hausers survey did not produce irrational results. The supposedly irrational
results that Samsung cites (Opp. at 10) are based on predictions made by Dr. Wind using
improper analytical methods that magnify statistical noise in the data, not any actual irrational
responses from the survey participants. (See Dkt. 2130 19-29.) Samsung has not identified a
single survey participant who responded that he or she would choose the higher priced of two
otherwise identical smartphones.
5
(Id. 21-24.) Moreover, the values that Dr. Hauser
determined for the patented features do not suggest that adding other features would drive the
price of a smartphone or tablet prohibitively high. As Dr. Hauser explained, the price premiums
for individual features are not additive, so it is incorrect to assume that consumers would price a
package of features as high as the sum of its individual parts. (Dkt. 2840 at 611:2-18.)
Samsung has offered no valid criticism of Dr. Hausers methods, let alone an alternative
survey challenging the substantial price premiums for the patented features shown by Dr. Hauser.
Dr. Hausers survey is precisely the type of proof that the Federal Circuit recognized shows a
causal nexus between the patentees irreparable harm and the defendants infringement. Together
with the other evidence in the record, it is more than sufficient to carry Apples burden.

4
Samsung is also incorrect that Apple has failed to offer sufficient evidence to warrant an
injunction against any product that does not infringe all three patents. (Opp. at 6 n.5.) The 915
patent demonstrates a substantial price premium of $39 over smartphones with a base price of
$199. (PX30.) Although Dr. Hauser did not measure the price premiums for the 381 and 163
patents individually, the price premium of $100 for all three patents together is substantially
higher than the 915 patent alone, demonstrating the significant value added by the other patents.
5
Samsungs argument (Opp. at 10 n.8) that Dr. Hausers study reflects an irrationally
small price premium for features that command higher market prices, such as memory capacity, is
also unfounded. The market price for features like memory capacity does not reflect average
consumer demand for those features. (See Dkt. 2130 26-27.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

2. Consumer research and reviews demonstrate the importance of the
features claimed by Apples utility patents.
Samsung argues (Opp. at 10-12) that the consumer research and reviews cited in Apples
motion are relevant only if they are sufficient on their own to carry Apples burden. While the
consumer research and reviews do independently demonstrate the importance of the patented
features, the Federal Circuit expressly remanded this case so that the Court could consider this
very evidence in combination with the other proof of a causal nexus in the record. Apple III, 735
F.3d at 1368. It would be error to dismiss this evidence out of hand, as Samsung invites the Court
to do. When properly considered, this evidence independently corroborates the proof of demand
for the patented features demonstrated by Dr. Hausers survey.
Samsung attempts to dismiss the praise for the patented features in consumer research and
reviews as generic, but ignores that none of this evidence was prepared with these patents or
this litigation in mind. If anything, the fact that the descriptions in those consumer research
reports and reviews closely describe the claimed features in lay terms highlights the importance
of those features to consumers. (E.g., PX36.36 (Gestures like the two fingered pinch and flick
add a game-like quality to interactions. The flip adds a level of cool.); id. (Lists bounce, icon
flitter the iPhone has a sense of whimsy that shows a thoughtful character in the interface.);
PX133.3 (praising double-tap and multi-touch pinch-to-zoom features).) Nor can Samsung
diminish that praise for the patented features as merely reflecting individual opinions. The
GravityTank report, for example, is based on survey results from thousands of consumers
(PX36.4), but only a handful of participant responses are featured in the report. Even in the small
subset of individual responses featured, there are multiple comments discussing the patented
features (e.g., PX36.36), which demonstrates the importance consumers place on these features.
The survey evidence demonstrating the importance of ease-of-use generally further
confirms the importance of the patented features to consumers and takes on even greater
significance now in light of the Federal Circuits guidance that evidence of a causal nexus may be
considered in the aggregate for related patents. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1365. The three utility
patents involved here claim related touchscreen technologies and together greatly enhance the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

ease-of-use of smartphones and tablets using those technologies. (E.g., Dkt. 1610 at 625:4-
626:19 (Apples software inventions make its devices intuitive and simple).) The fact that this
survey evidence does not describe in exact terms the claims of any individual patent does not
matter, where it accurately captures the aggregate benefit of Apples utility patents. Cf. Funai
Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming lost profits
award based on evidence of general industry demand for the patented features).
3. Samsungs copying confirms the existence of a causal nexus.
Samsung again incorrectly argues (Opp. at 12) that the evidence of its deliberate copying
is irrelevant because that evidence is insufficient on its own to show the requisite causal nexus.
The Federal Circuit has explained that evidence of Samsungs copying is certainly relevant to
the issue of nexus between the patent and market harm. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1367 (quoting
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. (Apple I), 678 F.3d 1314, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Even so,
Apple is not relying on Samsungs copying in isolation. Rather, together with Dr. Hausers
survey and the consumer research and reviews, Samsungs copying confirms the consumer
demand for the patented features claimed by Apples utility patents.
Nor can Samsung downplay the evidence of its copying as mere standard competitive
analysis. (Opp. at 12.) It is one thing to be aware of the competition, but it is quite another to
formulate a copying plan through side-by-side comparisons with a competitors products. Yet
that is precisely what Samsung did here. For example, although Samsung argues that PX46.66
concerns a visual effect that is unrelated to the 381 patent (Opp. at 12), that page focuses on
emulating the iPhones bouncing visual effect when a webpage is dragged beyond its endpoint.
Likewise, contrary to Samsungs argument that PX57.19 discussed numerous visual effects that
have no bearing on the 381 patent (Opp. at 12), that document singles out the lack of a bounce
effect as the critical deficiency in Samsungs product. Nor can Samsung deny that PX38
demonstrates copying of the 163 patent, where it instructs that Samsung should adopt Double-
Tap zooming, using the iPhone as a design benchmark. (PX38.24.) Similarly, PX44.58
describes the iPhones double-tap-to-zoom feature and suggests that Double Tap zoom in/out
function needs to be supplemented in Samsungs own product. Although these documents use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

shorthand descriptions of Apples inventions rather than the claim language, that does not
diminish the force of this evidenceparticularly given that these documents are all translations.
There can hardly be more direct evidence of copying than the side-by-side comparisons with
Apples products in Samsungs own documents.
B. Monetary Damages Are Inadequate To Compensate Apple.
Samsung does not contest the Courts prior finding that Apples losses defy calculation
and therefore suggest that money damages may not provide a full compensation. (Dkt. 2197 at
18.) Samsung challenges only whether Apples prior licensing practices demonstrate that
damages can properly compensate for Samsungs infringement of these patents. As explained in
Apples opening brief and below, money damages would be wholly inadequate here.
1. Apple did not offer to license the asserted patents to Samsung in 2010.
Samsungs contention that Apple offered to license the infringed patents to Samsung in
October 2010 is unfounded. Boris Teksler, Apples then-Director of Patent and Licensing
Strategy, testified that during the October 2010 discussions Apple absolutely [did] not offer
Samsung a license to the asserted patents. (Dkt. 1839 at 2013:9-2014:6.) He explained that the
381, 915, and 163 patents are all part of Apples unique user experience that the company
strongly desire[s] not to license. (Dkt. 1695 at 1955:22-1957:9.) Though Samsung cites the
absence of an explicit carve-out provision in the written presentation, Mr. Teksler, in discussing
the same presentation, was unequivocal that the offer did not include the patents currently at
issue. (Dkt. 1839 at 2022:22-24.) Apples then in-house counsel, Chip Lutton, testified that
conversations with Samsung never reached the point of discussing whether the 381 patent would
be included in a potential agreement. (Dkt. 2915-35 at 197:6-19.) The excerpted portion of Mr.
Luttons testimony on which Samsung relies (Opp. at 13-14) suggests, at most, that Mr. Lutton
considered the possibility of licensing the 381 patent. But a willingness in Mr. Luttons mind to
discuss the potential for licensing this one patent is not an offer, let alone the type of licensing
campaign or pursuit of [the infringer] that the Federal Circuit has found relevant when
assessing a patentees past attempts to license asserted patents to the defendant. ActiveVideo
Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commcns Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10

2. The parties recent settlement discussions do not suggest that damages
would be adequate.
More recent settlement discussions between the parties have no relevance to the adequacy
of money damages. Samsung contends that these conversations may be considered because they
took place outside of court-ordered mediations. (Opp. at 15 n.12.) The Court has recently held,
however, that confidentiality protections still appl[y] to those discussions. (Dkt. 2913 at 4.) To
avoid having a chilling effect on future negotiations, the Court should not parse the parties recent
settlement discussions as part of Samsungs efforts to oppose Apples injunction request.
Even if considered, the parties recent settlement discussions would be of minimal
probative value. As Samsung notes, these conversations took place long after the completion of
briefing on Apples original motion for permanent injunction. (Opp. at 14.) The discussions
were thus heavily tainted by the coercive environment of patent litigation that the Federal
Circuit has recognized often distorts licensing terms and reduces the reliability of settlement
agreements. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
6

And regardless of what was discussed in the parties unsuccessful negotiations to date,
7
Apple has
been willing to license these patents only in extremely limited circumstances and with anti-
cloning and other provisions designed to prevent the exact behavior that Samsung engaged in
when it infringed these patents. (See Mot. at 6-8; infra pp. 11-12.) In any case, the fact that no
agreement has been reached between the parties underscores the inadequacy of money damages
for Samsungs infringement.
3. Apples limited past licensing practices do not suggest that damages
would be adequate to compensate for Samsungs infringement.
Samsung further suggests that the issue here is simply whether Apple licensed the utility
patents relevant to this motion to competitors. (Opp. at 17.) But this narrow focus on the

6
Samsung attempts to distinguish LaserDynamics because it involved a reasonable
royalty analysis (Opp. at 18), but that analysis is equally applicable here. The relevant inquiry in
the context of a permanent injunction is whether a reasonable royalty from an infringer
constitutes damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. Acumed LLC v. Stryker
Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
7
Samsung incorrectly claims (Opp. at 14) that Apple made recent offers to Samsung
without anti-cloning provisions. Every offer Apple made to Samsung has included limits to both
the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloning Apple products. (Watrous Decl. 4.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

existence of prior licenses involving the asserted patents is the exact approach the Federal Circuit
rejected when it held that the court erred by ending its analysis upon concluding that the asserted
patents are not priceless. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1370. Apples mere willingness to license its
patents is not sufficient per se to establish lack of irreparable harm. Acumed, 551 F.3d at 1328.
Rather, the adequacy of money damages analysis depends on the relevant differences between
Apples past licensing practices and the current situation. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1370.
Samsungs attempts to summarily dismiss these relevant differences should be rejected.
First, Samsung asserts that the Federal Circuit necessarily rejected Apples relevance argument
based on the fact that prior licenses resulted from settlement agreements. (Opp. at 17.) However,
the Federal Circuited agree[d] with Apple that certain factorsincluding that Apple entered
into the HTC and Nokia agreements to settle pending litigationare relevant to whether
monetary damages will adequately compensate Apple for Samsungs infringement of the asserted
patents. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1370 (emphasis added). Because settlements ostensibly reflect[]
not the value of the claimed invention but the strong desire to avoid further litigation, they are a
less reliable indicator of the adequacy of money damages. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 78.
Second, Samsung glosses over the fact that the HTC and Nokia agreements include
numerous other patents by arguing that the inclusion . . . of other patents in the licenses does not
change the fact that Apple willingly licensed its utility patents at issue here to competitors.
(Opp. at 17.) But again, the inquiry does not end with the fact that Apple licensed the asserted
patents. The inclusion of other patents in these cross-license agreements suggests damages alone
are not sufficient compensation for infringement of these patents. As the Court has previously
found, the face of the HTC Agreement does not fully or clearly quantify the benefit Apple
received. (Dkt. 2673 at 7.) It is a broad cross license through which Apple receives not only
royalty payments, but also a fully paid-up license to practice certain HTC patents, the value of
which Samsungs experts have not attempt[ed] to place a dollar amount on. Id.
Finally, Samsung attempts to brush aside the significant restrictions in the HTC and Nokia
licenses that distinguish them from the unencumbered use of Apples patents that Samsung would
enjoy absent an injunction. The HTC agreement was carefully crafted to prevent HTC from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12

cloning Apple products, includ[ing] functional aspects of the Distinctive Apple User
Experience. (Dkt. 2194-01 5.1, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, Ex. A (emphasis added).)
8
As Mr. Teksler
testified, the 381, 915, and 163 patents are all part of this unique user experience. (Dkt. 1695 at
1955:22-1957:9.) Furthermore, the Court has already found that because of this complicated
anti-cloning provision, the HTC agreement fails to exemplify clearly the type of license
Samsung arguably needed for its products. (Dkt. 2673 at 7.) It is therefore not an appropriate
proxy for determining the adequacy of money damages here.
C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Entry Of An Injunction.
Samsung has not identified any legitimate reason why it would be burdened by an
injunction. On the contrary, Samsung repeatedly asserts that it has stopped selling all the
particular models found to infringe. (Opp. at 18-20.) As the Court previously recognized, that
argument only highlights the absence of any burden to Samsung. (Dkt. 2271 at 19.)
9

Samsung further claims that Apples concern that Samsung will continue its infringement
through products not more than colorably different from those found to infringe is unjustified.
But as Dr. Singh explained (Dkt. 2127), Samsungs supposed design-around to the 915 patent is
trivial and still infringing. Samsung faults Apple for failing to identify any current Samsung
product that is still infringing and not more than colorably different from those previously found
to infringe (Opp. at 20-21 & n.15), but has not disclosed any non-infringing design-around to the
915 patent. (See Dkt. 2127 (Singh Declaration).) Until Samsung provides evidence of a suitable
design-around, Apple has no basis to believe that Samsungs current products are non-infringing
or more than colorably different from those previously adjudicated to infringe.
Samsung also cannot claim to be burdened because the asserted claim of the 915 patent
has been rejected in reexamination. (Opp. at 19-20.) As explained below (pp. 14-15), a final

8
Michael Wagners declaration (Dkt. 2915-14) regarding the HTC agreement is untimely
disclosed and improper expert opinion. Samsung offered Mr. Wagner as an expert on damages,
not the interpretation of licensing agreements or contract law. (Dkt. 2841 at 994:10-14.)
9
Samsung is incorrect (Opp. at 19) that the Courts prior conclusion concerning the
balance of hardships is binding as law of the case. Since the Court last considered the issue,
Samsung has ceased selling all products previously found to infringe. Even if the Court declines
to revisit its prior conclusion on the balance of hardships, that does not support denial of an
injunction. The Court previously found the balance of hardships to be neutral. (Dkt. 2197 at 19.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

determination on the validity of the 915 patent is still years away. The 915 patent remains in
full effect until there is final resolution by the Federal Circuit, and Samsung is bound until then
by the jurys finding of infringement of a valid patent. See Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422,
1427-29 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Samsungs predictions about the outcome of the reexaminations have
proven incorrect before (e.g., Dkt. 2323); the Court should not credit those same arguments now.
Samsungs claim (Opp. at 21) that it would be burdened by the threat of enforcing an
injunction also rings hollow. Whether Samsung continues to infringe is entirely within
Samsungs control, and as the Court has recognized, Samsung cannot claim to be burdened by the
enforcement of an injunction should it choose to continue to infringe Apples patents. (Dkt. 2271
at 19.) Moreover, the absence of an injunction is a far greater burden for Apple to bear than
Samsung would face to comply with an injunction; an injunction is the only effective remedy
Apple has against ongoing infringement by Samsungs large and evolving product line.
D. The Public Interest Favors An Injunction.
Samsung selectively relies on snippets from the Courts prior analysis of the public
interest, but ignores the Courts findings that the public interest supports the enforcement of
patent rights to reward investment-based risk. (Dkt. 2271 at 20.) Far from having merely some
generic interest in the enforcement of patent rights (Opp. at 22), Apple made a substantial
investment in the face of significant risks to develop the technologies claimed in the 381, 915,
and 163 patents. (Dkt. 2840 at 802:25-803:12.) It would be against the public interest to reward
Samsungs infringement with a compulsory license to technologies that Apple worked
tirelesslyand risked so muchto develop.
Moreover, Samsung relies on portions of the Courts analysis that are no longer valid in
light of the Federal Circuits recent guidance. The Federal Circuit invited the Court to revisit its
public interest analysis based on its application of the correct causal nexus standard. See Apple
III, 735 F.3d at 1373 n.8. Samsung cites the Courts prior finding that the public interest would
not be served because its phones contain numerous non-infringing features (Opp. at 22-23), but
ignores thatunder a proper application of the causal nexus standardthe features claimed by
the infringed patents are among those that drive demand for the infringing products (Mot. at 2-6;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

supra pp. 2-9). The incentive to innovate would be greatly reduced if competitors had free access
to the features that consumers value, such as those claimed by Apples patents.
Nor would an injunction be anticompetitive, as Samsung contends. (Opp. at 22.) The
only anticompetitive result would be allowing Samsung to continue to compete with Apple
unfairly through products containing features not more than colorably different than those already
found to infringe.
10
The public would benefit from the diversity of competing products that
enjoining Samsungs infringement would provide.
11

E. The Court Should Not Delay Enforcement Of Any Injunction During The
915 Reexamination Proceedings.
There is no reason for the Court to stay enforcement of an injunction with respect to the
915 patent during the ongoing reexamination proceedings. Samsung asserts that the Patent
Examiner has now completed reexamination of Apples 915 patent. (Opp. at 22.) That is
incorrect. On December 19, 2013, Apple requested a further interview with the Examiner. (Ho
Decl. 3, Ex. A.) That request was granted and an interview scheduled for J anuary 16, 2014.
(Ho Decl. 4, Ex. B.) Apple also filed a notice of appeal. (Ho Decl. 5.) As Samsungs own
expert admits, the Examiner now has the option to either reopen prosecution or maintain the
appeal. (Dkt. 2915-11 18.) The Examiner retains authority over the reexamination until after
he answers Apples appeal brief and considers Apples rebuttal brief, and he may reopen the
prosecution at several stages during this process. C.F.R. 41.39(a)(1), 41.43(a)(1); see also Ho
Decl. Ex. C. The reexamination may also be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and
ultimately to the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(A); 37 C.F.R. 41.31. Therefore, even
under the aggressive timeline laid out by Samsungs expert, the reexamination will not end until
late 2015 at the earliest. At least until then, the 915 patent remains in full effect and Samsung is
bound by the jurys finding that it infringed a valid patent. Ethicon, 849 F.2d at 1427-29.

10
Samsung contends (Opp. at 22) that including products no more than colorably
different is impermissibly vague. The Federal Circuit held, however, that it is proper to include
such language, which tracks the standard for contempt. Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1372.
11
As with the balance of hardships (supra pp. 12-13), the 915 reexaminationwhich is
still far from a final determinationdoes not diminish the public interest in granting an
injunction.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15

Samsungs speculation regarding the outcome of the reexamination proceedings does not justify
further delay.
Nor can Samsungs biased predictions justify ignoring the enormous harm to Apple that
would be caused by its inability to enforce an injunction with respect to the 915 patent. J ust as
monetary damages are inadequate to compensate Apple for Samsungs infringement (see Mot. at
6-8; supra pp. 9-12), a bond would be an inadequate substitute for the ability to enforce an
injunction. Furthermore, Samsungs claim that its business could be impaired and subjected to
unwarranted threats (Opp. at 24) absent a stay cannot be reconciled with its insistence that it has
stopped infringing Apples patents. If Samsung is confident that its design-arounds do not
infringe the 915 patent, then enforcement of the injunction poses no threat to Samsung.
F. There Is No Need For An Evidentiary Hearing.
The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to Apples original motion for
a permanent injunction, and there is no need to do so at this late stage. The record is already fully
developed from the prior proceedings in this case, including two trials. The Federal Circuit
remanded so that the Court could reconsider the record evidence under the correct legal standard.
Compare Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1368 (remanding for consideration of the record evidence under
the correct legal standard), with Warner Chilcott Labs. Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 451 F.
Appx 935, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (evidentiary hearing required on remand where the district court
acknowledged the existence of disputed issues of material fact that necessitate[d] further
testimony and cross examination).
12
An evidentiary hearing at this stage would serve no purpose
other than to further delay resolution of Apples request for an injunction.
III. CONCLUSION
Apple respectfully requests that the Court enter an order permanently enjoining Samsung
from infringing Apples 381, 915, and 163 patents.

12
As to the one disputed fact identified by Samsungthe October 2010 licensing
discussionsthe Federal Circuit did not suggest the record was inadequate. It cited the pertinent
evidence and noted that it cannot tell if the district court reached a conclusion on this issue.
Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1370 n.7. The established record, which includes Mr. Tekslers testimony
(Dkts. 1695, 1839), permits the Court to resolve this issue without a further evidentiary hearing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16

Dated: J anuary 16, 2014

HALE AND DORR LLP
By: /s/ William F. Lee
WILLIAM F. LEE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been
served on J anuary 16, 2014 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service via the Courts ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5-1.
/s/ William F. Lee
William F. Lee

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apples Inc.s
Reply In Support of its Renewed Motion for a Permanent Injunction

SAN J OSE DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF MARK D.
SELWYN IN SUPPORT OF APPLE
INC.S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
RENEWED MOTION FOR A

HAROLD J . MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
ERIK J . OLSON (CA SBN 175815)
ejolson@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.
WILLIAM F. LEE
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2925-1 Filed01/16/14 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


I, Mark D. Selwyn, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
counsel for Apple Inc. (Apple) in the above-referenced litigation. I am licensed to practice law
in the State of California, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the State of New York, and
am admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. I
am familiar with the facts set forth herein, and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify
competently to those facts under oath.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct excerpt of the November 7, 2012
deposition of Yoram (J erry) Wind.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 16
th

day of J anuary, 2014 in Palo Alto, California.

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, William Lee, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mark D. Selwyn has
concurred in this filing.

Dated: J anuary 16, 2014

/s/ William F. Lee
William F. Lee

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

EXHIBIT A
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
Page 1
1
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
STATE OF CALI FORNI A SAN J OSE DI VI SI ON
2
- - -
3
APPLE I NC. , A CALI FORNI A
4
CORPORATI ON,
Pl ai nt i f f ,
5
vs. NO. 11- CV- 01846- LHK
6
SAMSUNG ELECTRONI CS CO. ,
7
LTD. , A KOREAN BUSI NESS
ENTI TY; SAMSUNG ELECTRONI CS
8
AMERI CA, I NC. , A NEWYORK
CORPORATI ON; SAMSUNG
9
TELECOMMUNI CATI ONS AMERI CA,
LLC, A DELAWARE LI MI TED
10
LI ABI LI TY COMPANY,
11
Def endant s.
12
13
14
VI DEOTAPED DEPOSI TI ON OF YORAM ( J ERRY) WI ND
15
HI GHLY CONFI DENTI AL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Phi l adel phi a, Pennsyl vani a
16
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Repor t ed by:
24
Maur een Br oder i ck, RPR
25
J OB NO. 55261
Page 54
1
number wi l l be f i ve, f i ve di f f er ent measur es. 11: 11
2
Q Now, i n any of t he r eal - l i f e st udi es t hat 11: 11
3
you' ve done wi t h conj oi nt anal ysi s, di d t he peopl e 11: 11
4
t aki ng t he sur vey use act ual dol l ar s as par t of t he 11: 11
5
sur vey? 11: 11
6
A I don' t r ecal l act ual dol l ar s, but t he way 11: 11
7
t hat t he maj or i t y of my st udi es ar e desi gned, i t ' s 11: 11
8
t ypi cal l y f ocused on i ndi cat i ng t he l i kel i hood of 11: 11
9
buyi ng a pr oduct or ser vi ce or what ever we' r e 11: 11
10
l ooki ng at as opposed t o j ust sel ect i ng ki nd of 11: 12
11
basi cal l y a choi ce- base conj oi nt . 11: 12
12
So we' r e l ooki ng at t he l i kel i hood of 11: 12
13
buyi ng. And we ar e set t i ng t he, t he set t i ng i n t er m 11: 12
14
of t he f r ami ng of t he quest i ons i n a way t hat t r y t o 11: 12
15
make i t as r eal i st i c as possi bl e wi t hi n t he, ki nd of 11: 12
16
t he budget const r ai nt of t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved. 11: 12
17
Q But t hese ar e hypot het i cal t r ansact i ons 11: 12
18
t hat t he consumer i s maki ng; t hey' r e not act ual l y 11: 12
19
payi ng wi t h act ual dol l ar s f or t he choi ces, r i ght ? 11: 12
20
A Cor r ect . I n most of t hese cases, t hat ' s 11: 12
21
cor r ect . But you' r e wor ki ng - - 11: 12
22
Q I n f act , i n ever y case t hat you' ve been 11: 12
23
i nvol ved i n, i t ' s been a hypot het i cal t r ansact i on. 11: 12
24
You' ve never done a conj oi nt sur vey i nvol vi ng act ual 11: 12
25
dol l ar s wher e consumer s had t o spend f r ommoney t hat 11: 12
Page 55
1
t hey had i n maki ng t hese choi ces, r i ght ? 11: 12
2
A I ' mt r yi ng t o ki nd of r ecal l t he di f f er ent 11: 13
3
st udi es we' ve done over t he year s. I def i ni t el y 11: 13
4
woul d agr ee t hat t he vast maj or i t y of t he st udi es 11: 13
5
ar e not aski ng f or r eal dol l ar s. 11: 13
6
Q You can' t r emember even one t hat you' ve 11: 13
7
ever done - - out of al l t he conj oi nt anal yses t hat 11: 13
8
you' ve done, you can' t r emember even one, si t t i ng 11: 13
9
her e t oday, wher e t he consumer s used act ual dol l ar s? 11: 13
10
A Act ual l y I can r emember one. 11: 13
11
Q One. I n how many year s you' ve been doi ng 11: 13
12
t hi s, 35, 40? 11: 13
13
A Si nce 1970. 11: 13
14
Q So i n over 40 year s of doi ng t hese 11: 13
15
st udi es, t her e' s one t hat you can r emember wher e 11: 13
16
consumer s used act ual dol l ar s; ot her wi se, i t was 11: 13
17
hypot het i cal t r ansact i ons? 11: 13
18
A Wel l , t he way we addr essed t he r eal i smi s 11: 13
19
t hr ough t he f r ami ng of t he quest i on, not by gi vi ng 11: 13
20
t hemr eal dol l ar s. 11: 13
21
Q And my quest i on, Dr . Wi nd, i s i n over 40 11: 13
22
year s of doi ng t hese conj oi nt anal yses, you can onl y 11: 14
23
r emember one t hat you' ve done wher e consumer s used 11: 14
24
act ual dol l ar s? 11: 14
25
A But act ual dol l ar i s not t he onl y way t o 11: 14
Page 56
1
assur e t he r eal i t y and t he r eal i smof t he t ask as 11: 14
2
opposed t o pl ay money. 11: 14
3
Q Gr eat . So you don' t need t o use act ual 11: 14
4
dol l ar s i n a conj oi nt sur vey t o ensur e t he r eal i t y 11: 14
5
and accur acy of t he t ask and r esul t s, r i ght ? 11: 14
6
A Cor r ect . I di d not say t hat you have t o 11: 14
7
use r eal dol l ar s. 11: 14
8
Q And, i n f act , you' r e not al one i n t hi s. 11: 14
9
I t ' s not as t hough you' r e t he onl y per son out t her e 11: 14
10
who i s not usi ng act ual dol l ar s. I n f act , i t ' s 11: 14
11
ext r emel y r ar e f or anybody t o use act ual dol l ar s i n 11: 14
12
a conj oi nt anal ysi s, r i ght ? 11: 14
13
A Cor r ect . 11: 14
14
Q And despi t e t hat , conj oi nt anal yses ar e 11: 14
15
used, as you sai d, al l t he t i me and ar e a f i xt ur e i n 11: 14
16
t he commer ci al wor l d and r eal - l i f e deci si ons ar e 11: 14
17
based on t hem? 11: 14
18
A Because t he r eal dol l ar i s not t he measur e 11: 14
19
of t he r eal i sm. The measur e of does i t r epr esent 11: 14
20
mar ket r eal i t y and al l ow consumer s t o make 11: 15
21
meani ngf ul deci si ons depends on t he f r ami ng of t he 11: 15
22
quest i on and t he cont ext you' r e pr ovi di ng t hem. 11: 15
23
Q Ri ght . And t he f act t hat r eal dol l ar s ar e 11: 15
24
not used i s not somet hi ng t hat i mpact s t he accur acy 11: 15
25
or r el i abi l i t y of t he st udy? 11: 15
Page 57
1
A Cor r ect . Real dol l ar s i s not t he f act or . 11: 15
2
The r eal f act or i s t he r eal i smof t he f r ami ng of t he 11: 15
3
quest i ons. 11: 15
4
MR. KUWAYTI : We' ve been goi ng about an 11: 15
5
hour . Do you want t o t ake a br eak? 11: 15
6
THE WI TNESS: Real qui ck. 11: 15
7
VI DEO OPERATOR: Thi s ends Vi deocasset t e 11: 15
8
Tape No. 1 of t he November 7, 2012 vi deot aped 11: 15
9
deposi t i on of Dr . J er r y Wi nd. 11: 15
10
We' r e of f t he vi deo r ecor d at 11: 16 a. m. 11: 15
11
( Br i ef r ecess. ) 11: 15
12
VI DEO OPERATOR: Thi s begi ns Vi deocasset t e 11: 29
13
No. 2 of t he November 7, 2012 vi deot aped 11: 29
14
deposi t i on of Dr . J er r y Wi nd. 11: 29
15
We r et ur n t o t he vi deo r ecor d at 11: 29
16
11: 29 a. m. 11: 29
17
BY MR. KUWAYTI : 11: 59
18
Q I f you t ur n t o par agr aph 12 of your exper t 11: 29
19
r epor t i n t hi s case, Dr . Wi nd. 11: 29
20
A ( Wi t ness compl i es. ) 11: 29
21
Q I t i s ent i t l ed Mat er i al s Revi ewed and 11: 29
22
Resear ch Team. 11: 29
23
A Yes. 11: 29
24
Q And i t descr i bes, i t says t hat i n 11: 29
25
appendi x B t o your r epor t you l i st mat er i al s t hat 11: 30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
I3
I4
15
16
I7
I8
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN I16421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)
ejolson@mofo.com
425 Market Street
Telephone: ( 415) 268-7000
Facsimile: ( 415) 268-7522
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
WILLIAM F. LEE
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02I 09
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244I80)
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. , LTD. , a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. , a New York corporation; and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF BRIAN B. HO IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.'S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF ITS RENEWED
MOTION FOR A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Place:
January 30, 20I4
1:30 p.m.
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
DECLARATION OF BRIAN B. HO ISO APPLE'S REPLY ISO RENEWED MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3372565
I, Brian B. Ho, declare as follows:
2 1. I am a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, and counsel for Apple Inc. in the ex
3 parte reexamination proceeding before the USPTO relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 ("the
4 '915 patent"). I make this declaration based on personal knowledge in support of Apple's Reply
5 in Support of Its Renewed Motion for Permanent Injunction.
6 2. I have reviewed Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Emergency Motion to Stay
7 Trial Jury Deliberations, filed in this action on November 20, 2013, which described "requesting
8 an interview" as one of the options available to Apple. (Dkt. 2816 at 1-2 ("Between now and
9 December 26,2013, Apple can take any action a patent-owner may properly take in response to
10 a final Office Action, including (a) filing a response addressing the final Office Action (i.e.,
11 supplemental response per MPEP 714.03(a)), (b) requesting an interview per MPEP 2281 , or (c)
12 filing a notice of appeal per MPEP 2273.").)
13 3. On December 19,2013, on behalf of Apple, I sent the Examiner, via facsimile, a
14 Request for Telephonic Interview and Proposed Interview Agenda ("Request for Interview"),
15 which requested "a telephonic Examiner Interview to discuss the Advisory Action dated
16 November 20, 2013." A true and correct copy of that Request is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
17 4. On January 13, 2014, the Examiner responded to Apple's request for an interview
18 by scheduling an interview for January 16,2014. Also on January 13, 2014, I filed with the
19 USPTO a Proposed Interview Agenda for the scheduled interview, a true and correct copy of
20 which is attached as Exhibit B.
21 5. Reexamination ofthe '915 patent before the USPTO is not yet complete.
22 Although Apple filed a notice of appeal on December 25, 2013, the Examiner may still reopen
23 prosecution even after notice of appeal has been filed, as illustrated in the flowcharts set forth in
24 Section 2201 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP 2201 "). A true and
25 correct copy of MPEP 2201 , which has been annotated to show the current position of the '915
26 reexamination, is attached as Exhibit C.
27
28
DECLARATI ON OF BRIAN B . HO ISO APPLE'S REPLY ISO RENEWED MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CASE No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3372565
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
15th day of January, 2014 at San Francisco, California.
BRIAN B. HO
DECLARATION OF BRIAN B. HO ISO APPLE'S REPLY BRIEF ISO MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
sf-3372565
2

EXHIBIT A
:::Hi[' I IIC1 F'EF'OF'T
YOUR LOGO
YOUR FAX NO.
Dec. 19 2013 11:12AM
Mofo.30TH FL
4152687522
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 915712733707 Dec.19 11:11AM 01'10 SND 03 OK
TO TURN OFF REPCRT, PRESS ' I"ENlJ' 004.
THEN SELECT CFF BY USIJ-6 '+' CR '-'.
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASS I STANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-+H...P1="AX C435-7329) .
MORRISON I FOERSTER
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
MORRISON &: FOI!RSTER LL)>
NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO,
DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
WASHINGTON, D . C.
To:
NAME:
Examiner M. J. Yigdall
FROM:
Brian B. Ho
Number of pages
with cover page:
Comments:
3
TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522
WWW.MOFO.COM
FACSIMILE:
571-273-3707
DATE:
TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, S HANGHAI, HONG KONG
TELEPHONE:
December 19,2013
Please see attached Request for Telephonic Interview and Proposed Interview
Agenda for Control No. 90/012,332.
***********************************************
To ensure COI11Pii ance wilh requirements imposed by the United Slates Internal Revenue ervi ce, Morrison & Foer tor LLP informs you
that, if' any d v i ~ e concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is cont ai ned i1t this focsimilc (including any nnachments), such advice
is not intended or writ1cn to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) uvoiding penalties l!ndcr the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
***********************************************
CAUTION- CONFIDENTIAL
This facsimile contains confidential information that may also be privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for
the addressee); you may not copy, use, or distribute it. If you have received it in error, please advise Morrison & Foerster LLP
immediately by telephone or facsimile and return it promptly by mail.
EX PARTE REEXAMINATION Docket No. 106842803600
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In re Ex Parte Re-Examination of:
U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915
Control No.: 90/012,332
Filed: May 30, 2012
For: APPLICATION PROGRAMMING
INTERFACES FOR SCROLLING
OPERATIONS
Confirmation No.: 5963
Art Unit: 3992
Examiner: M. J. Yigdall
REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC INTERVIEW AND PROPOSED INTERVIEW AGENDA
MS Ex Parte Reexam
Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Patent Owner requests the courtesy of a telephonic Examiner Interview to discuss the Advisory
Action dated November 20, 2013. Ifthe request is granted, Patent Owner proposes scheduling the
interview on a date preferably before the extended due date of December 26, 2013, for response to
the outstanding final Office Action.
Proposed Agenda
In conjunction with the request, Patent Owner proposes the following agenda for the interview:
Introduction of the Examiner(s)
Introduction of attendees for Patent Owner:
o Jason Skinder, Senior Patent Counsel for Apple, Inc.
o Peter Yim, Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP
o Brian Ho, Of Counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP
sf-3366389
Control No.: 90/012,332 2 Docket No. 106842803600
The significance of the Klemmer and Nieh declarations in the determination of the broadest
reasonable construction of the distinguishing limitation
Any differences in the views of the Examiners as expressed in the finaJ Office Action, the
interview of October 17, 2013, and the Advisory Action
Request for Interview
Patent Owner requests the courtesy of a personal interview to discuss the issues outlined
above. Patent Owner believes that these issues are highly pertinent to the patentability of the claims
under reexamination and disposal of the reexamination. Moreover, Patent Owner believes that these
issues have not been fully discussed on the record. Accordingly, Patent Owner believes that the
requested interview meets the guidelines set forth in MPEP 713.09 for interviews after final
rejection.
Dated: December 19, 2013
sf-3366389
Respectfully submitted,
By /Brian B. Hoi
Brian B. Ho
Registration No.: 60,199
425 Market Street
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

EXHIBIT B
PTO/SB/21 (07-09)
Approved for use through 07/31/2012. OMB 0651-0031
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
u d h p n er t e aperwor k R d A f1995 e uct1on eta , no persons are requ1re d d II f. f I . d' I I'd OMB I b to res on to a co ect1on o 1n ormat1on un ess 1t ISPiavs a va 1 contra num er.
Application Number
90/012,332
TRANSMITTAL
Filing Date
May 30,2012
FORM
First Named Inventor
Andrew PLATZER
Art Unit
3992
Examiner Name
M. J. Yigdall
(to be used for all correspondence after initial filing)
Total Number of Pages in This Submission I 5
Attorney Docket Number
106842803600
ENCLOSURES (Check all that apply)
D Fee Transmittal Form D Drawing(s)
DAfter Allowance Communication
to TC
D Fee Attached D Licensing-related Papers
D Appeal Communication to Board
of Appeals and Interferences
D Amendment/Reply DPetition
D Appeal Communication to TC
(Appeal Notice, Brief, Reply Brief)
DAfter Final
D Petition to Convert to a
Provisional Application
D Proprietary Information
D Allidavits/declaration(s)
D Power of Attorney, Revocation
Change of Correspondence Address
D Status Letter
D Extension of Time Request D Terminal Disclaimer
[;]Other Enclosure(s) (please
Identify below):
D Express Abandonment Request D Request lor Refund
Proposed Interview Agenda For
Scheduled Telephonic Interview (2
D Information Disclosure Statement D CD, Number of CD(s)
Pages)
Certificate of Service (1 Page)
D Certified Copy of Priority
D Landscape Table on CD
Certificate of Electronic Filing under
Document(s)
37 CFR 1.8(1 Page)
D Reply to Missing Parts/
Incomplete Application
I
Remarks I
D Reply to Missing Parts under
37 CFR 1.52 or 1.53
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT
Firm Name
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (20872)
Signature
/Brian B. Ho/
Printed name
Brian B. Ho
Date
January 13, 2014
I Reg. No.
160,199
I hereby certify that this paper is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in accordance with 1.6(a)(4).
Dated: January 13,2014 Electronic Signature for Candida Rubalcaba- Rivera: /Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera/
sf-3372479
I hereby certify that this paper is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing
system in accordance with 37 CFR t .6(a)(4).
Dated: January t3, 20t4
Docket No. 106842803600
(EX PARTE REEXAMINATION)
Electronic Signature for Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera: /Candida Rubalcaba- Rivera/
In re Ex Parte Reexamination of:
Control No.: 90/012,332
Filed: May 30, 2012
OPERATIONS
Art Unit: 3992
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
MS Ex Parte Reexam
P.O. Box 1450
Pursuant to 37 C.P.R. 1.248, the undersigned, on behalf of Patent Owner, hereby certifies
that a copy of the following documents:
1. Transmittal (1 page)
2. Proposed Interview Agenda for Scheduled Interview (2 page)
3. Certificate of Electronic Filing under 37 CPR 1.8 (1 page)
were served on the Third Party Requester at the following address:
Joseph J. Richetti
BRYAN CAVE LLP
1290 A venue of the Americas
New York, New York 10104
provided for in 1.33(c) via first class mail on January 13, 2014.
sf-3372495
By /Brian B. Hoi
Brian B. Ho
Registration No. 60,199
425 Market Street
Application No. (if known): 90/012,332 Attorney Docket No.: 1 06842803600
Certificate of Electronic Filing Under 37 C.F.R. 1.8
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.6(a)(4):
P.O. Box 1450
on January 13, 2014
Date
/Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera/
Signature
Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera
Typed or printed name of person signing Certificate
N/A ( 415) 268-7000
Registration Number, if applicable Telephone Number
Note: Each paper must have its own certificate of mailing, or this certificate must identify
each submitted paper.
Transmittal (1 Page)
Proposed Interview Agenda for Scheduled Interview (2 pages)
Certificate of Service (1 page)
sf-3372494
I hereby certify that this paper is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing
system in accordance with 37 CFR t .6(a)(4).
Dated: January t3, 20t4
Electronic Signature for Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera: /Candida Rubalcaba- Rivera/
Docket No. 106842803600
(EX PARTE REEXAMINATION)
In re Ex Parte Re-Examination of:
Control No.: 90/012,332
Filed: May 30, 2012
OPERATIONS
Art Unit: 3992
PROPOSED INTERVIEW AGENDA FOR SCHEDULED TELEPHONIC INTERVIEW
MS Ex Parte Reexam
P.O. Box 1450
Patent Owner thanks the Examiners for agreeing to the telephonic interview scheduled for
Thursday, January 16, 2014, at 3:30PM (EST). As requested, Patent Owner's representatives
will call SPE Pathak at (571) 272-5509.
Patent Owner proposes the following agenda for the interview.
Proposed Agenda
In conjunction with the request, Patent Owner proposes the following agenda for the interview:
Introduction of the Examiners
Introduction of attendees for Patent Owner:
o Jason Skinder, Senior Patent Counsel for Apple, Inc.
sf-3372452
Control No.: 90/012,332 2 Docket No. 106842803600
o Peter Yim, Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP
o Brian Ho, Partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP
The significance of the Klemmer and Nieh declarations in the determination of the broadest
reasonable construction of the distinguishing limitation
Any differences in the views of the Examiners as expressed in the final Office Action, the
interview of October 17, 2013, and the Advisory Action
Dated: January 13, 2014
sf-3372452
Respectfully submitted,
By /Brian B. Hoi
Brian B. Ho
Registration No.: 60,199
425 Market Street
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
EFSID: 17900598
Application Number: 90012332
International Application Number:
Confirmation Number: 5963
Title of Invention: APPLICATION PROGRAMMING INTERFACES FOR SCROLLING OPERATIONS
First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: 7844915
Customer Number: 20872
Filer: Brian B. He/Candida Rubalcaba-Rivera
Filer Authorized By: Brian B. Ho
Attorney Docket Number: P4895USREX1/106842803600
Receipt Date: 13-JAN-2014
Filing Date: 30-MAY-2012
TimeStamp: 19:06:18
Application Type: Reexam (Patent Owner)
Payment information:
Submitted with Payment
I no
File Listing:
Document
Document Description File Name
File Size( Bytes)/ Multi Pages
Number Message Digest Part /.zip (ifappl.)
1 Transmittal Letter
1 06842803600_ Transmittai_Re
quest_for_lnterview.pdf
25650
no 1
efbb 14a0392a 1 a460216d8fccbb84df6a0cf
914c
Warnings:
Information:
2 Reexam Certificate of Service
1 0684-2803600_Certificate_of_
Service.pdf
20090
no 1
4a24d5e07dcfdbbf594e5663fa63f8f35a39
742
Warnings:
Information:
3 Reexam Certificate of Mailing
1 06842803600_Certificate_of_
Electronic_Filing.pdf
13173
no 1
b54b4a85 d4cba69487 615 5 fb565 a9fd eaaS
1db2e
Warnings:
Information:
1 06842803600_Proposed_lnter 25396
4 Reexam Miscellaneous Incoming Letter view_Agenda_for_Scheduled_l no 2
nterview.pdf d11eaa6d99056c3ec8ffe5591 b5e2dd5864
9425b
Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes) 84309
This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
New Under 35 U.S.C. 111
If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
National Stage of an International under 35 U.S.C. 371
If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
New International Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 181 0), a Notification of the International Application Number
and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/1 OS) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
the application.

EXHIBIT C
CITATION OF PRIOR ART AND EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF PATENTS 2201
2200-3 Rev. 7, J uly 2008
**>
Ex Parte Reexamination - PROCEDURE PRIOR TO APPEAL
(applicable rule section)
Examiner reopens
Prosecution?
Substantial
New Question?
(1.515(a))
Petition Filed
Under 1.515(c)?
Patent owner
responds to
Office action ?
Yes
No Response
Examiner
issues action.
Is it a final
rejection ?
Yes
No ; reexam
is denied
Pat. Owner paper after final rejection (1.116)
Yes
Petition
Denied
Examiner considers the paper (1.116)
No
No Response
To Final
Rejection
Notice of Intent to Issue
Reexamination Certificate
Yes
No
Patent Owner files Notice of Appeal (41.31)
Examiner issues final rejection (1.113)
Patent Owner response after non-final action (1.111)
Examiner issues Office action (1.104)
Request for Reexamination filed (1.510)
Reexamination ordered (1.525)
Patent owner
statement?
Requester
repl y ?
Pat. owner statement (1.530(b) & (c))
No Amendment
After Final
No
All Claims Found
Patentable
No
Yes
No
Requester petition to Director of the
Office to review whether a substantial
new question exists (1.515(c))
Yes
Third party requester repl y (1.535)
Reexamination Is Terminated
Petition
Granted
Yes
Notice of request
Published in O.G. (1.11(c))
Panel review conducted
at each stage
of examination,
other than for non-merits
actions such as
notices of informality
or incomplete response.
Appeal conference is
panel review prior to
Examiners Answer
New examiner
assigned
2201 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
Rev. 7, J uly 2008 2200-4
Flowchart ExParteReexamination- ProcedureFromTimeof Appeal
<
Examiners Answer
Issued? ** Where examiner
changes position to add
new ground of rejection;
prosecution must be
reopened
Patent Owner files Notice of Appeal (41.31)
Ex Parte Reexamination PROCEDURE FROM TIME OF APPEAL
(applicable rule section)
Patent Owner files Appeal Brief (41.37)
Appeal brief not filed
Yes**
No
Appeal Conference
Examiners Answer (41.39(a))
Patent Owner files Repl y Brief (41.41(a))
Go to flowchart
(procedure prior to appeal):
on previous chart
Exr. Issues Action.
Is it a final rejecti on?
Acknowledge Repl y Brief (41.43(a)(1))
Office Action
Reopening
Prosecution
(41.43(a)(1))
Board Decision
(41.50)
Patent Owner
response under
1.111 or 1.113.
**
Patent Owner
initiates new appeal
Patent Owner Takes
Further Action
Examiner affirmed at
least in part; no new
ground
Yes
Patent Owner requests
rehearing (41.50(b)(2))
Patent Owner appeal to CAFC (1.301).
For some reexaminations***, option
to file appeal As Ci vil action (1.303)
*** i.e., where the
reexamination was filed
prior to November 29, 1999
Examiner reversed
New ground of rejection (41.50(b)) Patent Owner
amendment
and/or
Showing of facts
See 41.50(b)(1)
41.50(b)(2)
Granted Denied
Patent Owner Takes
Further Action
No
Yes
No
Go to Board
Decision
Court Decision
'915 Patent reexam
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
3 RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
4 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)
ejolson@mofo.com
5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: ( 415) 268-7000
7 Facsimile: ( 415) 268-7522
8
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.
WILLIAM F. LEE
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 2441 80)
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
10
11
12
13
14
SAN JOSE DIVISION
15 APPLE INC. , a California corporation,
16 Plaintiff,
17
v.
18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
19 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
20 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF BJ WATROUS
IN SUPPORT OF APPLE'S
RENEWED MOTION FOR A
DECLARATION OP DJ WATROUS I N SUPPORT Or APPLE' S RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT I NJUNCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l, BJ Watrous, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am currently employed by Apple Inc. as Vice President and Chieflntellectual
Property Counsel. I have been employed by Apple continuously since June 2011.
2. I have responsibility for Apple's intellectual property strategy worldwide,
including with respect to (a) development and management of Apple's portfolio of patents and
other intellectual property, (b) due diligence for intellectual property aspects of potential business
transactions, (c) non-litigation enforcement of Apple's intellectual property, (d) intellectual
property issues arising out of Apple' s involvement in standard-setting bodies, (e) patent
acquisitions, and (f) patent licensing.
3. I submit this declaration in support of Apple's Renewed Motion for a Permanent
Injunction and to respond to the Declaration of Kenneth Korea dated January 9, 2014.
4. I participated in each of the meetings discussed by Mr. Korea in his declaration,
namely, meetings held on January 14, 2013 and on July 17 and 18, 2013. Mr. Korea states that
Apple made license offers at these meetings that did not include an provision. Mr.
Korea's description of Apple' s offers is incorrect. These discussions with Samsung have
consistently included limits to both the scope of any license and a prohibition against cloni ng
Apple products.
1 declare under the pain and penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: January 16, 2014
BJ Watrous
DECLARATION OF BJ W J\TROUS lN SUPPORT Or APPLE'S RENEWEO MOTION FOR A PERMANENT l NJUNCTION
1

14-01-16 Apple Reply in Support of Permanent Injunction Against Samsung

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

14-01-16 Apple Reply in Support of Permanent Injunction Against Samsung

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen