Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant 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 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 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 JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation, 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.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

23 24 25 26 27 28
APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND MOTION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Apple Inc. (Apple) moves the Court for an order compelling Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) to produce for deposition, by no later than November 2, 2012, the following expert declarants: Yoram Wind, Tlin Erdem, Samuel Lucente, and Stephen Gray. Apple seeks this discovery on an expedited basis to allow Apple sufficient time to include relevant portions of the testimony in its reply brief before the close of post-trial briefing. This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities; the Declaration of Richard Hung in Support of Apples Motion to Compel Deposition of Samsung Declarants and the exhibits attached thereto; and such other argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by the Court. Counsel for Apple met and conferred with counsel for Samsung before filing this motion, but were not able to resolve the issues raised herein. (Hung Decl. Exs. 1-2.) The parties were able to agree on a shortened briefing schedule for this motion. (Id. Exs. 3-4.) RELIEF REQUESTED Apple seeks an order allowing the depositions of four Samsung experts (Dr. Wind, Dr. Erdem, Mr. Lucente, and Mr. Gray) on an expedited basis, to be completed by November 2, 2012. These experts either were not disclosed during expert discovery or put forward opinions not disclosed during expert discovery in declarations submitted on October 19, 2012. MEMORANDUM

22 23 24 of post-trial briefing, Samsung submitted seven new expert declarations in opposition to Apples 25 post-trial motions. Two come from experts never previously disclosed in this action. Two more 26 involve opinions and factual claims not previously disclosed to Apple, including opinions 27 regarding an additional patent, allegedly new products, and allegedly new software and interfaces, 28
APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

I.

INTRODUCTION Nearly six months after the close of expert discovery and just three weeks before the close

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

none of which was disclosed before October. Samsung could and should have disclosed these experts and opinions before the end of expert discovery. Samsung did not, and should not gain an improper advantage in post-trial briefing as a result. Apple therefore requests depositions of four of these seven expert witnesses (Dr. Wind, Dr. Erdem, Mr. Lucente, and Mr. Gray). II. ARGUMENT A. Good Cause Exists to Require Expert Discovery Due to Samsungs Belated Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Opinions During Post-Trial Proceedings

The Court may permit discovery at any time for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Although expert discovery closed on April 27, 2012 (see Dkt. No. 187), Samsung has introduced 9 new experts and new expert opinions in declarations accompanying its two oppositions to Apples 10 post-trial motions. Good cause exists when a deadline cannot reasonably be met despite the 11 diligence of the party seeking the discovery. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 12 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The untimely disclosure of expert witnesses and expert opinions 13 provides grounds to permit additional discovery. See Kiser v. Boeing, 163 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D. Kan. 14 1995) (compelling further expert discovery and inviting plaintiff to file sanctions motion after 15 defendant disclosed new expert for the first time in opposition to summary judgment). As 16 explained below, good cause exists to permit the four depositions Apple seeks. 17 18 19 despite ample opportunity and reason to do so earlier. Dr. Wind is a marketing expert who 20 criticizes a conjoint survey from Dr. Hauser. Dr. Erdem is a business professor who seeks to 21 rebut Mr. Musikas and Dr. Hausers testimony and declarations about the effect of Apples 22 technology on demand. Apple has never received an expert report from either of them. Apple 23 reserves its objections to the late disclosure and the belated use of their opinions in the opposition, 24 but Apple is entitled, pending the resolution of those objections, to depose each proposed expert. 25 Dr. Wind. Samsung filed a 165-page declaration by Dr. Wind in opposition to Apples 26 motion for a permanent injunction. (Dkt. No. 2054-4.) All of the opinions in the declaration 27 respond to Dr. Hausers conjoint survey in his March 22, 2012 expert report. (See, e.g., id. 1 (I 28
APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1.

Samsung Did Not Timely Disclose Dr. Wind or Dr. Erdem

Samsung did not disclose Dr. Wind or Dr. Erdem in this action until three weeks ago

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page4 of 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

was asked by counsel for Samsung to evaluate the Expert Report of John R. Hauser (the Hauser Report) and the conjoint study discussed therein . . . .). Samsung previously disclosed an expert to rebut Dr. Hausers opinions and criticize his survey Dr. Ramamirtham Sukumar. Dr. Sukumar provided a rebuttal expert report and was deposed. (Hung Decl. 2.) He later testified at trial on a different subject. (Trial Tr. 3092:103095:15.) He has also supplied a declaration in connection with Samsungs oppositions. (Dkt. No. 2054-3.) Apple does not seek Dr. Sukumars deposition. Samsung provides no reason why Dr. Wind was not disclosed in April, why his opinions are immune from the discovery schedule, or why he is immune from discovery now. Samsung is not entitled to rely on an expert when Apple has had no opportunity for discovery and no access to the new materials that he reviewed or created. Dr. Wind and his declaration should ultimately be excluded, but until the Court rules on Apples objection, Apple is entitled to depose Dr. Wind to expose errors and weaknesses in his analysis. Dr. Erdem. Like Dr. Wind, Dr. Erdem filed a 62-page declaration discussing an issue that was identified well before March 2012 the scope and strength of the evidence that Apples utility patents affect consumer demand for smartphones. (Dkt. No. 2054-1.) Apple disclosed both Terry Musika and John Hauser to discuss this topic on March 22, 2012, both of whom testified on this issue at trial. (Trial Tr. 1914:3-1916:13 (Dr. Hausers testimony regarding conjoint study); id. at 2075:24-2083:3 (Mr. Musikas testimony regarding demand for Apples IP).) Dr. Erdems current declaration is a rebuttal to the opinions of both experts. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 2054-1 10-11, 52 (commenting on Dr. Hausers study) and 53-58 (commenting on Mr. Musikas opinions regarding demand).) Consistent with the Courts scheduling order, Samsung previously disclosed separate experts, Dr. Sukumar and Mr. Wagner, to address the identical issue and provided reports from them. (Hung Decl. 3.) Both were deposed. (Id.) Mr. Wagner testified about this topic at trial. (Trial Tr. 3045:10-3046:10.) Both Mr. Wagner and Dr. Sukumar submitted declarations with the opposition. Again, there is no justification for Samsungs violation of the Courts scheduling order or its attempt to circumvent the expert discovery process, but at a minimum, Apple should be
APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page5 of 6

1 2 3 4

provided the opportunity to depose Dr. Erdem to expose errors and weaknesses in her analysis. 2. Samsung Failed to Disclose Mr. Lucentes Opinions Regarding the D677 Patent and Alleged Design-Arounds of the D305 Patent

Mr. Lucente is not new to this case, but his new declaration goes far beyond the scope of any prior disclosure by opining regarding the D677 Patent and alleged design-arounds for the 5 D305 Patent. Apple should have an opportunity to test his opinions on these topics. 6 Mr. Lucente previously served an opening expert report on March 22, 2012 and a rebuttal 7 expert report on April 16, 2012. (Hung Decl. 4.) Both were limited to the D790, D305, and 8 D334 patents. (Id.) None included the D677 patent. (Id.) He was deposed on those opinions in 9 April. (Id.) He was included on Samsungs witness list, but he was not called at trial. (Id.) 10 Now Mr. Lucente offers entirely new opinions regarding the D677 patent (see Dkt. No. 11 2057 12-21), none of which was previously disclosed to Apple. Apple is entitled to a 12 deposition to test these previously undisclosed opinions. 13 Further, Mr. Lucentes declaration contains previously undisclosed factual claims and 14 opinions about alleged design-arounds of the D305 patent (including an alleged design-around 15 that Samsung has not yet disclosed to Apple). (See id. 22-30.) These subjects were not 16 addressed in his prior report or deposition, and Mr. Lucente claims that he is relying on 17 information that was not (or could not have been) obtained until after trial and that has not been 18 provided to Apple. (See, e.g., id. 15.) While Apple disagrees and believes that any applicable 19 opinions should have been disclosed during expert discovery, Apple is entitled to test these new 20 opinions in a deposition. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. Samsung Failed to Disclose Mr. Grays Current Opinions Regarding Alleged Non-Infringement Based on Allegedly New Source Code

Mr. Grays circumstances mirror Mr. Lucentes. He was disclosed and provided prior expert reports. Nonetheless, Mr. Grays October 19 declaration contains an entirely new discussion regarding an allegedly new version of the source code. (Dkt. No. 2054-2 31-45, 50-55.) Based on his review of this new code and work done with an allegedly new version of a Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) product, Mr. Gray opines in a conclusory fashion that this product and this source code do not infringe the 915 or 163 utility patents.
APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082 Filed10/23/12 Page6 of 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

Apple has not been given the new source code or the new version of the phone. (Hung Decl. 5.) It had no opportunity to test the positions stated by Mr. Gray during expert discovery. The information was not disclosed in connection with Mr. Grays testimony at trial. (Id.) Samsung is not entitled to shield Mr. Grays new opinions from discovery. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Apple requests an order requiring Samsung to produce Dr. Wind, Dr. Erdem, Mr. Lucente, and Mr. Gray for depositions of four hours per person on an expedited basis, to be completed by November 2, 2012. Dated: October 23, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By:

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.

APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS sf- 3209283Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-1 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

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 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., 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. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF RICHARD HUNG IN SUPPORT OF APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HUNG DECL. ISO APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK sf-3209662

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-1 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 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

I, RICHARD HUNG, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple Inc.

(Apple). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true. I make this declaration in support of Apples Motion to Compel Depositions of Samsung Declarants. 2. Dr. Sukumar previously submitted an expert report to rebut the opinions of Dr.

John Hauser on April 16, 2012. Dr. Sukumar was also deposed regarding the contents of his rebuttal report on April 25, 2012. 3. Samsung previously disclosed separate experts, Dr. Sukumar and Mr. Wagner, to

address the same issue addressed in Dr. Erdems declarationnamely, the scope and strength of the evidence that Apples utility patents affect consumer demand for smartphones. Both Dr. Sukumar and Mr. Wagner previously submitted expert reports addressing this issue on April 16, 2012. 4. Mr. Lucente previously served an opening expert report on March 22, 2012 and a

rebuttal expert report on April 16, 2012. Both were limited to the D790, D305, and D334 patents. None included the D677 patent. He was deposed on those opinions on May 9, 2012. He was included on various witness lists submitted by Samsung, but he was not called at trial. 5. Mr. Gray opines in his declaration that an allegedly new version of a Galaxy S II

(T-Mobile) product does not infringe the 915 or 163 utility patents. (Dkt. No. 2054-2 31-45, 50-55.) Apple has not been given the new source code or the new version of the phone. It had no opportunity to test the positions stated by Mr. Gray during expert discovery in April or May 2012. The information was also not disclosed prior to Mr. Grays July 17, 2012 deposition or in connection with Mr. Grays testimony at trial. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email I sent to Vicki

Maroulis and Rob Becher dated October 22, 2012. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an email I received from

Vicki Maroulis on October 23, 2012 in response to my October 22nd email.

HUNG DECL. ISO APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK sf-3209662

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-1 Filed10/23/12 Page3 of 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

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of an email I sent to Vicki

Maroulis dated October 23, 2012 in response to her email from the same day. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of an email I received from

Vicki Maroulis dated October 23, 2012 in response to my email from the same day. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of October, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

/s/ Richard Hung Richard Hung

HUNG DECL. ISO APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK sf-3209662

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-1 Filed10/23/12 Page4 of 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

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE I, Michael A. Jacobs, 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 Richard Hung has concurred in this filing. Dated: October 23, 2012 /s/ Michael A. Jacobs

HUNG DECL. ISO APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK sf-3209662

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-2 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 2

Exhibit 1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-2 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 2

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Hung, Richard S. J. Monday, October 22, 2012 10:38 AM victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com; 'robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com' AppleMoFo; ''Samsung v. Apple' (Samsungv.Apple@quinnemanuel.com)'; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts Follow up Flagged

Vicki&Rob: SamsungsoppositionsfiledFridayincludedeclarationsfromnewlydisclosedexperts,newandpreviouslyundisclosed subjectsforpriorexperts,andnewfactualclaimsbyexperts.Asaresult,AppleintendstotakethedepositionsofJerry Wind,TulinErdeem,SamLucente,StephenGray,andMichaelWagner. PleaserespondbynoontomorrowwithSamsungsunconditionalcommitmenttoprovidedepositionsofthese individualsbyNovember1.Ifwedonotreceivethiscommitmentbythistime,wewillseekexpeditedrelieffromthe Courttotakethesedepositions.InlightofthecurrentNovember9deadlineforreplies,delayisnotanoption. Thefollowingisaproposedscheduleforthedepositions: JerryWind,October29,2012,Philadelphia TulinErdeem,October30,NewYork MichaelWagner,November1,SanFrancisco StephenGray,October29,SanFrancisco SamLucente,October30,SanFrancisco Rich

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-3 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 3

Exhibit 2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-3 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 3

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Victoria Maroulis <victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com> Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:21 PM Hung, Richard S. J.; Robert Becher AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Rich, Samsung opposes Apples request for depositions of its experts. The Courts post-trial schedule does not contemplate depositions. If Apple insists on burdening the Court with motion practice, Samsung agrees to brief this matter on shortened schedule and proposes that Apple file its motion today and that Samsungs response be due on Monday, October 29. Vicki

Victoria Maroulis Partner,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5022 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: Hung, Richard S. J. [mailto:RHung@mofo.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:38 AM To: Victoria Maroulis; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Vicki&Rob: SamsungsoppositionsfiledFridayincludedeclarationsfromnewlydisclosedexperts,newandpreviouslyundisclosed subjectsforpriorexperts,andnewfactualclaimsbyexperts.Asaresult,AppleintendstotakethedepositionsofJerry Wind,TulinErdeem,SamLucente,StephenGray,andMichaelWagner. PleaserespondbynoontomorrowwithSamsungsunconditionalcommitmenttoprovidedepositionsofthese individualsbyNovember1.Ifwedonotreceivethiscommitmentbythistime,wewillseekexpeditedrelieffromthe Courttotakethesedepositions.InlightofthecurrentNovember9deadlineforreplies,delayisnotanoption.

1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-3 Filed10/23/12 Page3 of 3

Thefollowingisaproposedscheduleforthedepositions: JerryWind,October29,2012,Philadelphia TulinErdeem,October30,NewYork MichaelWagner,November1,SanFrancisco StephenGray,October29,SanFrancisco SamLucente,October30,SanFrancisco Rich

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-4 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 3

Exhibit 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-4 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 3

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Hung, Richard S. J. Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:02 PM Victoria Maroulis; Robert Becher AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Vicki, WeproposethatSamsungsresponsebedueonFridayatnoon,sothattheCourthasampletimetoconsiderandrule onourrequest. Aswewillbefilingourmotiontonight,pleaseletusknowifthisresponsedeadlineisacceptable. Rich

Richard S.J. Hung Morrison & Foerster LLP rhung@mofo.com (415) 268-7602 From: Victoria Maroulis [mailto:victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:21 PM To: Hung, Richard S. J.; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Rich, Samsung opposes Apples request for depositions of its experts. The Courts post-trial schedule does not contemplate depositions. If Apple insists on burdening the Court with motion practice, Samsung agrees to brief this matter on shortened schedule and proposes that Apple file its motion today and that Samsungs response be due on Monday, October 29. Vicki

Victoria Maroulis Partner,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5022 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-4 Filed10/23/12 Page3 of 3

From: Hung, Richard S. J. [mailto:RHung@mofo.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:38 AM To: Victoria Maroulis; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Vicki&Rob: SamsungsoppositionsfiledFridayincludedeclarationsfromnewlydisclosedexperts,newandpreviouslyundisclosed subjectsforpriorexperts,andnewfactualclaimsbyexperts.Asaresult,AppleintendstotakethedepositionsofJerry Wind,TulinErdeem,SamLucente,StephenGray,andMichaelWagner. PleaserespondbynoontomorrowwithSamsungsunconditionalcommitmenttoprovidedepositionsofthese individualsbyNovember1.Ifwedonotreceivethiscommitmentbythistime,wewillseekexpeditedrelieffromthe Courttotakethesedepositions.InlightofthecurrentNovember9deadlineforreplies,delayisnotanoption. Thefollowingisaproposedscheduleforthedepositions: JerryWind,October29,2012,Philadelphia TulinErdeem,October30,NewYork MichaelWagner,November1,SanFrancisco StephenGray,October29,SanFrancisco SamLucente,October30,SanFrancisco Rich

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. --------------------------------------------------------------------2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-5 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 4

Exhibit 4

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-5 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 4

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Victoria Maroulis <victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com> Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:45 PM Victoria Maroulis; Hung, Richard S. J.; Robert Becher AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service'; Susan R. Estrich; Derek Shaffer RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

IshouldaddthatthisproposedscheduleispremisedonApplewaivingreplyandoralargumentaswehavedonewith severalmotionstoshorten.Pleaseconfirm.Thanks.
From: Victoria Maroulis Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:41 PM To: 'Hung, Richard S. J.'; Robert Becher Cc: 'AppleMoFo'; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service'; Susan R. Estrich; Derek Shaffer Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Rich,wecando6pmFridaytoavoidbriefingthemotiontoshorten.Pleaseconfirmthatthisworksandthatwellhave astipulatedschedule.
From: Hung, Richard S. J. [mailto:RHung@mofo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 6:02 PM To: Victoria Maroulis; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Vicki, WeproposethatSamsungsresponsebedueonFridayatnoon,sothattheCourthasampletimetoconsiderandrule onourrequest. Aswewillbefilingourmotiontonight,pleaseletusknowifthisresponsedeadlineisacceptable. Rich

Richard S.J. Hung Morrison & Foerster LLP rhung@mofo.com (415) 268-7602 From: Victoria Maroulis [mailto:victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:21 PM To: Hung, Richard S. J.; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Rich, Samsung opposes Apples request for depositions of its experts. The Courts post-trial schedule does not contemplate depositions. If Apple insists on burdening the Court with motion practice, Samsung agrees to brief
1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-5 Filed10/23/12 Page3 of 4 this matter on shortened schedule and proposes that Apple file its motion today and that Samsungs response be due on Monday, October 29. Vicki

Victoria Maroulis Partner,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5022 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: Hung, Richard S. J. [mailto:RHung@mofo.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:38 AM To: Victoria Maroulis; Robert Becher Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service' Subject: Apple v. Samsung (11-cv-1846) -- Depositions of Samsung's experts

Vicki&Rob: SamsungsoppositionsfiledFridayincludedeclarationsfromnewlydisclosedexperts,newandpreviouslyundisclosed subjectsforpriorexperts,andnewfactualclaimsbyexperts.Asaresult,AppleintendstotakethedepositionsofJerry Wind,TulinErdeem,SamLucente,StephenGray,andMichaelWagner. PleaserespondbynoontomorrowwithSamsungsunconditionalcommitmenttoprovidedepositionsofthese individualsbyNovember1.Ifwedonotreceivethiscommitmentbythistime,wewillseekexpeditedrelieffromthe Courttotakethesedepositions.InlightofthecurrentNovember9deadlineforreplies,delayisnotanoption. Thefollowingisaproposedscheduleforthedepositions: JerryWind,October29,2012,Philadelphia TulinErdeem,October30,NewYork MichaelWagner,November1,SanFrancisco StephenGray,October29,SanFrancisco SamLucente,October30,SanFrancisco Rich

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-5 Filed10/23/12 Page4 of 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/ ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-6 Filed10/23/12 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant 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 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3209777

APPLE INC., a California corporation, 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.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLES MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2082-6 Filed10/23/12 Page2 of 2

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. (Apple) filed a Motion to Compel Depositions of Samsung Declarants on October 23, 2012. Samsung filed an opposition to the motion on October 26, 2012. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court GRANTS Apples Motion to Compel Depositions of Samsung Declarants as follows: 1. Samsung shall produce each of the following persons for a deposition of not more

than four hours no later than November 2, 2012: 2. Dr. Yoram (Jerry) Wind Dr. Tlin Erdem Mr. Samuel Lucente Mr. Stephen Gray At least 36 hours prior to the deposition, Samsung shall produce any materials

reviewed or used by each of the foregoing persons in preparation of the declarations that has not already been produced by a party. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________ Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF SAMSUNG DECLARANTS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3209777