Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

May 3, 2018

APPLE INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE: DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES RE: DKT. NO. 3661

          LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge.

         In the parties' joint pretrial conference statement, Samsung raises a range of disputed evidentiary issues, which Samsung numbered 4 through 23. ECF No. 3661 at 30-36. Apple responds to these disputed evidentiary issues in the joint pretrial conference statement. See Id. at 23-29.

         With respect to the following two issues, Samsung shall submit supplemental briefs of no more than two pages for each of the two topics below by 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2018. Apple shall file responses of no more than two pages per topic by 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2018.

Samsung Disputed Evidentiary Issues Nos. 6 and 8: Whether Apple can assert that a jury found any Samsung phone updated to an alternative design for the applications menu to infringe the D'305 patent. Samsung shall identify in its supplemental brief when it first raised the issue of updated application menus.
Samsung Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 17: Whether Samsung may introduce at trial the prior testimony of Mr. Bressler (and Dr. Kare) regarding infringement where the Court relied on that testimony, among other things, as supporting the need for a new trial. Samsung shall specify whether it envisions using Mr. Bressler's deposition testimony or Mr. Bressler's prior trial testimony.

         In addition, in order to lessen the burden on the parties and the Court during trial, the Court finds that some of Samsung's other disputed evidentiary issues are appropriate for resolution without further briefing. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

         1. Samsung's Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 4 - Experts Who Previously Testified

         Samsung appears to dispute whether Apple may call Dr. Singh and Dr. Balakrishnan, two computer science experts who testified at the previous two trials in this case about the same two Apple utility patents at issue in the upcoming trial. Apple did not disclose these experts on December 15, 2017 at the time Apple disclosed Dr. Kare, Mr. Ball, and Ms. Davis. Because the Court only reopened discovery related to the article of manufacture and related damages issues, see ECF No. 3538 at 3:22-4:1, there was no need for the parties to disclose experts who would testify as to other issues. Such experts were covered by the Groundhog Day rule and no additional discovery was allowed related to them in any event. Apple will be allowed to call Dr. Singh and Dr. Balakrishnan, both of whom were previously disclosed, previously testified, and whose testimony is governed by the Groundhog Day rule.

         2. Samsung's Disputed Evidentiary Issues Nos. 5, 7 - White Phones

         The Court understands Samsung to be raising the white phone issue for the purpose of preserving the issue for appeal. The Court already ruled in its order on the parties' Daubert motions that Samsung “has waived its argument that the totals in JX1500 include sales of noninfringing white phones.” ECF No. 3645 at 46. Samsung will not be allowed to present evidence related to white phones at trial.

         3. Samsung's Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 9 - Galaxy Note 7 Batteries, Bribery

         Samsung seeks to prevent Apple from mentioning or seeking to introduce into evidence any negative reporting “related to Samsung or its employees that is outside the scope of the specific issues to be decided by the jury, including regarding the batteries of Galaxy Note 7 devices or bribery charges brought against a former Samsung executive.” ECF No. 3661 at 30-31. Information related to the Galaxy Note 7, which is not at issue in the instant retrial, as well as bribery charges against a former Samsung executive are not relevant to the instant retrial. The Court will exclude such evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value would be substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice to Samsung and wasting time.

         4. Samsung's Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 10 - Dr. Kare's “Marketing Opinions”

         In its Daubert motions, Samsung sought to preclude Dr. Kare and Mr. Ball from offering opinions related to consumer behavior or marketing because such areas were outside Dr. Kare's area of expertise. The Court noted in its Daubert order that “Samsung does not identify any particular part of either Dr. Kare's reports that constitutes a marketing opinion.” ECF No. 3645 at 23. Samsung now points out that the Court inadvertently overlooked ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.