1990 - Samsung Mot for JNOV

1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER

PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION WITH JURORS

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) [email protected] Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) [email protected] Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) [email protected] 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009) [email protected] Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) [email protected] 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. 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 SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS Date: December 6, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1990 Filed09/21/12 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

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER


Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5, and General Order No. 62, Defendants Samsung

Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications

America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby bring this administrative motion for an order to

seal:

1. Highlighted portions of Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a

Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 50 and 59 (“Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion”);

2. The Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of Samsung’s Rule 50 and 59 Motion

(“Estrich JMOL Declaration”);

3. Exhibits A-O to the Estrich JMOL Declaration; and

4. Exhibits 13, 14, 18, 19, and 28 to the Declaration of John Pierce in Support of

Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion;

and for an order prohibiting the parties from any further communication with jurors who served

during the trial until the matters raised by this motion have been finally resolved.

The trial and the deliberations that led to the verdict have received extensive media

coverage. (See Estrich JMOL Decl. Exs. A-O.) Samsung believes that the publicity that will

surround this portion of the motion, and the details and legal issues presented here, have the

potential to subject all of the jurors to extra-judicial scrutiny and public criticism which they may

find unwelcome and intrusive. Moreover, the integrity of future proceedings on this matter may

be compromised by further inquiries from the parties, the media and others, and attendant

publicity. Samsung respectfully requests that in order to protect both the privacy of the jurors

and the integrity of the process, that portions of its Rules 50 and 59 Motion, the Estrich

Declaration, and Exhibits A-O thereto be sealed, and the parties ordered to have no further contact

with any of the jurors until the matters raised by the Rules 50 and 59 Motion have been finally

resolved. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006);

Bryson v. United States, 238 F.2d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 1956); Muhammad v. Woodford, 2008 WL

1734235, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2008).


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- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER


Exhibits 13, 14, 18, and 28 to the Pierce Declaration contain information Apple Inc.

(“Apple”) has designated as confidential. Exhibit 19 to the Pierce Declaration contains

information third-party Intel has designated as confidential. Samsung expects that Apple and

Intel will file declarations pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d) establishing good cause to permit filing

under seal.

Pursuant to General Order No. 62, Samsung’s entire filing will be lodged with the Court

for in camera review and served on all parties.

DATED: September 21, 2012 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

By /s/ Susan R. Estrich Charles K. Verhoeven

Kathleen M. Sullivan Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Susan R. Estrich Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC


02198.51855/4974302.1 -1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS

[P

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




Plaintiff,


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) have filed a Notice of Motion and

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 (“Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion”) and the Declarations of

Susan R. Estrich and John Pierce in Support of Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion.

Samsung, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and third-party Intel have filed the declarations required

under Civil L.R. 79-5 and General Order No. 62 to provide evidence of good cause for this Court

to permit filing under seal.

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1990-2 Filed09/21/12 Page1 of 2

02198.51855/4974302.1 -2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS

[P

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

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the following documents

shall be filed under seal:

1. Highlighted portions of Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a

Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 50 and 59 (“Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion”);

2. The Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of Samsung’s Rule 50 and 59 Motion

(“Estrich JMOL Declaration”);

3. Exhibits A-O to the Estrich JMOL Declaration; and

4. Exhibits 13, 14, 18, 19, and 28 to the Declaration of John Pierce in Support of

Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion.

The Court further ORDERS that that the parties shall have no further contact with any of

the jurors until the matters raised by Samsung’s Rules 50 and 59 Motion have been finally

resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2012

Honorable Luch H. Koh

United States District Judge



1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. BarNo. 170151)

2 [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor

3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: ( 415) 875-6600

4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

5 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) kathleensulli [email protected]

6 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinj [email protected]

7 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) [email protected]

8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 51h Floor

Redwood Shores, California 94065 9 Telephone: ( 650) 801-5000

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 10

Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009) 11 [email protected]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 12 [email protected]

865 S. Figueroa St., 1Oth Floor 13 Los Angeles, California 9001 7

Telephone: (213) 443-3000 14 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

15 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

16 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

21

22


Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 23 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 24 York corporation; SAMSUNG

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 25 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

26 Defendants.

27

28

02198.51855/4974375.1

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50 AND 59

Date: Time: Place: Judge:

December 6, 2012 1:30 p.m. Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Hon. Lucy H. Koh

[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


2

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .......................................................................................... 1

5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................. 1

6 I. .............................................................. 2

7 II. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS .................. 4

8 A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple's Design Patents ............... 4

9 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Design Patents Valid ............................... 7

10 III. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A

11 NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ...................................................... 8

12 A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Trade Dress Protectable .......................... 8

13 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Actionable and Willful Dilution ......................... 10

14 IV. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS ............... 12

15 A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Utility Patents Valid .............................. 12

16 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement Of Apple's Utility Patents ............. 13

17 v. THE RECORD LACKS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL

18 INFRINGEMENT ............................................................................................................... 15

19 VI. THE RECORD LACKS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OR ACTIVELY INDUCED INFRINGEMENT BY SEC .................. 16

20 VII. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND/OR

21 REMITTITUR ON DAMAGES ......................................................................................... 17

22 A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict.. .......... 18

23 1. The Award Of$948,278,061 For Samsung's Profits .................................. 18

24 2. The Award of$91,132,279 For Apple's Lost Profits ................................. 20

25 3. The Award Of $9,180,124 In Royalties ...................................................... 22

26 B. The Damages Rest Upon An Incorrect Notice Date ............................................... 23

27 C. At A Minimum, The Jury's Damages Award Should Be Remitted ........................ 24

28 1. Reduction Of $70,034,295 In Lost Profits .................................................. 24 02198.51855/4974375.1 -i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


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 02198.51855/4974375.1

VIII.

IX.

2. Reductions of $253,328,000 And $220,952,000 To Reflect Correct Notice Dates ................................................................................................ 25

3. Reductions Of$329,204,825 And $86,162,404 Based On The Portion Of Samsung's Profits Attributable To Infringement or Dilution ........................................................................................................ 25

4. Reduction of$57,867,383 On The Prevail.. ................................................ 26

SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ITS OFFENSIVE CASE ............................................................................................................ 26

A. Judgment of Infringement Should be Entered for the '516 and '941 Patents ......... 26

B. Standards Patents Exhaustion .................................................................................. 28

C. Judgment Should Be Entered For Samsung On The '460, '893, & '711 Patents ..................................................................................................................... 29

A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ............. 30

-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


1

2

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

4 adidas Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812 (D. Or., Sept. 12, 2008) ......................................................................... 21, 27

5 Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,

6 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 1

7 Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 24

8 Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group,

9 611 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1979) ........................................................................................................ 8

10 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................................ 6

11 Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Rep lac. Co.,

12 377 u.s. 476 (1964) ................................................................................................................... 27

13 Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 8, 9

14 Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,

15 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 8, 10

16 BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................... 21

17 SEE S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,

18 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 29

19 Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 12

20 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. Gore & Assoc., Inc.,

21 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 15

22 Bell Commc'ns Res., Inc. v. Vita/ink Commc'ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 30

23 Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp.,

24 260 F. App'x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 15

25 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 8, 16

26 Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.,

27 809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 10

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -m- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 Brocklesby v. United States, 767 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 25

2 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,

3 222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) .............. ; ............................................................................................ 19

4 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ............................................................................................................. 19

5 Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp.,

6 283 U.S. 27 (1931) ..................................................................................................................... 19

7 Casanas v. Yates, 2010 WL 3987333 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) .............................................................................. 3

8 Coach Inc. v. Asia Pac. Trading Co.,

9 676 F. Supp. 2d 914 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................ 26

10 Colle geNET, Inc. v. XAP Corp., 483 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Oregon 2007) .................................................................................... 12

11 Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.,

12 376 U.S. 234 (1964) ..................................................................................................................... 8

13 Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 6

14 Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,

15 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) .......................................................................... -....... 19, 25

16 Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 21

17 DSU Me d. Corp. v. JMS Co.,

18 4 71 F .3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 17

19 DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 16

20 Disc Golf Ass'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc.,

21 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 9

22 Duraco Prod., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enter., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 10

23 Dyer v. Calderon,

24 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................ 2

25 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 4, 16

26 Elmer v. ICC Fab., Inc.,

27 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 9

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -iv- Case No. ll-cv-01846-LHK



1 Festa Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 25

2 In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.,

3 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 17, 25

4 Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 29

5 Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,

6 616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 24

7 Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................................ 3

8 Go Med. Indus., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp.,

9 4 71 F .3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 23

10 Goodyear Tire v. Hercules Tire, 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 16

11 Hard v. Burlington N R. R.,

12 812 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 2, 3

13 Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmnt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 15

14 Hupp v. Siroflex of Am.,

15 122 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. .16

16 i4i Ltd. P 'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 15

17 J.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.,

18 163F.3d27(1stCir.1998) .................................................................................................... 8, 10

19 Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, Inc., 2007 WL 2344962 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007) ........................................................................... 25

20 Int'l Seaway Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,

21 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 6

22 Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 173 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Del. 2001) ........................................................................................... 29

23 Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,

24 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 30

25 Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 28

26 Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.,

27 456 U.S. 844 (1982) ............................................................................................................... 9, 10

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -v- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK



1 IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship, 2011 WL 207978 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) .............................................................................. 15

2 Jazz Photo Corp. v. US.,

3 439 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 29

4 Jessen Elec. & Serv. Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co., 106 F .3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................................ 1

5 Junker v. HDC Corp.,

6 2008 WL 3385819 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) ............................................................................ 19

7 Kellogg Co. v. Nat'! Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938) ................................................................................................................... 10

8 LML Holdings, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Dist., Inc.,

9 2012 WL 1965878 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012) ........................................................................... 15

1 0 L& W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 13

11 Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty.,

12 556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................ 1

13 Laser dynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc., _ F.3d _, 2012 WL 3758093 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2012) ...................................................... .10

14 Lee v. Dayton-Hudson,

15 838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................... 4

16 Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 20

17 Litecubes, LLC v. N Light Products, Inc.,

18 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 29

19 Litton Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140F.3d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 24

20 Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp.,

21 825 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 14

22 Lotus Dev. v. Borland Int'l, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................... 6

23 Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,

24 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 17

25 MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 16

26 McKeon Prods., Inc. v. Flent Prods. Co.,

27 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27123 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2002) ...................................................... 11

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -vi- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK



1 Merch. & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Products Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................... 8

2 Mgmt. Sys. Assocs., Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,

3 762F.2d 1161 (4thCir.1985) .................................................................................................... 29

4 Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 u.s. 186 (1894) ..................................................................................................................... 7

5 Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc.,

6 2011 WL6939526(Fed.Cir.Nov.10,2011) ............................................................................ 17

7 Molski v. MJ Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................ 1

8 Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro Int'l Ltd.,

9 476 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ..................................................................................... 21

10 My Mail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 27

11 N Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc.,

12 35 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 29

13 Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Camp. Corp., 378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 10, 11

14 OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,

15 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 4

16 PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Cos., 469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 7

17 Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.,

18 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 13

19 Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Ins., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 254 (D.N.J. 1997) .................................................................................................... 16

20 Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc.,

21 553 u.s. 617 (2008) ................................................................................................................... 29

22 Read Corp. v. Portee, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 5

23 ResQNet. com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,

24 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 19, 23,24

25 Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 201 0) .................................................................................................... 4

26 Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.,

27 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 21

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -vii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 16

2 SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab., Inc.,

3 127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 24

4 Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F .3d 900 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................ 3

5 Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan,

6 Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993) ...................................................... 2

7 In re Seagate Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 15

8 Sealant Sys. Int '!, Inc. v. TEK Global,

9 2012 WL 13662 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) .................................................................................. 15

10 Sears v. Stiffel, 376 U.S. 225 (1964) ..................................................................................................................... 8

11 So/annex, Inc. v. Miasole,

12 2011 WL 4021558 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011) ............................................................................ .15

13 Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 15

14 Sunbeam Prod., Inc. v. Wing Shing Prod. (BVI) Ltd.,

15 311 B.R. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................................................... 21

16 Talking Rain Bev. Co., Inc. v. South Beach Bev. Co., 349 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 9

17 Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Elec. Co.,

18 248 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 17

19 Tel cordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 17

20 Textron,

21 753F.2dat1025 ......................................................................................................................... 11

22 Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kine dyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 8

23 Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,

24 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 7

25 TrajFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) ............................................................................................................. 8, 9, 16

26 Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.,

27 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 29

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -vm- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 U S. v. 4. 0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................... 1

2 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,

3 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh'g denied (Mar. 22, 2011) .................................................. 15

4 United States. v. Colombo, 869 F .2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................................... 2

5 United States v. Gonzalez,

6 214 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 2

7 United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 3

8 In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan,

9 Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993) ....................................................... .2

10 Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 19, 28

11 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc.,

12 529 U.S. 205 (2000) ..................................................................................................................... 8

13 WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Pack., Inc., _ F.3d _, 2012 WL 3573845 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) ....................................................... 23

14 Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,

15 683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. .16

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 02198.51855/4974375.1

Statutes

15 u.s.c. § 1111 ........................................................................................................................ 24, 26

15 U.S.C. § 1114 .............................................................................................................................. 26

15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) .......................................................................................................................... 27

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) .......................................................................................................................... 26

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ............................................................................................................................ 1

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B) ................................................................................................................ 11

35 U.S.C. § 1125(c) .......................................................................................................................... 11

35 U.S.C. § 171 .................................................................................................................................. 4

35 U.S.C. § 271 .................................................................................................................................. 1

35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ............................................................................................................................ 16

3 5 u.s. c. § 2 71 (b) ........................................................................................................................... 1 7

-ix- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................ 27

2 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ............................................................................................................................ 24

3 35 U.S.C. § 289 .......................................................................................................................... 19, 21

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 14

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ........................................................................................................................... 1

6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ........................................................................................................................... 1

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ................................................................................................................... 1, 25,31

8 Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 2

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -x- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable

3 Lucy H. Koh, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

4 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") shall and hereby do move the Court

5 for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), renewing Samsung's prior

6 request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), and alternatively for a new trial or remittitur pursuant to

7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, as to each and every claim and issue on which Apple prevailed before the jury,

8 including both parties' claims for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Apple's claims

9 for trade dress dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and Apple's claims for damages, as more

10 fully set forth below. Samsung additionally requests new trial or hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

11 P. 49. This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities below, the trial record,

12 the accompanying declarations of Susan Estrich, John Pierce, and Michael Wagner, all pleadings

13 and papers on file in this action, such matters as are subject to judicial notice, and all other matters

14 or arguments that may be presented in connection with this motion.

15 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

16 Judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is required where a plaintiff fails

17 to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor. Lakeside-Scott v.

18 Multnomah Cty., 556 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2009). A new trial is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ.

19 P. 59 where '"the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, [] the damages are excessive, or []

20 for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving."' Molski v. MJ Cable, Inc., 481

21 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007); Rattray v. City ofNational City, 51 F.3d 793, 800 (9th Cir. 1994)

22 (same, prevent "miscarriage of justice"); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d

23 1272, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same, for "prejudicial legal error" in jury instructions). Remittitur

24 is appropriate under Rule 59 where the damages awarded by the jury are not supportable, and the

25 "proper amount of a remittitur is the maximum amount sustainable by the evidence." Jessen

26 Elec. & Serv. Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co., 106 F .3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997). Samsung is entitled to

27 judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur here for the reasons below.

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 02198.51855/4974375. I -2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



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 02198.51855/4974375.1 -3- CaseNo. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 II.

2

3

SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS

A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple's Design Patents

The key to design patent infringement is whether a "hypothetical ordinary observer who is

4 conversant with the prior art" would in purchasing be deceived by similarities with an accused

5 product when focusing only on the ornamental features of the claimed designs. Egyptian

6 Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Design patent law protects only

7 designs that are new, original and ornamental, 3 5 U .S.C. § 171, not "general design concepts,"

8 OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997), or a design's

9 "functional" and "structural" elements or "basic configuration," Lee v. Dayton-Hudson, 838 F.2d

10 1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Unprotected attributes must be "factored out" when analyzing

11 infringement, with only the remaining elements compared to the accused designs. Richardson v.

12 Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010); OddzOn Prods, 122 F.3d at 1405.

13 Even differences between the patented and accused designs that are so minor that they "might not

14 be noticeable in the abstract can become significant" in light of prior art. Egyptian Goddess, 543

15 F.3d at 678. 1

16 The record fails to support the jury's finding of infringement of any of Apple's design

17 patents under these standards. Apple conceded that some attributes of its designs were functional

18 or otherwise unprotectable. E.g., RT 1197:13-17; 1199:25-1200:4 (Bressler admitting "a clear

19 cover over the display element" is "absolutely functional"); 1438:13-19; 1440:7-12; 1474:5-76:7

20 (Kare admitting Apple's patents do not protect features like use of "the color green for go" on

21 icon, or images of clock, or square shapes with rounded comers, or "colorful matrix of icons"

22 arranged in grid). Apple conceded that it did not limit its infringement analysis to new and

23 ornamental designs. RT 1090:12-22 (Bressler did not factor out functional elements); 1470:12-

24

25 The Court's design patent instructions to the jury erred under these standards in failing to

26 explain that the jury's comparisons must be from the perspective of a hypothetical ordinary observer who is conversant with the prior art; in relegating the comparison of patented and

27 accused designs to the prior art to a series of discretionary guidelines, in instructing that "[ m ]in or differences should not prevent a finding of infringement," and in failing to factor out non-

28 ornamental elements. Dkt. 1903 at 63. These instructional errors require a new trial.

02198.51855/4974375.1 -4- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


16; 3475:1-24 (Kare did not consider functionality). And Apple failed to show that an ordinary

2 observer would be deceived by similarities, admitting that, "by the end of the smartphone

3 purchasing process, the ordinary consumer would have to know which phone they were buying."

4 RT 1103:13-1104:18.2 Judgment as a matter of law for Samsung is therefore required. Read

5 Corp. v. Portee, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

6 The D'677 and D'087 Patents. The jury should have factored out the non-ornamental

7 elements of these design patents in assessing infringement, especially since the record showed that

8 those designs are largely devoid of ornamentation (RT 1145:19-23 (designs do not "have much

9 ornament"); RT 522:8-12 (Apple wanted iPhone to be "as simple as possible")). The record

10 showed that the non-ornamental elements included designs that are rectangular and have curved

11 comers; have flat, clear, large screens; are of a size that can be handheld; are black; and have

12 speakers near the top, opaque borders and a bezel. RT 675:5-12; 678:5-680:15 (larger screens

13 benefit users, black and opaque borders hide components, speaker near top is required for sound,

14 and round comers "help you move things in and out of your pocket"); RT 1199:8-1200:4

15 (transparent cover). Moreover, as Apple admitted, the prior art discloses numerous elements of

16 these designs, including at least a "rectangular" display screen that is "balanced vertically and

17 horizontally within the design," "rounded comers," "narrower lateral borders," "larger borders

18 above and below the screen," a bezel, and a "lozenge shaped" speaker placed in the top border.

19 RT 1110:23-1121 :4, 1175:1-4 (referencing DX511, DX727, DX728 and JX1 093).

20 Considering only the ornamental attributes of Apple's designs in light of the prior art, no

21 reasonable jury could find infringement of the D'677 and D'087 patents by any accused device.

22 Apple's expert Peter Bressler admitted that "details are important" and "contribute to how an

23 2 Bressler admitted he lacked evidence "that any consumer has ever purchased a Samsung 24 smartphone believing it was actually a device manufactured by [Apple]" or that "consumers have

25 been confused at any time when purchasing Apple devices or Samsung devices into thinking they are devices from the other manufacturer" or "whether anybody would ever be deceived" when

26 purchasing a smartphone. RT 1101:11-1102:8; 1103:2-1104:18; DX807. Bressler's opinions were also based on the incorrect standard of whether an ordinary observer "might" mistake two

27 designs, and an erroneous belief that similarity need not "be deceptive." RT 1008:12-1010:4; 1105:6-22. Dr. Kare admitted she did not know whether consumers would be deceived after

28 turning a Samsung phone on and navigating to the application screen. RT 1424:1-1425:22.



ordinary observer forms an overall impression" and pointed to the "very specific proportion[ s ]" of

2 Apple's phone designs and the "very specific impression" those dimensions create. RT 1016:11-

3 20, 1019:5-8, 1133:9-11, 1157:8-12. Apple distinguished its own designs from the prior art

4 based on "little differences" in details. RT 3613:6-11; 1154:3-15 (distinction in "lateral

5 borders"); 1176:6-21 (distinction that "lozenge shaped speaker opening" is "centered"); 1351:17-

6 1352:10,3597:10-3598:1 (prior art is "not absolutely flat all the way across the front"); 1121:7-10

7 (absence of bezel in prior art). The types of differences that suffice to separate Apple's designs

8 from prior art also suffice to prevent a finding of infringement. Int 'l Seaway Corp. v. Walgreens

9 Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Comparison of Samsung's products and Apple's

10 designs shows such differences and more exist here, as Apple's expert admits. RT 1176:13-

11 1178:25 (locations of speaker slots); 1126:10-1127:24, 1131:7-1132:1, 1138:5-1140:7 (absence of

12 bezel, differing shapes or forms of bezels); 1143:2-16 (shapes of comers); 1162:18-23 (additional

13 keys).

14 The D'305 Patent. Nor could any rational jury have found infringement of the D'305

15 when limited to its ornamental visual impression. Apple does not own the concept of colorful

16 icons arranged in a grid of square icons with rounded corners, nor can Apple claim protection over

17 the functional aspects of the D'305 design, including the use of pictures and images as "visual

18 shorthand" to communicate information (RT 1452:1-1455:25), the inclusion of sufficient space

19 between icons to allow for finger-operation (RT 1467:3-1468:22), and other elements discussed

20 above. 3 Apple's expert Susan Kare admitted that differences abound between the accused

21 Samsung products and Apple's designs, including the selection, location and shapes of, and

22 images on, the icons. RT 1426:2-1435:24; 1444:7-23. Apple only attempted to claim 2 of the

23 20 Samsung icons were substantially similar to Apple's icons. RT 1429:2-1430:25; 1433:9:-

24 1435:24; 1444:7-23. Apple admitted that the home screen of the accused products "doesn't, in

25 3 Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 26 1435, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994) ("No copyright protection inheres in the[] ideas" of"icons representing

27 familiar objects from the office environment that describe functions being performed"); Lotus Dev. v. Borland Int'l, 49 F.3d 807, 815-18 (1st Cir. 1995) (similar). The result should be no

28 different under design patent law.



1 fact, look like the patent" (RT 1397:1-4); the fact that users are required to pass through start-up

2 screens that say "Samsung" and the names of the products at issue (RT 1422:14-1424:2) shows

3 there is no risk of deception. Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1381

4 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ordinary observer test considers "normal use of the product"). The Court

5 should enter judgment for Samsung of non-infringement on all three of Apple's design patents, or

6 order a new trial.

7 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Design Patents Valid

8 The Court also should enter judgment on Apple's design patents because no rational jury

9 could find those patents valid. First, Apple's design patents are all invalid as functional in light

10 of the evidence discussed above. PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Cos., 469 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.

11 Cir. 2006) ("If the patented design is primarily functional rather than ornamental, the patent is

12 invalid.").4 Second, the D'677 and D'087 patents are invalid as obvious based upon the prior art

13 (including the JP'638, as well as the JP'383, KR'547, and LG Prada) that Apple admitted

14 displayed design characteristics of the asserted patents (RT 2581:9-2590:18; 2591:2593:20;

15 2595:7-22; DX511; DX727; DX728; JX1093). Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566

16 F.3d 1372, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Third, the D'677 patent is invalid for double-patenting.

17 Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 198 (1894) (second patent must be "substantially

18 different" from first). D'677 and embodiments of D'087 (particularly the sixth embodiment)

19 depict the same design; the only elements added by the D'677 are the color black and oblique

20 lines, features that do not make D'677 "a separate invention, distinctly different and independent,"

21 id. at 198, and the D'087 subsumes the D'677 because Apple admits that "the flat front surface [of

22 D'087] could be any color. It could be transparent. It could be anything." RT 1019:12-17.5

23

24 4 See also R T 2603:15-2611 :7 (functional elements include "rectangular shape for the

device" and the "display," "rounded comers," "flat surface," "location of the earpiece slot" and its

25 "elongated shape," and color "black"); RT 1194:4-1212:14; DX807 (Bressler is "[n]o more equipped than any ordinary observer to opine on the functionality of a smartphone" and had

26 "never designed a smartphone," did not consider whether alternatives "functioned the same or not" and failed to determine if any feature affected "cost" or "quality" of article).

5 Apple claimed that the same Apple devices that embody D'087 also embody D'677 (RT 27 1021:16-1023:22), and that the same Samsung devices that infringe D'087 also infringe D'677.

28 RT 1049:6-23, 1056:6-1057:24; 1060:7-1064:11.



1 Fourth, the D'889 patent is also invalid as obvious in light of prior art including the TC1000 and

2 the 1994 Fidler tablet (JX1074; JX1078; DX 805; RT 2595:23-2601:17 (prior art shares "overall

3 rectangular shape with evenly rounded comers," "transparent, flat front cover," "very large

4 display," "flat front surface that goes across the whole front face up to a relatively thin rim,"

5 "relatively narrow profile," "almost identical to the proportions of the D'889," "flat back")), and

6 as functional given Apple's admissions that it does not own the "use of a rectangular shape with

7 rounded comers" or "the use of a large display screen for an electronic device." RT 3609:9-

8 3611:1 0; DX 810. The Court should enter judgment of invalidity or order a new trial.

9 III.

10

SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Trade Dress Protectable

"The traditional interest in trademark protection is stretched very thin in dilution cases

where confusion is absent," as here, and unlike patent protection, which is time-limited, trade

dress law poses special dangers if used to give "permanent protection" to "the design of an article

of manufacture." J.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 53 (1st Cir. 1998) (Boudin,

J., concurring). 6 These concerns have constitutional dimension. 7

Accordingly, trade dress is not protected if doing so would impose "significant non-

reputation-related disadvantages" on competitors. TrajFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays,

Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33-35 (2001); Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d

1062, 1072 (9th Cir. 2006). Protection is limited to "identification of source," and does not

6 See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 213 (2000) ("Consumers 21 should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and aesthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves."); Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group, 22 611 F.2d 296, 301 (9th Cir. 1979) ("trademark is misused if it serves to limit competition"); Avery

23 Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing breadth of dilution claims). Even in the infringement context, courts reject claims based on alleged post-sale

24 confusion as to product configuration trade dress. Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005).

7 See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989) ("Congress 25 may not create patent monopolies of unlimited duration"); Sears v. Stifle!, 376 U.S. 225, 232-33

26 (1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 237 (1964); J.P. Lund Trading, 163 F.3d at 50 (recognizing constitutional concerns when "attempting to apply the dilution

27 analysis to the design itself of the competing product involved"); Merch. & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Products Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1992) ("indefinite trademark

28 protection of product innovations would frustrate the purpose of the limited duration of patents").

02198.51855/4974375.1 -8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


1 extend to "usefulness," id. at 1073, or "features which constitute the actual benefit that the

2 consumer wishes to purchase," Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir.

3 2002).8 No reasonable jury could fail to find Apple's claimed trade dress functional under

4 Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), for Apple's own evidence confirmed

5 that its trade dress is "essential to the use or purpose of the article" and "affects [its] cost or

6 quality." Au-Tomotive Gold, 457 F.3d at 1072 (quoting Inwood). 9 For example, the claimed

7 trade dress had a clear face covering the front of the iPhone (RT 1199:25-1200:16 ("absolutely

8 functional")); rounded comers (RT 680:9-15 ("help you move things in and out of your pocket"));

9 a large display screen (RT 674:20-675:24 ("a benefit to users")); a black color (RT 679:15-20

10 ("hide internal wiring and components"); familiar icon images (RT 2533:25-2534:15); and a

11 useful size and shape (DX5622.001 ("size and shape/comfort benefits")).

12 Moreover, Apple's trade dress is unprotectable on account of its aesthetic functionality.

13 Apple argued that its trade dress was designed to be aesthetically appealing and that aesthetic

14 beauty is a primary motivator for consumer purchases. RT 484:1-11 (in designing iPhone, Apple

15 sought a "beautiful object"); 602:8-19 (iPhone is "beautiful and that that alone would be enough to

16 excite people and make people want to buy it"); 625:4-626:4 ("reasons for the iPhone success" are

17 "people find the iPhone designs beautiful" and "it's an incredibly easy-to-use device."); 635:23-

18 636:5 ("attractive appearance and design" motivates purchases); 721:3-7 (customers "lust after

19 [iPhone] because it's so gorgeous"). Apple cannot use design patents to protect these same

20 features and then obtain a perpetual monopoly in allegedly desirable designs under trade dress

21 8 The jury instructions did not properly explain these principles, having deleted the language

22 from the model instructions that a feature is functional "[i]f the feature is part of the actual benefit that consumers wish to purchase when they buy the product," RT 3921:1-10, and having

23 incorrectly stated that a feature can be non-functional even if it "contributes to consumer appeal and saleability" without explaining that is true, if at all, only if the feature contributing to appeal

24 "is indistinguishable from and tied to the mark's source-identifying nature." Au-Tomotive Gold, 457 F.3d at 1074. See Dkt. 1903 at 84. These and other instructional errors merit a new trial.

9 A product feature "need only have some utilitarian advantage to be considered functional," 25 not "superior utilitarian advantages." Disc Golf Ass 'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d

26 1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original). Apple claimed (PX 10; RT 4111:1-12) that Samsung could have employed alternate designs, but alternative designs are irrelevant-once

27 functionality under Inwood is established, "speculation about other design possibilities" is immaterial. TrajFix, 532 U.S. at 33; Talking Rain Bev. Co., Inc. v. South Beach Bev. Co., 349

28 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2003) (same).



law. E.g., Elmer v. ICC Fab., Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (trade dress functional

2 where it "was broadly defined to be essentially coextensive with, and in fact broader than, the

3 patent claim"); Duraco Prod., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enter., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431, 1453 (3d Cir. 1994).

4 Secondary meaning requirements likewise limit trade dress protectability to cases where

5 "the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather

6 than the product itself." Inwood, 456 U.S. at 851 n.11. No rational jury could find secondary

7 meaning on the record here, for the evidence failed to show that consumers believed the primary

8 significance of the asserted trade dress was to identify it with Apple. Apple's survey established

9 only that a majority of respondents shown blurred images of iPhones said they associate the

10 "overall appearance" of the phone with "Apple" or "iPhone" (RT 1583:10-1584:24), but that is

11 insufficient because a plaintiff "must show that the primary significance of the term in the minds

12 of the consuming public is not the product but the producer." Kellogg Co. v. Nat'! Biscuit Co.,

13 305 U.S. 111, 118-19 (1938). Apple's evidence that it advertised the iPhone as a whole (PX 11-

14 14) is insufficient as well; the differences here between Apple's iPhone product (which includes

15 the Apple logo, trademark, and home button) and its generic claimed trade dress (which does not)

16 undermine the claim that advertising the product as a whole created secondary meaning. First

17 Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1383 (9th Cir. 1987).

18 For these reasons, the Court should grant judgment as a matter of law that Apple's trade

19 dress is not protectable, or order a new trial.

20 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Actionable and Willful Dilution

21 Nor did the evidence establish crucial elements of trade dress dilution and damages.

22 First, "to meet the 'famousness' element," "a mark [must] be truly prominent and renowned"

23 among the general public. Avery Dennison, 189 F.3d at 875 (quoting J.P. Lund, 163 F.3d at 46)).

24 This must have been so prior to the time of Samsung's sales of accused products. Nissan Motor

25 Co. v. Nissan Camp. Corp., 378 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004). 10 The record contains no

26

27 10 The Court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that, "to be 'famous,' each of Apple's

-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 02198.51855/4974375.1

28 asserted trade dresses must have been truly prominent and renowned at the time ofSamsung's first (footnote continued)



1 evidence of such fame. Apple offered no survey restricted to the time before Samsung entered

2 the market, and its June 2011 survey shows recognition by less than 64% of likely cell phone

3 purchasers (not the general population). RT 1578:24-1579:4; 1584:17-1585:5; see Nissan, 378

4 F.3d at 1014 (65% awareness insufficient); Textron, 753 F.2d at 1025; 4 McCARTHY ON

5 TRADEMARK at § 24:106, 24-310 (2008 ed.) ("75% of the general consuming public of the United

6 States" is required). Much of Apple's advertisement and press coverage evidence (PX 12-14)

7 was dated after Samsung's alleged first use, rendering it irrelevant; it focused on the product as a

8 whole and its appealing features, not the source-identifying features of the claimed trade dress;

9 and in any case, the consumer response to this advertising is already reflected in Apple's survey

1 0 results, which show insufficient fame.

11 Second, the record does not support a finding of likely dilution. Apple offered no

12 evidence that the accused Samsung phones "impair the distinctiveness" of Apple's trade dress. 15

13 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B). See RT 1534:14-21 ("no empirical evidence" and "no hard data to show

14 that Samsung's actions have diluted Apple's brand"). And proof of at least 25 third-party

15 smartphones bearing similar trade dress to that claimed by Apple (see Ex. 712 (third-party phones

16 with similar trade dress elements); RT 893:16-25; 895:12-20 (market contains many smartphones

17 that look similar)) undermines any finding of likely dilution. McKeon Prods., Inc. v. Flent

18 Prods. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27123, at *34-35 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2002) (rejecting

19 dilution claim where "retailers typically have at least hundreds of products with blue and yellow

20 and white packaging" so that "[p]laintiffs colored packaging does not stand out in retail stores.").

21 Third, "willfulness" is a required element for any award of trade dress dilution damages.

22 35 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (damages available only when a party "willfully intended to trade on the

23 recognition of the famous mark"). Willfulness requires that a party "willfully calculate[s] to

24 exploit the advantage in an established mark," and mere copying does not suffice. Bandag, Inc.

25 v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903,920-21 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Apple failed to introduce

26 any evidence, let alone clear and convincing proof, that Samsung intended to trade on the source-

27 commercial sale of its accused products" and "have become very widely recognized by the

28 consuming public as the designator of Apple's goods," Dkt. 1903 at 87.



1 identifying attributes of Apple's trade dress. 11 Apple did not even contend it notified Samsung of

2 any asserted trade dress, much less establish Samsung knew its conduct was infringing. R T

3 1968:2-11 (no mention of trade dress in presentations to Samsung); PX 52; DX 800.

4 For these reasons, the Court should also grant judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on

5 trade dress dilution liability and damages.

6 IV.

7

SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Utility Patents Valid

No reasonable jury, applying correct standards, could find Apple's utility patents valid.

Samsung's expert testified that Fractal Zoom and Nomura, which both scroll or zoom by

distinguishing between one or two or more input points, anticipate or render obvious every

limitation of claim 8 ofthe '915 patent. RT 2897:12-2902:5,2908:1-7,2903:15-2907:25 (Gray

invalidity testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding. There

is also no dispute that Fractal Zoom and Nomura are 102(a) and (b) prior art to the '915 patent.

RT 2285:4-2290:20; 2275:24-2290:20, 2350:15-2357:18, 2362:8-2366:19; 2902:6-24; DX 550

(Bogue, Forlines and Gray testimony establishing prior art dates).

Samsung's expert also testified that TableCloth and LaunchTile, which both have the

claimed snap-back behavior, anticipate or render obvious every limitation of claim 19 of the '381

patent. RT 2854:18-2858:22; 2860:3-2864:11; 2864:24-2870:22; 2872:17-2873:9 (van Dam

invalidity testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding, and it is

undisputed that TableCloth and LaunchTile are 102(a) and (b) prior art to the '381 patent. RT

2293:9-23; 2363:7-13; 2275:24-2282:4; 2290:21-2299:16; 2350:15-2351:8; 2357:19-2364:5;

2247:22-2248:13; 2229:14-2253:16 (Bogue, Forlines, Bederson and van Dam testimony

establishing prior art dates).

Samsung's expert testified that LaunchTile, Agnetta, and Robbins, which all exhibit the

11 The jury instructions incorrectly stated that willfulness could be established by a mere

27 preponderance ofthe evidence, see CollegeNET, Inc. v. XAP Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (D. Oregon 2007) (clear and convincing evidence required), and failed to provide guidance as to how

28 to determine whether Samsung's conduct was willful. Dkt. 1903 at 93.



1 claimed enlarging and centering behavior, anticipate or render obvious every limitation of claim

2 50 of the '163 patent. RT 2913:2-2917:2; 2917:3-2919:16; 2919:17-2922:6 (Gray invalidity

3 testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding, and there is no

4 dispute that these references are 102(a) and (b) prior art. RT 2247:22-2248:13; 2229:14-

5 2253:16; 2919:17-2920:14; JX 1081; 2917:3-22; DX 561; JX 1046 (Bederson and Gray testimony

6 establishing prior art dates). The Court should enter judgment of invalidity or order a new trial. 12

7 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement Of Apple's Utility Patents

8 The Court should also enter judgment of non-infringement as to each accused product.

9 To establish infringement, Apple must show the presence of every limitation in the accused

10 product. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en

11 bane), overruled in part on other grounds, Cardinal Chern. Co. v. Morton Int'l, 508 U.S. 83

12 (1993). When multiple products are accused, this showing must be made as to each product; a

13 patentee "cannot simply 'assume' that all of the [accused] products are like the one [patentee's

14 expert] tested and thereby shift to [the defendant] the burden to show that is not the case." L&W,

15 Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For the '915 and '163 patents,

16 Apple's expert performed a limitation-by-limitation analysis of only one product, the Samsung

17 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (RT 1819:18-1831:7, 1833:21-1840:22), and then introduced videos ofthe

18 other 23 accused devices with no infringement analysis (RT 1829:12-1830:13; 1840:23-1842:6).

19 For the '381 patent, Apple's infringement analysis for the Gallery application was also limited to a

20 single product, the Samsung Galaxy S II (AT&T) (RT 1741:15-1747:23; 1751:19-1753:12); and

21 for the Contacts application the record contains no source code evidence or even demonstrative

22 videos for six accused products (the Continuum, Epic 4G, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II (i9100),

23 Indulge, and Mesmerize) (RT 1753:13-1755:21). This fails to meet Apple's burden of proof.

24 Separately, the record does not support any infringement of the '915 patent because the

25 event object does not cause a scroll or gesture operation as required by claim 8. Dkt. 1158 at 20;

26

27

28 02198.51855/4974375.1 -13- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK



1 RT 2910:18-22; 2911:6-2912:1. Apple identified the MotionEvent object in Samsung's devices

2 as the claimed event object (RT 1821:25-1822:17), but it is the WebView object, not the

3 MotionEvent object, that causes the scroll or gesture operation; the MotionEvent object causes

4 nothing. RT 2911:6-2912:1 (Gray non-infringement testimony). Apple admits that the "all-

5 important test" for infringement of the '915 patent is found in the limitation "distinguishing

6 between a single input point. .. that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input

7 points ... that are interpreted as the gesture operation." RT 1826:12-15; 1857:2-24 (Singh

8 testimony). But that limitation is not satisfied: because a device that scrolls with two fingers

9 does not meet this test (RT 2896:5-12, 2912:2-19; 1860:15-1862:10), some Samsung products

10 allow for such scrolling (RT 1862:22-1865:9; 2912:2-19), and the record contains no evidence of

11 any that do not, the jury could not find infringement ofthe '915 patent.

12 A new trial is also necessary due to inconsistencies in the jury's verdict on the '915

13 patent. The jury found that the Ace, Intercept, and Replenish devices do not infringe the '915

14 patent but the remainder ofthe accused devices do. These verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent,

15 for the Ace, Intercept and Replenish exhibit the same behavior as devices found to infringe,

16 including the Droid Charge, Indulge, Epic 4G, Infuse 4G, Transform and Prevail. The same

17 Android version found in the non-infringing Ace (Android 2.2.1) and the Intercept and Replenish

18 (Android 2.2.2) are found in these other devices which the jury found to be infringing. A new

19 trial is therefore warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49. Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday

20 Hardware Corp., 825 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1987).

21 No reasonable jury could have found infringement of the '3 81 patent either. The Court

22 previously found the claims of this patent to require the electronic document to always snap back.

23 Dkt. 452 at 58-60. Samsung's products do not do so, using instead a "hold still" feature which

24 Apple's expert admitted does not infringe. RT 1792:16-1793:7; 1796:22-1797:7 (Balakrishnan

25 non-infringement testimony). This feature does not translate the electronic document into a

26 second direction, as required by the last limitation of Claim 19. RT 1 791 : 14-1 799:4.

27 Samsung's products also exhibit a "hard stop" behavior, wherein they do not display an area

28 beyond the edge of the electronic document at all. Apple admits this "hard stop" behavior does 02198.51855/4974375.1 -14- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 not infringe the '3 81 patent. RT 1785:19-1787:3 (Balakrishnan non-infringement

2 testimony). Accordingly, judgment of non-infringement should enter.

3 v.

4

THE RECORD LACKS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Willfulness requires clear and convincing proof (1) to the jury that Samsung subjectively

knew or recklessly disregarded that particular patents were valid and infringed, and (2) to the

Court of an objectively high likelihood of such infringement. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v.

Gore & Assoc., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Seagate Techs., Inc. v. Gateway,

Inc., 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en bane). Willfulness is assessed "on a claim by

claim basis." Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmnt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir.

2012). Knowledge of the asserted patents is mandatory but insufficient. i4i Ltd. P 'ship v.

Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 13 In "ordinary circumstances" the inquiry

focuses on the defendant's pre-suit knowledge because patentees "should not be allowed to accrue

enhanced damages based solely on the infringer's post-filing conduct"; the usual remedy for

alleged post-filing willful infringement is a preliminary injunction. Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374. 14

Here, proof of willfulness, objective as well as subjective, is deficient. The record

contains no evidence that Samsung knew of any Apple patent in issue other than the '3 81 patent;

the '915 and '163 patents, in particular, did not issue until November 30, 2010 and January 4,

2011, mere months before this litigation commenced. JX 1044, 1046. As to the '381, the record

shows only that it was listed amidst 75 other patents in Apple's 23-page August 2010 presentation,

without proof that it was ever discussed, belying any inference that Samsung was on notice of

those particular claims. PX 52 at 12-16; see RT 1958:17-1959:13 (Teksler unable to testify to

discussions). Even if Samsung's defenses as to validity and infringement do not prevail, they are

at least reasonable, which also forecloses a finding of willfulness. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v.

13 Authorities routinely deny willfulness claims when such knowledge is not shown. E.g., Sealant Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. TEK Global, 2012 WL 13662, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012); LML 26 Holdings, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Dist., Inc., 2012 WL 1965878, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012);

27 So/annex, Inc. v. Miasole, 2011 WL 4021558, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011); IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P 'ship, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011).

28 14 Apple never sought a preliminary injunction as to the '915, '163, or D'305 patents.



Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.

2 Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh'g denied (Mar. 22, 2011); Black &

3 Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 260 F. App'x 284,291 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

4 Nor is Apple's evidence of alleged "copying" sufficient, as-far from showing willful

5 infringement--copying is "of no import on the question of whether the claims of an issued patent

6 are infringed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1336 (Fed.

7 Cir. 2009); Goodyear Tire v. Hercules Tire, 162 F.3d 1113, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (no

8 infringement despite intent "to appropriate the general appearance of the Goodyear tire"),

9 abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678; Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., 122

10 F.3d 1456, 1464-65 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Copying publicly-known information not protected by a

11 valid patent is fair competition, see TrajFix, 532 U.S. at 29; Bonito Boats, 489 U.S. at 159-60, and

12 it "is erroneous" to suppose "that copying is synonymous with willful infringement." Princeton

13 Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Ins., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 254, 258 n.3 (D.N.J. 1997). Moreover, with

14 few exceptions these documents did not even address the patents or rights at issue here. There

15 can be no equation between copying and willful infringement of established patent rights. Wm.

16 Wrigley Jr. Co. v. CadburyAdams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

17 Accordingly, the Court should grant judgment to Samsung on willfulness, or a new trial.

18 VI. THE RECORD LACKS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OR ACTIVELY INDUCED INFRINGEMENT BY SEC

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 02198.51855/4974375.1

Patent infringement "cannot be predicated on acts wholly done in a foreign country."

Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see MEMC Elec.

Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, 420 F.3d 1369, 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

("Mere knowledge that a product sold overseas will ultimately be imported into the United States

is insufficient to establish liability under section 271(a)."). The record lacks sufficient evidence

that SEC engaged in any negotiations, signed any contracts, or offered for sale or sold any

products in the US. The record also lacks sufficient evidence that SEC actively induced any

direct infringement in the U.S. under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). "To establish liability under section

271 (b), a patent holder must prove that once the defendants knew of the patent, they actively and

-16- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


knowingly aided and abetted another's direct infringement." DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471

2 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en bane). "[M]ere knowledge of possible infringement by

3 others does not amount to inducement; specific intent and action to induce infringement must be

4 proven." DSU, 471 F.3d at 1305; Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Elec. Co., 248 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir.

5 2001) ("a failure to stop infringement" is insufficient). 15 Apple offered no evidence of

6 inducement; the evidence establishes the opposite. RT 948:11-13; 900:12-24 (STA, SEA and

7 SEC have distinct management and employees; STA makes its own business decisions). The

8 Court should grant judgment of non-infringement by SEC, or order a new trial. In any event, a

9 new trial on damages is necessary because, as Apple's expert admits, the vast majority of Apple's

10 claimed damages are based on profits made by SEC. RT 2071:1-2072:1; 2072:21-24; DX180.

11 VII.

12

SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR ON DAMAGES Over Samsung's objection (RT 3853:5-3856:10), the Court used a verdict form providing

13 for a single damages amount for each product without specifying the amounts attributable to

14 particular patents or trade dress or whether the award was derived from Samsung's profits,

15 Apple's lost profits, and/or a reasonable royalty. Dkt. 1931, at 15-16. 16 Where, as here, the

16 basis for the jury's award is unclear, the Court may "work[] the math backwards" to determine the

17 basis for the award. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.

18 2009); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re First

19 Alliance Mortg. Co., 471 F.3d 977, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2006). Comparison of the verdicts with the

20 amounts presented by Apple's expert Terry Musika in PX25A1 reveals the following:

21 • For each ofthe 11 Samsung phones (Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic

22 4G, Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile), Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch), Galaxy S II

23 (Skyrocket), Gem, Indulge, and Infuse 4G) for which the jury found infringement of one or more

24

25 15 Apple agrees that inducement requires proof of '"specific intent to encourage another's

infringement."' Brief of Defendant-Appellee Apple, Inc. at *25, Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple

26 Inc. 12011 WL 6939526 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2011) (Nos. 2011-1392, 2011-1393) (quot. omitted). 6 If the Court sets aside the verdict for insufficient proof of liability on any ground urged

27 here, the verdict's failure to separate each damages amount by patent or trade dress will mandate a new trial on damages. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1310

28 (Fed. Cir. 2007).



1 design patents but no trade dress dilution, the jury awarded exactly 40% of Apple's claimed figure

2 for Samsung's profits. Wagner Decl. at~ 12.

3 • For each of the five Samsung phones (Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase

4 (i500), Mesmerize, and Vibrant) for which the jury found infringement of one or more design

5 patents and trade dress dilution, the jury awarded exactly the amount of lost profits claimed by

6 Apple plus 40% of Apple's claimed figure for Samsung's profits. Id. at~ 13 .

7 • For five of the seven Samsung products that were found to infringe only utility

8 patents (Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G ('381 & '915), Replenish ('162 and '381), and

9 Transform ('915)), the jury awarded exactly half of Apple's claimed royalties figure. !d. at ~14.

10 • For the remaining two Samsung products found to infringe only utility patents, the

11 jury awarded exactly 40% of what Apple claimed as Samsung's profits on the Galaxy Prevail, and

12 $833,076 for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi). Id. at~~ 15-16.

13 • Accordingly, $948,278,061 of the verdict represents Samsung's profits:

14 ($599,859,395 for 11 phones the jury found infringed design patents, $290,551,383 for five

15 phones the jury found infringed design patents and diluted trade dress, and the remaining

16 $57,867,383 for one phone found to infringe only utility patents); $91,132,279 of the verdict

17 represents Apple's lost profits for five Samsung phones found to infringe design patents and dilute

18 trade dress; $9,180,124 ofthe verdict represents Apple's royalties for five Samsung devices found

19 to infringe only utility patents; and $833,076 of the verdict represents an amount awarded for one

20 device found to infringe utility patents. !d. at~~ 17-20.

21

22

23

A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict

1. The Award Of$948,278,061 For Samsung's Profits

Design Patent Infringement. Apple did not limit its calculations of Samsung's profits to

24 those attributable to use of the patented designs. While 35 U.S.C. § 289 allows an award for

patent infringement of an "article of manufacture" up "to the extent of [the infringer's] total 25

26 profit," it does not eliminate the requirement inherent in all patent infringement litigation that

causation must be shown. Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 33 27

28 (1931) (patent infringement is "essentially a tort"); see ResQNet. com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d



1 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 201 0) ("At all times, the damages inquiry must concentrate on compensation

2 for the economic harm caused by infringement of the claimed invention."). Unless limited to the

3 portion of profits attributable to infringement of the patented design rather than other,

4 noninfringing features of accused devices, infringer's profits violate the causation requirement and

5 impose excessive damages far beyond any compensation or deterrence rationale. Cf

6 Laserdynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,_ F.3d. _, 2012 WL 3758093, at *12 (Fed. Cir. Aug.

7 30, 2012) (limiting damages "in any case involving multi-component products" to "the smallest

8 salable patent-practicing unit" unless "demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented

9 features"); Junker v. HDC Corp., 2008 WL 3385819, at* 5 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) (applying

10 same rule to infringer's profits under section 289); Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F.

11 902, 905 (2d Cir. 1915) and Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 81-82 (2d Cir.

12 1916) (applying same rule to predecessor statute to § 289 and limiting infringer's profits to those

13 attributable to design of piano case rather than whole piano); see also Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-

14 Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. 2d 279,286-87 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Rader, J.).

15 The record contains no evidence that the entire sales value of Samsung's products was

16 attributable to their outer casings or GUI, as opposed to the numerous noninfringing technological

17 components that enable the devices to function and drive consumer choice. Apple's own study

18 showed that only 1% of iPhone users said that design and color is the reason they chose a phone

19 (DX592.023), and just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identified visual appeal as why

20 they purchased a phone. PX69.43 (all aspects of physical design comprised only up to 23% of

21 the reasons for consumer selections, and visual appeal amounted to only 22% of that 23%, or just

22 5% of the total). There was thus no evidence that infringement of the design of the outer casings

23 or GUI caused Samsung to receive $600 million in profits.

24 Trade Dress Dilution. "Trademark remedies are guided by tort law principles," and a

25 plaintiff may recover "profits only on sales that are attributable to the infringing conduct." Lindy

26 Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1407-08 (9th Cir. 1993). The record contains no

27 evidence that Samsung profited in an amount over $290 million on sales of five phones from

28 lessening the capacity of Apple's trade dress to identify and distinguish its goods or services. To 02198.51855/4974375.1 -19- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK



1 the contrary, Apple's expert, Professor Winer, admitted he had no empirical evidence to show

2 Samsung's actions have diluted Apple's brand, and he never quantified the amount of any alleged

3 harm from dilution or loss of any kind to Apple as a result of Samsung's actions. RT 1534:14-

4 17; 1534:22-1535:11. Nor did Apple's damages expert Mr. Musika. In addition, as explained

5 above, supra, the evidence showed that design of a smartphone accounts for at most between 1%

6 and 5% of the reason consumers purchase a particular phone. See DX592.023; PX69.43.

7 Failure To Deduct Samsung's Operating Expenses. Mr. Musika calculated Samsung's

8 profits as gross revenue minus cost of goods sold. RT 2054:11-2055:2; PX34B.17-18. He did

9 not deduct any of Samsung's other operating expenses, even though he admitted Samsung

1 0 incurred those expenses. RT 2061: 1-11. Using his method, "the overall gross profit percentage

11 on just the accused products was approximately 35.5 percent." RT 2060:19-21. By contrast,

12 Samsung's expert Mr. Wagner testified to the operating expenses that Samsung incurred in

13 making the accused sales, which resulted in an average profit margin of 12%. RT 3022:7-

14 3025:8, 3028:7-3031:23, 3074:23-3075:5. He also noted that the audited figures for Samsung's

15 Telecommunications segment showed its profit margin to be 15%, and the entire company's

16 profitability to be 10%. RT 3073:5-3074:22. There was no basis for Mr. Musika's failure to

17 deduct Samsung's operating expenses in arriving at his figures for Samsung's profits. See

18 Sunbeam Prod., Inc. v. Wing Shing Prod. (BVI) Ltd., 311 B.R. 378, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

19 (appropriate to deduct fixed costs in determining infringer's profits under Section 289); adidas

20 Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812, at *13 (D. Or. Sept. 12, 2008) (same for

21 operating costs in trademark case).

22 2. The Award of $91,132,279 For Apple's Lost Profits

23 A plaintiff in a patent infringement action must establish both but-for and proximate

24 causation between infringement and lost profits, Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538,

25 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995), showing "likely outcomes with infringement factored out of the

26 economic picture." Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int '!, Inc., 246 F.3d

27 1336, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The record fails to support the award of $91

28 million in lost profits for five phones for several independent reasons. 02198.51855/4974375.1 -20- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 First, Apple's damages expert failed to take price elasticity of demand into consideration,

2 even though it was undisputed that consumers would have had to pay $67 more for an iPhone than

3 a Samsung smartphone, and $240 more for an iPad than a Galaxy Tab. 17 See id. at 1355-56

4 (requiring consideration of consumer reaction to products' "different prices"); Monolithic Power

5 Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro Int'l Ltd., 476 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1155-56 (N.D. Cal. 2007); cf BIC Leisure

6 Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

7 Second, Apple failed to show that consumer purchases were driven by the desire for

8 Apple's designs and inventions, as opposed to the functionality of Samsung's phones. Mr.

9 Musika referred to two Samsung documents, PX34 and PX194 (RT 2078:4-2083:3), but neither

1 0 discusses any of the Apple patented features or trade dress. With respect to utility patents, Mr.

11 Musika testified that he relied on Dr. Hauser's survey. RT 2077:1-8. But Dr. Hauser testified

12 for less than two minutes on direct (RT 1913:23 (Time: 3:28) toRT 1916:16-17 (Time: 3:30)),

13 failed to offer any meaningful explanation, and admitted that his survey bears no relationship to

14 the real world. See RT 1935:16-1936:9.

15 Third, the evidence failed to show that, absent Samsung's infringement, Samsung

16 customers would have bought iPhones rather than a non-accused Android device from Samsung or

17 another manufacturer. As Apple's own research showed, just 25% of Android purchasers even

18 considered an iPhone. PX572.82; RT 2129:4-2132:6.

19 Fourth, neither Mr. Musika nor any other Apple witness offered any basis to conclude

20 Apple had "either or both" the "manufacturing and marketing capacity" to sell the "2 million

21 incremental units over the two year time period" on which he based his lost profits figures. RT

22

23

24

25

26 17 Mr. Wagner testified the average Apple customer paid $206 for an iPhone, while the average Samsung customer paid $139 for Samsung smartphones (RT 3049:4-3050:18), and testified the average price ofthe Galaxy Tab was $240 lower than the iPad. RT 3050: 19-3051:4. Because 27 Mr. Musika admitted he knew there was a difference between the prices of the parties' products

28 (RT 2132:7-2133:5), Mr. Wagner's testimony was uncontroverted.

02198.51855/4974375. I -21- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


2085:10-2086:3. 18 He also admitted that Apple had no capacity to manufacture additional

2 iPhone 4s for five months during the damages period. RT 2141:13-2142:13.

3 Fifth, Mr. Musika presented the jury with only one lost profits number per accused product

4 (PX25A1.4), assuming that each and every Samsung product infringed all of Apple's patents and

5 diluted all its trade dresses. RT 2114:15-2118:24; 2122:3-2123:6. Because the jury failed to

6 find infringement and dilution for all Apple's asserted rights, and lacked any basis in evidence to

7 adjust Mr. Musika's number on a per-product basis, the record fails to support any causation

8 between the liability findings and lost profits. 19 Moreover, Mr. Musika's lost profits calculations

9 were based on the length of the design around periods for the intellectual property found to be

1 0 infringed. RT 2084:2-19. Yet, with the exception of a one-month design around period for the

11 '381 patent (RT 2123: 12-24), Mr. Musika provided the jury with no basis to determine the length

12 of the design around period for any particular item of intellectual property (let alone the

13 reasonableness of that period), when the periods started or ended, or how changes in his notice

14 date assumptions impacted these variables, including whether the design around period had

15 already ended before the notice period even began. Wechsler v. Macke Int'l Trade, Inc., 486

16 F.3d 1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

17 3. The Award Of $9,180,124 In Royalties

18 There was no evidence to support Mr. Musika' s "ultimate conclusion" that a reasonable

19 per-unit royalty for each ofthe utility patents would be $3.10, $2.02,$2.02 (RT 2090:20-2091:2),

20 or that the combined royalty for all design patents and trade dress would be $24 per unit

21 (PX25A1.16; RT 2164:23-25). Although Mr. Musika stated that he performed a Georgia-Pacific

22 analysis and used three valuation methods (RT 2088:20-21, 2089:2-17), he identified no specific

23 evidence supporting his royalty rates. Such unsupported testimony is insufficient to support a

24 18 While Apple introduced just two pages of Mr. Musika's analysis to support this bare 25 conclusion (PX25A1.14-15), Mr. Musika did not explain what these pages showed, how they were

preP,ared, or the assumptions on which they relied. RT 2097:13-17. 26 19 For example, Mr. Musika assumed that Samsung would have no market share from non-diluting sales in Q2 2011, see PX25Al.8, but the jury found that many Samsung phones on sale 27 that quarter (Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 40, Galaxy Prevail, and Infuse 40) did

28 not violate Apple's trade dress. See Dkt. 1931 at 1.



reasonable royalty award. WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Pack., Inc., _ F.3d _, 2012 WL

2 3573845, at *15 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) (reasonable royalty award unsupported by expert

3 testimony that was "conclusory, speculative and, frankly, out of line with economic reality"); see

4 also ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 869-872 (similar); Go Med. Indus., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d

5 1264, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming JMOL rejecting unsupported trademark royalty).

6 Moreover, while Mr. Musika's royalty analysis assumes each Samsung product infringes

7 all Apple's claimed utility patents (RT 2114:15-2118:24; 2122:16-2123:6), the Nexus S 40 was

8 held not to infringe the '163 patent; the Replenish not to infringe the '915 patent; and the

9 Transform not to infringe the '381 or the '163 patent. Dkt. 1931. By using one-half of Mr.

10 Musika's calculated royalty, the jury improperly applied the same royalty rate to all five products,

11 despite the fact that the jury reached different conclusions about infringement.

12 B. The Damages Rest Upon An Incorrect Notice Date

13 Apple's patent infringement damages are limited to the time period after it gave Samsung

14 actual written notice of the allegedly infringed patents and the specifically accused products. See

15 35 U.S.C. § 287(a); Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1373 (Fed. Cir.

l6 2010); SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amsted

17 Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 187 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Actual notice is

18 similarly a prerequisite for recovery of damages or profits for registered trade dress infringement

19 because Apple does not display the trade dress with the required statutory language identifying its

20 registration. See 15 U.S.C. § 1111; RT 2007:21-2008:1.

21 Mr. Musika based all of his damage estimates for patent infringement and registered trade

22 dress dilution on a notice date of August 4, 2010, the date of a meeting between SEC and Apple

23 representatives. PX25Al.2; RT 2095:6-21; 2168:18-2169:10. But only the '381 patent was

24 mentioned in the associated presentation. PX52.12-16; RT 1965:22-1968:11. The earliest

25 notice Samsung received of the '915 and D'677 patents and Apple's registered trade dress was

26 Apple's filing of the April 15, 2011 complaint. RT 1968:20-1970:2. The earliest notice

27 Samsung received of the '163, D'305, D'889, and D'087 patents was Apple's filing of the June

28 16, 2011 amended complaint. Dkt. 1903 (Final Instruction Nos. 42 & 57). Mr. Musika's



1 reliance on an erroneous notice date inflated the revenue he used to calculate Samsung's profits

2 and Apple's damages by more than $3.3 billion. See JX1500; Wagner Decl. at 25. Because the

3 jury calculated Samsung's profits and Apple's damages based on Mr. Musika's use of an incorrect

4 notice date, the Court should vacate the award and grant a new trial on damages. See Litton Sys.,

5 Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (new trial required "if a jury may

6 have relied on an impermissible basis in reaching its verdict"); see also In re First Alliance, 471

7 F .3d 977, 1001-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (remanding for new trial and consideration of remittitur where

8 "one of the figures used" by jury to determine damages award was improper); Brocklesby v.

9 United States, 767 F.2d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that "judgment must be reversed if

10 any of the three theories [underlying it] is legally defective").20

11 c. At A Minimum, The Jury's Damages Award Should Be Remitted

12 "[T]he proper amount of a remittitur is the maximum amount sustainable by the evidence."

13 Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, Inc., 2007 WL 2344962, at *4 (N.D. Cal.

14 Aug. 16, 2007). Remittitur is appropriate under Rule 59 "(1) where the court can identify an

15 error that caused the jury to include in the verdict a quantifiable amount that should be stricken ...

16 and (2) more generally, where the award is 'intrinsically excessive' in the sense of being greater

17 than the amount a reasonable jury could have awarded, although the surplus cannot be ascribed to

18 a particular, quantifiable error." Cornell Univ., 609 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (citations omitted). Here

19 the Court has available numerous easily quantifiable bases to reduce the award:

20 1. Reduction Of $70,034,295 In Lost Profits

21 Because the lost profits portion of the jury's award on five phones (Fascinate, Galaxy S

22 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant) found to infringe design patents and dilute trade

23 dress rested on insufficient evidence, see supra, the Court should reduce the award on these

24 phones by the amount of $70,034,295, leaving the amount awarded on those phones at most at

25

26 20 The Court's conclusion that a preservation obligation arose in August 4, 2010 (Dkt. 1894 27 at 16) does not establish that Apple also satisfied the more stringent statutory notice requirements

28 for damages on its patent and trade dress claims as of that date.



1 $311,649,267, which represents 40% of Mr. Musika's number for Samsung's profits on those

2 phones (PX25A1.5). Wagner Decl., ~ 26.

3

4

5

6

2. Reductions of $253,328,000 And $220,952,000 To Reflect Correct Notice Dates

Because Mr. Musika' s profit calculations incorrectly assume an August 4, 2010 notice date

for each design patent at issue, see supra, the Court should reduce the jury's award of

$599,859,395 in Samsung's profits on the 11 phones found to infringe one or more design patents 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

but not to dilute trade dress by $253,328,000 to $346,531,495, which represents 40% of Mr.

Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits on these phones after adjustment for the correct notice

dates based on the filing of the complaint (forD '677) and the amended complaint (forD '087 and

D '305). Wagner Decl., ~ 27. For the same reason, the Court should reduce the jury's award on

the five phones found to infringe design patents and dilute registered trade dress to correct for the

wrong August 4, 2010 notice date. Assuming the jury's lost profit award is already eliminated,

see supra, this adjustment yields an additional reduction in the amount of $220,952,000 to

$90,697,267 or 40% of Mr. Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits on these phones adjusted

for notice. Wagner Decl., ~ 28.21

3. Reductions Of $329,204,825 And $86,162,404 Based On The Portion Of Samsung's Profits Attributable To Infringement or Dilution

18 Design Patent Infringement. Because no more than 5% of Samsung's profits were

19 attributable to the design patents at issue, see supra, any award of Samsung's profits on the 11

20 phones found to infringe one or more of design patents but not to dilute trade dress should be

21 reduced to no more than 5% of Mr. Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits for these products.

22 After adjusting for the correct notice date, see supra, this results in an additional reduction of

23 $329,204,825, leaving an award of$17,326,570 for these 11 products. Wagner Decl. ~ 29 & 31.

24

25 21 Contrary to Mr. Musika's assumption (RT 2095:6-21), the damages period for Apple's

26 unregistered trade dress claim should not have commenced until the April 15, 2011 complaint, requiring the same reduction of any award whether for registered or unregistered trade dress

27 dilution on these five phones. See Coach Inc. v. Asia Pac. Trading Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 914, 924-25 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (plaintiff who sues under both 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125(a) "must

28 meet§ 1111's 'actual notice requirement ... "').



Trade Dress Dilution. Any award of Samsung's profits for the five phones found liable

2 for trade dress dilution likewise should be limited to the amount attributable to the underlying

3 trade dress violation-no more than 5% of Mr. Musika's profit number for these five products.

4 After adjusting for the removal of lost profits, see supra, and correcting for the incorrect notice

5 date, see supra, this results in an additional reduction in the award of $86,162,404, leaving a

6 remaining award of $4,534,863 for these five products. Wagner Decl. at~ 30 & 31.22

7 4. Reduction of $57,867,383 On The Prevail

8 The jury awarded $57,867,383 on the Galaxy Prevail. Because the Prevail was found to

9 infringe only Apple's utility patents and Apple did not seek a reasonable royalty for this product

10 (see PX25A1.4-5), the only permissible remedy the jury could have awarded was Apple's

11 unsupported lost profits. But the maximum lost profits figure Mr. Musika presented for the

12 Prevail was $8,573,370 (PX25A1.4), so the jury's award was necessarily based on Mr. Musika's

13 number for Samsung's profits for the Prevail, $144,668,457 (PX25A1.5). Because infringer's

14 profits are an impermissible remedy for utility patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §284, Aro

15 Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replac. Co., 377 U.S. 476, 506 (1964), and because Mr. Musika's

16 lost profits figures are unsupported, the damages award for this product should be remitted to zero.

17 VIII. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ITS OFFENSIVE CASE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

A. Judgment of Infringement Should be Entered for the '516 and '941 Patents

No rational jury would not find infringement of claims 15 and 16 of the '516 patent and

claims 10 and 15 of the '941 patent. Since Apple did not challenge Samsung' s evidence of the

PMB 9801 's operation in the accused products (RT 3433:7-25; 3462:17-24), literal infringement

"reduces to a question of claim interpretation" that should be resolved in Samsung's favor.

MyMail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The "Total Transmit Power" Element of Claim 15 of the 516 Patent is Met. For the

'516 patent, the only dispute was whether the "total transmit power" limitation of claim 15 was

22 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) permits the Court to reduce an award of defendant's profits to "such 27 sum as the court shall find to be just according to the circumstances of the case." See adidas Am.,

28 Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812, at *12-13 (D. Or., Sept. 12, 2008).



1 met. RT 3422:12-14. The evidence showed that: 1) Apple's products calculate total transmit

2 power by summing the transmit power for all utilized channels (i.e., E-DPDCH, E-DPCCH,

3 DPDCH, and DPCCH, see RT 3420:18-3421:2); and 2) the transmit power for its E-DPCCH

4 channel is scaled down when total transmit power exceeds maximum allowed power (R T 34 21: 18-

5 3422:11 ). Apple asserted that the total transmit power must be calculated by summing only the

6 transmit powers for the E-DPDCH and DPDCH channels. RT 3421:8-17. That is at odds with

7 all of the patent's embodiments. Figure 6, for example, shows that, when total transmit power

8 for the physical channels-which includes E-DPCH, DPDCH, DPCCH, and E-DPCCH--exceeds

9 the maximum allowed power, the transmit power for the E-DPDCH channels is scaled down.

10 JX 1073 at Fig. 6. In each embodiment, total transmit power of all utilized channels is summed

11 when determining whether total transmit power exceeds maximum allowed power and is never

12 limited to only DPDCH and E-DPDCH. As Apple's construction of "total transmit power"

13 improperly excludes preferred embodiments, it must be rejected. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage

14 Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,

15 327 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (same). When this limitation is properly construed, the

16 undisputed evidence establishes literal infringement of the '516 patent.

17 The "Entire SDU" Limitations of the '941 Patent are Met. For the '941 patent, the only

18 dispute was whether Apple's products meet the "entire SDU" limitation of claims 10 and 15, a

19 phrase whose meaning is plain from the specification and contrary to Apple's interpretation. The

20 invention comprises a single-bit field, after the Sequence Number (SN) field in the packet header,

21 which is set to '0' when an exact match exists between the sizes of the data part and the Service

22 Data Unit (SDU) and there is no room for padding or concatenation, as shown in Fig. SA ("DATA

23 PART= RLC SDU"). This field is set to '1' when one or more other fields, including a padding

24 field or the start of another SDU (concatenation), may be inserted. That this one-bit field

25 indicates an exact match between the sizes of the data part and the SDU is confirmed throughout

26 the specification and never contradicted. JX1070 at 4:7-10 ("one concrete RLC SDU ... without

27 any segmentation/concatenation/ padding"); 8:27-29; 10:12-13; 6:37-44 (similar examples). Yet

28 Apple argued the "entire SDU" field need not indicate an exact match but could be set to any 02198.51855/4974375.1 -27- CaseNo. 11-cv-01846-LHK



1 value whether or not padding/concatenation is required. RT 3447:19-3449:22. This unsound

2 construction should be rejected and the verdict of non-infringement set aside.

3 B. Standards Patents Exhaustion

4 The verdict that Samsung's standards patents were exhausted by Samsung's sales to Intel

5 Corp. is not supported by substantial evidence, for Apple introduced no evidence that Intel made

6 authorized "indirect" sales to Apple of the Intel PMB 9801 chips, let alone that any initial sales in

7 the United States had occurred. See Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 630-

8 35 (2008); Jazz Photo Corp. v. U.S., 439 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nor can the

9 exhaustion verdict be squared with the jury's non-infringement finding, because exhaustion

10 requires an item to sufficiently embody the patent, Quanta, 553 U.S. at 628.

11 Apple failed to prove an initial sale in the U.S. of the Intel PMB 9801 chips, which are

12 delivered to Apple in China. PX79 (showing chip delivery location in China); RT 3664:4-9.

13 That the expired Intel agreement may have been international in scope "does not affect exhaustion

14 ofthat patentee's rights in the United States." Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394

15 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To the contrary, the Federal Circuit has found an initial U.S.

16 sale only where the goods are actually delivered to a U.S. location.23 Moreover, the sum total of

17 Apple's evidence on authorization was several lines of video deposition testimony from

18 Samsung's Dr. Ahn concerning an expired Intel agreement that he did not recognize (RT 3547:22-

19 24 (PX218.2)) and testimony from Apple expert Donaldson opining on the meaning to licensing

20 professionals of"sell ... indirectly" (RT 3542:19-3543:24). Apple introduced no other evidence

21 about the agreement and did not ask the Court to construe it or provide relevant guidance, a

22 "fundamental error" that undermines the verdict. Mgmt. Sys. Assocs., Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas

23 Corp., 762 F.2d 1161, 1177-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Finally, Apple offered no evidence that Intel

24 Corp. took affirmative steps to extend rights to Intel Americas before the agreement expired (see

25 23 SEE SA. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (invoices 26 "all identify delivery to U.S. destinations"); Litecubes, LLC v. N Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d

27 1353, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (products delivered directly to U.S.); Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (same); N

28 Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc., 35 F.3d 1576, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (same).

02198.51855/4974375,1 -28- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR


PX81.23 (authorizing Intel to extend rights to subs)) or otherwise had any involvement in the Intel

2 Americas transaction reflected in Apple's invoices. RT 3169:4-3170:16. There was no

3 evidence that Intel Corp. sold the PMB 9801 chips to Apple either directly or indirectly, let alone

4 with authorization. Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 173 F. Supp. 2d 201,222 (D. Del. 2001).

5 c. Judgment Should Be Entered For Samsung On The '460, '893, & '711 Patents

6 The '460 Patent. The evidence shows that Apple's products send email messages, send

7 email messages displaying photos, and scroll through photos exactly as claim 1 of the '460 patent

8 requires. Dkt. 1156 at 16; RT 709:20-711:19, 2383:1-2401:6, 2487:1-2490:12. First, Apple

9 argued that claim 1 requires a specific sequence of steps-an claim construction argument not

10 properly left to the jury-that its devices allegedly cannot perform. RT 3297:8-3300:24; Dkt.

11 1904 at 41; Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

12 But the intrinsic record of the '460 patent confirms that claim 1 does not have this sequence

13 limitation. Dkt. 1826 at 35; JX 1069, fig. 8, tag 802 before 81 0; col. 10:50-11:11; Dkt. 1156 at

14 16. Second, Apple argued that swiping between photos and "use of scroll keys" are not

15 equivalent, RT 3297:1-3; 3301:3-4, yet Apple's own user guides equate swiping and use of scroll

16 keys on Apple's devices and this argument only applies to some but not all accused products. RT

17 2399:9-2400:16; DX 533.119. Third, Apple argued that its apps are somehow so new that they

18 cannot use claim 1's "modes" (RT 3297:4-7; 3304:15-17). This argument, however, is

19 unsupported either by any claim construction of "mode" or by the actual evidence - every Apple

20 expert and Apple's own fact witness admitted that Apple's apps have modes including "camera

21 mode" and "photo browsing mode," and Apple's documents confirm this. RT 3180:19-21,

22 3181:2-8, 3232:25-3233:1; 3244:8-15,3294:11-23, 3305:21-3306:4; 3318:3-3319:18; DX 533.

23 The '893 Patent. Samsung presented indisputable evidence that Apple's products

24 maintain a bookmark on the last viewed image even after the user uses the camera as required by

25 claim 10 of the '893 patent. RT 2403:3-2412:20, 2485:25-2486:25,3186:19-3187:2. Apple's

26 first argument, that Apple uses "apps" and not "modes," is discussed above. The second, that

27 Apple's products sometimes did not infringe and therefore did not meet the "irrespective of a

28 duration" element cannot serve as a basis for non-infringement as a matter of law. Bell 02198.51855/4974375.1 -29- CaseNo.ll-cv-01846-LHK



1 Commc 'ns Research, Inc. v. Vita/ink Commc 'ns Corp., 55 F .3d 615, 622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In

2 any event, this argument again impermissibly raised a matter of claim construction with the jury

3 that Apple failed to raise earlier with the Court.

4 The '711 Patent. Aside from raising the same "apps" and not "modes" argument," Apple's

5 only other argument was that its products do not have "applets." An "applet" is construed by the

6 court. Apple's expert, however, testified repeatedly that the term "applet" includes the limitation

7 of operating system independence. RT 3225:23-3226:7; 3227:12-18. Samsung's expert,

8 correctly applied the court's construction. RT 2433:8-11; DX 645. Under the Court's

9 construction, the record can only support a judgment of infringement.

10 IX.

11

A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Rule 59 permits the Court to grant new trial to prevent manifest unfairness. Here, the

12 Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits (Dkt. 1297, 1329) were unprecedented for

13 a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Sam sung from presenting a full and

14 fair case in response to Apple's many claims. Denial of Samsung's "empty chair" motion (Dkt.

15 1692, 1721) compounded the problem, enabling Apple to exploit Samsung's absent witnesses to

16 repeated advantage at trial. RT 3348:14-17; 4080:3-6; 4090:2-4; 4095:7-14; 4232:15-22.

17 Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to

18 testify "we were ripped off' and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-

19 21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's

20 products differ from Apple's (RT 850:12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung

21 product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for

22 any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7;

23 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play

24 advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple

25 had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not.

26 RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore

27 respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded

28 treatment of the parties. 02198.51855/4974375.1 -30- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK



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 02198.51855/4974375.1

DATED: September 21,2012 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN. LLP

Bv /s/ Susan R. Estrich Charles K. Verhoeven Kathleen M. Sullivan Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Susan R. Estrich Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA. LLC

-31- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR

1

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKESTRICH DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) [email protected] Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) [email protected] Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) [email protected] 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009) [email protected] Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) [email protected] 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC




Plaintiff,

vs.

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 SUSAN R. ESTRICH IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50 AND 59


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- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKESTRICH DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR

I, Susan R. Estrich, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the Los Angeles office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,

LLP, counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”). I submit this declaration

in support of Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New

Trial, and/or Remittitur. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set

forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I would testify to such facts under oath.


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

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 in Los Angeles, California on September 21, 2012.

By /s/ Susan R. Estrich

Susan R. Estrich


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT A

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT B

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT C

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT D

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT E

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT F

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT G

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT H

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT I

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT J

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT K

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT L

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT M

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT N

Filed Under Seal


Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT O

Filed Under Seal


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

02198.51855/4971254.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKWAGNER DECLARATION ISO SAMSUNG'S RENEWED RULE 50, NEW TRIAL & REMITTITUR MOTION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) [email protected] 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) [email protected] Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) [email protected] 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) [email protected] 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC




Plaintiff,


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. WAGNER IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50 AND 59 Date: December 6, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh


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

02198.51855/4971254.1 -1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKWAGNER DECLARATION ISO SAMSUNG'S RENEWED RULE 50, NEW TRIAL & REMITTITUR MOTION

I, Michael J. Wagner, hereby declare as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. I am currently a Managing Director at LitiNomics, Inc., a financial and economic

consulting firm specializing in the analysis of economic issues that arise in commercial disputes.

2. I am a Certified Public Accountant and attorney licensed in the State of California.

I have been a Partner at Price Waterhouse; a Managing Director at Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett; and

a Senior Advisor at CRA International, a publicly traded management consulting firm. I have a

Bachelor of Science in Engineering, which I received from the University of Santa Clara in 1969.

I have a Masters in Business Administration, which I received from U.C.L.A. in 1971. I have a

Juris Doctor degree, which I received from Loyola University School of Law at Los Angeles in

1975. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae.

3. I have specialized in the computation of commercial damages over the last 35 years

of my professional career. I have been qualified and testified at trial as an expert on financial

matters, principally commercial damages, 127 times, including Lanham Act cases and patent cases

(30 times in patent cases). I have testified on financial issues in 34 arbitrations. I also have been

deposed 314 times (101 times in patent cases; more than 10 times in trademark or Lanham Act

cases) on financial issues over my career.

4. I have 28 professional publications, the majority of which deals with the

computation of commercial damages (8 deal directly with patent damages). The most significant

publication is the Litigation Services Handbook, which I co-edited through its fourth edition. The

book is a collaborative effort of many of the leading experts in the financial area. I am the

founding editor and continued as an editor for over 20 years. The Handbook has been recognized

as authoritative by the Federal Judicial Center in its Treatise on Scientific Evidence. The

Treatise’s chapter on Economic Damages cites only five additional reference sources for further

guidance to federal judges. The Litigation Services Handbook is one of the five reference sources.

5. In the above-captioned case, Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., I

previously submitted a Declaration of Michael J. Wagner in Support of Samsung’s Opposition to

Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. I have also submitted expert reports, including my


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


April 16, 2012 Expert Report of Michael J. Wagner; my April 20, 2012 Corrected Expert Report

of Michael J. Wagner; and my May 11, 2012 Supplemental Expert Report of Michael J. Wagner.

I also testified at trial.

6. I submit this declaration in support of Samsung’s Motion pursuant to Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 50 and 59. If asked at a hearing or trial, I am prepared to testify regarding the

matters I discuss in this declaration.

7. I am being compensated at my customary rate for my work on this case. My

compensation is in no way contingent upon the opinions I arrive at or the result of the litigation.

8. In performing my analysis, I have reviewed the Court’s August 21, 2012 Final Jury

Instructions and the August 24, 2012 Amended Verdict Form (the “Verdict Form”). I have also

reviewed trial transcripts, trial demonstratives and exhibits, as well as publicly available

documents discussed in this declaration.

9. In addition to the review of documents listed above, I have relied on my training as

a Certified Public Accountant and my knowledge and expertise regarding intellectual property

litigation damages.

10. I may supplement this declaration in the event that additional relevant materials are

provided to me, including court filings and declarants’ testimony.

VERDICT ANALYSIS

11. I have compared the dollar amounts in Question 23 of the Verdict Form with

Apple’s claimed damages in this case as presented in trial testimony and exhibits, including

Apple’s trial exhibit PX25A1. I note the following.

12. For each of the 11 Samsung devices for which the jury awarded damages and found

infringement of one or more Apple design patents but no trade dress violation, the jury awarded

exactly 40% of Mr. Musika’s claimed figure for Samsung’s profits in PX25A1.5. This is shown

in the following table:


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


Product Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

40% of Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

Jury Award

Captivate $202,100,404 $80,840,162 $80,840,162

Continuum $40,997,793 $16,399,117 $16,399,117

Droid Charge $126,682,172 $50,672,869 $50,672,869

Epic 4G $325,452,234 $130,180,894 $130,180,894

Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $101,235,891 $40,494,356 $40,494,356

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $209,479,270 $83,791,708 $83,791,708

Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) $250,817,469 $100,326,988 $100,326,988

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $80,683,895 $32,273,558 $32,273,558

Gem $10,188,963 $4,075,585 $4,075,585

Indulge $40,027,960 $16,011,184 $16,011,184

Infuse 4G $111,982,436 $44,792,974 $44,792,974

TOTAL $1,499,648,487 $599,859,395 $599,859,395

13. For each of the five Samsung phones for which the jury awarded Apple damages

and found infringement of one or more design patents and trade dress dilution, the jury awarded

exactly the amount of lost profits claimed by Apple plus 40% of Samsung’s profits, as calculated

by Mr. Musika in PX25A1.4. This is shown in the following table:

Product Lost Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4

Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4


Lost Profits plus 40% of Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4

Jury Award

Fascinate 47,703,423 $239,589,391 $95,835,756 $143,539,179 $143,539,179

Galaxy S 4G $13,856,419 $148,720,623 $59,488,249 $73,344,668 $73,344,668

Galaxy S Showcase

$850,630 $52,878,789 $21,151,516 $22,002,146 $22,002,146


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


Product Lost Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4

Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4


Lost Profits plus 40% of Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.4

Jury Award

(i500)

Mesmerize $9,667,526 $108,640,214 $43,456,086 $53,123,612 $53,123,612

Vibrant $19,054,281 $176,549,189 $70,619,676 $89,673,957 $89,673,957

TOTAL $91,132,279 $726,378,206 $290,551,283 $381,683,562 $381,683,562

14. Seven Samsung devices were found to infringe only utility patents. For five of

these devices, the jury awarded exactly half the royalty calculated by Mr. Musika in PX25A1.5, as

shown in the following table:

Product Royalty Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

50% of Royalty Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

Jury Award

Exhibit 4G $2,163,641 $1,081,820 $1,081,820

Galaxy Tab $3,933,382 $1,966,691 $1,966,691

Nexus S 4G $3,656,594 $1,828,297 $1,828,297

Replenish $6,700,512 $3,350,256 $3,350,256

Transform $1,906,120 $953,060 $953,060

TOTAL $18,360,249 $9,180,124 $9,180,124

15. The Galaxy Prevail was found to infringe only utility patents. The jury’s award of

$57,867,383 for the Galaxy Prevail is 40% of what Apple claimed for Samsung’s profits in

PX25A1.5, as shown in the table below:

Product Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5


Jury Award

Galaxy Prevail $144,668,457 $57,867,383 $57,867,383


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. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) was found to infringe only utility patents. The jury

awarded $833,076 in damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi), which is higher than the $604,391

Apple sought for lost profits in PX25A1.4. Mr. Musika did not provide a calculation for a

reasonable royalty for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi).

17. The calculations in paragraphs 12, 13, and 15, above, show that the jury awarded

Samsung’s profits of $599,859,395 for 11 phones the jury found infringed one or more Apple

design patents; $290,551,283 for five phones the jury found infringed one or more Apple design

patents and diluted Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress or unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress;

and $57,867,383 for one phone found to infringe only utility patents. The total portion of the

verdict representing Samsung’s profits is thus $948,278,061.

18. The calculations in paragraph 13, above, show that $91,132,279 of the verdict

represents Apple’s lost profits for the five Samsung phones found to infringe one or more design

patents and dilute trade dress.

19. The calculations in paragraph 14 above show that $9,180,124 of the verdict

represents Apple's royalty for five Samsung devices found to infringe only utility patents, namely

the Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.

20. The remaining award of $833,076 in damages was awarded for the Galaxy Tab

10.1 (WiFi).

NOTICE DATES

21. For all smartphones for which Mr. Musika calculated Samsung’s profits, except the

Gem and Indulge, Mr. Musika based those calculations on a notice date of June 2010. Mr.

Musika based his calculations for the Gem and Indulge on a notice date of August 4, 2010.

22. I’ve been asked to assume that the earliest notice Samsung received of the ’915 and

D’677 patents and Apple's registered trade dress was Apple’s filing of the April 15, 2011

complaint, and that the earliest notice Samsung received of the ’163, D’305, D’889, and D’087

patents was Apple’s filing of the June 16, 2011 amended complaint.


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


23. Mr. Musika testified regarding the adjustment of his calculation of Samsung’s

profits to a later notice date than he assumed, while still crediting his opinion on Samsung’s

profitability. (August 13, 2012 Tr. at 2073:21-2074:19.) Specifically, Mr. Musika testified:

Q. Now, with respect to your calculation of Samsung's profits, if the jury

ultimately decides that damages calculation should start at a later date than

the one you used, have you given them enough information that they could

adjust their calculation?

A. Yes.

Q. And where is that information?

A. The information is in two places. One would be the joint exhibit 1500,

which we talked about a little bit earlier, which really is the sum of all the

22 million units and the $8 billion. So we have – you have a chronological,

basically – you remember how I talked about that being hard to read

because it had individual columns for each quarter? So if the date moves,

you would simply go in along that schedule and say – draw a line and say,

well, okay, infringement is not going to start in June of 2010. It’s going to

start at a later date. Draw a line, and all the units that were sold before then

would come out of the calculation. You would multiply that revenue times

the 35.5 percent and subtract that from the $2.2 billion number.

(Id. at 2073:21-2074:19.)

24. I note that JX1500 gives quarterly figures for Samsung's revenue. Both April 15,

2011, and June 16, 2011, fall within the second quarter of 2011.

25. I used Mr. Musika’s proposed method to adjust for a later notice date by

subtracting from JX1500 sales up to and including the quarter I have been asked to assume

Samsung first received notice of Apple's design patents and trade dress, namely the second quarter

of 2011. This resulted in a $3.34 billion reduction in the total revenue for the five phones found

to infringe one or more design patents and dilute trade dress, and the 11 phones found to infringe

one or more design patents but not to dilute trade dress. This is illustrated in the following table:


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


Product Total Revenues in JX1500 Total Revenues in JX1500 thru Q2’11

Captivate $525,000,000 $457,000,000

Continuum $112,000,000 $89,000,000

Droid Charge $395,000,000 $241,000,000

Epic 4G $855,000,000 $758,000,000

Fascinate $619,000,000 $601,000,000

Galaxy S 4G $473,000,000 $242,000,000

Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $240,000,000 $0

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $561,000,000 $0

Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)

$764,000,000 $0

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $289,000,000 $0

Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $148,000,000 $64,000,000

Gem $64,000,000 $46,000,000

Indulge $98,000,000 $55,000,000

Infuse 4G $417,000,000 $138,000,000

Mesmerize $296,000,000 $205,000,000

Vibrant $444,000,000 $444,000,000

TOTAL $6,300,000,000 $3,340,000,000

REMITTITUR

26. If Apple is not entitled to the $91,132,279 of the verdict representing Apple’s lost

profits for the five Samsung phones found to infringe one or more design patents and dilute trade

dress, and instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musika’s claimed figure for Samsung’s profits for these

phones, the jury award would be reduced by $70,034,295 to $311,649,267. In calculating the

amount of this reduction for factoring out lost profits, I used PX25A1.5, which is Mr. Musika's


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


calculation of Samsung's profits in the event the jury did not award lost profits. A summary of

my calculations to arrive at the reduction is shown in the table below:

(a) Product (b) Jury Award (c) Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

(d) 40% of Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5

Difference Between (b) and (d)

Fascinate $143,539,179 $267,735,061 $107,094,024 $36,445,155

Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $155,204,780 $62,081,912 $11,262,756

Galaxy S Showcase (i500)

$22,002,146 $53,518,267 $21,407,307 $594,839

Mesmerize $53,123,612 $114,099,746 $45,639,898 $7,483,714

Vibrant $89,673,957 $188,565,314 $75,426,126 $14,247,831

TOTAL $381,683,562 $779,123,168 $311,649,267 $70,034,295

27. If Apple is not entitled to damages on the 11 phones found to infringe one or more

design patents but not to dilute trade dress from the June 2010 and August 4, 2010 dates assumed

by Mr. Musika, but instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musika’s calculation of Samsung's profits

adjusted for notice based on the filing of the complaint (for the D’677 patent) and the amended

complaint (for the D’087 and D’305 patents), the award on these 11 phones would be reduced by

$253,328,000 to $346,531,395. This is shown in the following table:

Product Jury Award 40% of Samsung's Profits Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5 Adjusted for Notice

Difference

Captivate $80,840,162 $15,946,162 $64,894,000

Continuum $16,399,117 $3,761,117 $12,638,000

Droid Charge $50,672,869 $16,450,869 $34,222,000

Epic 4G $130,180,894 $22,544,894 $107,636,000

Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $40,494,356 $40,494,356 $0

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $83,791,708 $83,791,708 $0

Galaxy S II (Epic 4G $100,326,988 $100,326,988 $0


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



Difference

Touch)

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $32,273,558 $32,273,558 $0

Gem $4,075,585 ($2,456,415) $6,532,000

Indulge $16,011,184 $8,201,184 $7,810,000

Infuse 4G $44,792,974 $25,196,974 $19,596,000

TOTAL $599,859,395 $346,531,395 $253,328,000

28. If Apple is not entitled to lost profits damages on the five phones found to infringe

one or more design patents and dilute trade dress, and is not entitled to damages from the June

2010 date assumed by Mr. Musika, but instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musika’s calculation of

Samsung's profits adjusted for notice dates based on the filing of the complaint (for the D’677

patent and trade dress) and the amended complaint (for the D’087 and D’305 patents), the award

on these five phones would be further reduced by $220,952,000 to $90,697,267, as shown in the

following table:


Difference

Fascinate $143,539,179 $21,752,024 $121,787,155

Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $27,717,912 $45,626,756

Galaxy S Showcase (i500)

$22,002,146$12,319,307 $9,682,839

Mesmerize $53,123,612 $16,529,898 $36,593,714

Vibrant $89,673,957 $12,378,126 $77,295,831

Less lost profits per para. 26

$70,034,295

TOTAL $311,649,267 $90,697,267 $220,952,000


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


29. If Apple is entitled to 5% of the award on the 11 phones found to infringe one or

more design patents but not dilute trade dress, adjusted for Samsung’s notice dates as calculated in

paragraph 27 above, 5% of $346,531,395 is $17,326,570.

30. If Apple is entitled to 5% of the award on five phones found to infringe one or

more design patents and dilute trade dress, removing lost profits and adjusted for Samsung’s

notice dates as calculated in paragraph 28 above, 5% of $90,697,267 is $4,534,863.

31. The below table is a summary of all the reductions discussed in paragraphs 26 to 30

above.

Product(s) Amount Before Reduction

Reason for Reduction

Amount of Reduction

Amount Remaining

11 Phones (Design Patent Only)

$599,859,395 Correct Notice Dates

$253,328,000 $346,531,395

11 Phones (After Adjustment for Correct Notice Dates)

$346,531,395 Profits Attributable to IP (5%)

$329,204,825 $17,326,570

5 Phones (Design Patent & Trade Dress)

$381,683,562 No Lost Profits $70,034,295 $311,649,267

5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost Profits)

$311,649,267 Correct Notice Dates

$220,952,000 $90,697,267

5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost Profits and Correct Notice Dates)

$90,697,267 Profits Attributable to IP (5%)

$86,162,404 $4,534,863

Prevail (Utility Patents Only) $57,867,383 No Basis for

Award of Samsung's Profits

$57,867,383 $0

32. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the back-up worksheets showing

the calculations undertaken to arrive at each of the reductions discussed above.


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 of the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Santa Clara County, California on September 21, 2012.

By: _______________________________________ Michael J. Wagner


Wagner Declaration

EXHIBIT A


1

MICHAEL J. WAGNER Managing Director

J.D., Loyola University School of Law at Los Angeles (1975)

M.B.A., University of California

at Los Angeles (1971)

B.S. Engineering, University of Santa Clara

(1969)

Michael Wagner, a Managing Director with LitiNomics, has testified 127 times at trial, 34 times in

arbitration, and 314 times in deposition. He has testified in Federal courts in 18 different states and

in State court in 10 different States. The most frequent subject matters of his expert testimony are

the calculation of commercial damages or business value. He has also testified a number of times

on the subject of alter ego.

EXPERIENCE

2007-Present Managing Director, LitiNomics

2004–2007 Senior Advisor, CRA International (successor to InteCap, Inc.)

1999–2004 Managing Director, InteCap, Inc.

1999 Senior Vice President, PHB Hagler Bailly, Inc. (successor to Putnam, Hayes &

Bartlett, Inc.)

1993–1999 Managing Director, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. (successor to Dickenson,

O’Brien & Associates)

1985–1992 Partner, Price Waterhouse

Senior Manager, 1983–1985

Manager, 1979–1980

Consultant, 1976–1979

1981–1983 Principal, Dickenson, O’Brien & Associates

Associate, 1980–1981

1975–1976 Associate Cost Engineer, Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (CURRENT)

Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants - # 1079895


MICHAEL J. WAGNER Page 2

**Underlined party was my client.

Certified in Financial Forensics - # 23 (2008 – current)

CFF Credential Committee (2008 – 2011)

AICPA Litigation Services Committee (1993–1995)

AICPA Business Valuation Standards Task Force (1994–1995)

AICPA and IBA combined Conference Steering Committee (1995)

AICPA MAS Practice Standards and Administration Subcommittee (1988–1990)

AICPA Auditing Standards Board Litigation Services Task Force (1989)

AICPA 1990 through 1995 Litigation Services Conference Steering Committees

Co-Editor, CPA Expert (1994–1996)

Certified Public Accountant, State of California - # 30327

Member, State Bar of California - # 67911

Panel of Experts, Dunn on Damages

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (PAST)

Member, Sedona Conference Patent Damages and Remedies Working Group (2011 – 2012)

Member, American Bar Association

Member, State Bar of California (inactive status 1991–1995)

Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants

Litigation Services Committee (1985–1990), Chairman (1987–1989)

Government Relations Committee (1989–1990)

Contingent Fee Task Force (1988–1990)

Member, Oregon Society of Certified Public Accountants

Litigation Services Committee (1990–1994)

Certified Public Accountant, States of Hawaii (1980–1983), Washington (1990–1994), Oregon

(1990–1994)

Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association

Dispute Resolution Services, Sub-chair of Administration Committee (1987–1989)

NASD Board of Arbitrators

Hastings College of Advocacy, Faculty Expert

NITA, Faculty Member

Certified Management Consultant

American Arbitration Association’s Panel of Arbitrators

Arbitration Services of Portland, Inc.




Academy of Experts

PUBLICATIONS

“Book of Wisdom – Is it Fact or Fiction”, Dunn on Damages – The Economic Damages Report for

Litigators, Issue 3, Summer 2011

"A Primer on Patent Damages", Dunn on Damages - The Economic Damages Report for Litigators

and Experts, Issue 2, Spring 2011.

"The 25% Rule Lives On", IP Law 360, September 8, 2010 (co-authored with John Jarosz and Carla

Mulhern)

“Response to One Man’s Opinion, comments on ‘A New Look at Expected Cash Flows and Present

Value Discounts’,” CPA Expert, spring 2004 (co-authored with Michael Crain and Bonnie Goldsmith)

“Differences between Economic Damages Analysis and Business Valuation,” Chapter 13 in the

Handbook of Business Valuation and Intellectual Property Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 2004 (co-

authored with Michael Dunbar)

Litigation Services Handbook (4th Edition – 2007, 3

rd Edition – 2001, 2

nd Edition – 1995, 1

st Edition –

1990), John Wiley & Sons, (co-edited with Peter B. Frank and Roman L. Weil).

Chapters Co-Authored

4th Edition:

Chapter 1 “The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services”

Chapter 8 “Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations”

Chapter 22 “Patent Infringement Damages”

Chapter 29 “Alter Ego”

3rd

Edition:

Chapter 1 “The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services”

Chapter 5A “Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations” (2003 Supplement)


Chapter 38 “Alter Ego”

2nd

Edition:

Chapter 1 “The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services”

Chapter10 “Alter Ego”

Chapter 34 "Patent Infringement Damages”

1st Edition:

Chapter 1 “The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services”





Chapter 31 “Securities Act Violations: Computation of Damages”

“Economic Damages: Use and Abuse of Business Valuation Concepts,” Chapter 14 in The

Handbook of Advanced Business Valuation, McGraw-Hill, 1999 (co-authored with John Phillips).

“Tax Effects of Discount Rates in Taxable Damage Awards,” CPA Expert, winter 1999 (co-authored

with Greg Hallman).

“Experience Enhances Objectivity of Damage Estimates,” CPA Expert, winter 1997.

“Communicating in Litigation Services: Reports, A Nonauthoritative Guide,” AICPA Consulting

Services Practice Aid No. 96-3, 1996 (co-authored with Everett P. Harry III). Partially reprinted in

Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits, Volume 2, (5th Edition) by Robert L. Dunn.

“Court Expands Lost Profits Damages From Patent Infringement,” CPA Expert, summer 1996 (co-

authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).

“The Implications of Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for CPA-Expert Witnesses,”

The CPA Management Consultant Newsletter of the AICPA Management Consultant Division,

spring 1994 (co-authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).

“The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedures That Apply to Expert Witnesses,” CPA Litigation

Services Counselor, Volume 1994, Issues 2 & 3. Harcourt Brace (February and March 1994).

“What Juries Look for in CPAs,” Journal of Accountancy (November 1993).

“Litigation Services,” AICPA MAS Technical Consulting Practice Aid, No. 7 1986 reprinted and

updated as “Providing Litigation Services” AICPA Consulting Services Practice AID 93-4 (co-

authored with Peter B. Frank) (1993).

“Valuation of Intangible Assets,” Financial Valuation: Businesses and Business Interests, Warren

Gorham Lamont, 1993 Supplement (co-authored with Lee B. Shepard).

“Opportunities in Litigation Services,” Journal of Accountancy, (June 1992) (co-authored with Bruce

L. McFarlane).

“Economic Damages in Patent Infringement Cases,” Patent Litigation 1991, Vol. II, Practicing Law

Institute, Course Handbook Series No. 321 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).

“Using CPAs In Your Law Practice,” Seattle-King County Bar Bulletin, February 1991 (co-authored

with Bruce L. McFarlane). Reprinted in The Oregon Certified Public Accountant, September 1991,

as “The Role of the CPA in Commercial Litigation.”

“The Accountant’s Role in the Process of Damage Measurement,” The Practical Accountant (July

1990).

“How do you Measure Damages? Lost Income or Lost Cash Flow?” Journal of Accountancy

(February 1990).

“Expert Problems,” ABA Litigation Journal, Volume 15, No. 2 (Winter 1989).

“How to Control Your Expert,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report, Volume X, No. 2

(February 1988).




“Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties,” American Intellectual Property Law Association

Quarterly Journal, Volume 15, No. 4 1987 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank).

“Breach of Duty by Directors, Officers and Principal Shareholders: Shareholder Derivative Actions,”

Chapter 63, Commercial Damages, Matthew Bender (1986).

“Computers Revolutionize Damage Claim Analysis,” The Recorder (June 7, 1984).

“Analyzing Damage Claims—Discounted Cash Flow Method,” The National Law Journal

(August 29, 1983).

“The Litigator’s Ultimate Weapon,” Los Angeles Lawyer (May/June 1983) (co-authored with Peter B.

Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).

Committee Publications

“Communicating Understandings in Litigation Services: Engagement Letters,” AICPA Consulting

Services Practice Aid 95-2 (1995).

Statement on Standards for Consulting Services No. 1, AICPA (October 1991).

Selected Speeches

“The Use of Consumer Surveys in Patent Cases for Damage Apportionment”, LES 2012 Winter

Meeting, March 13, 2012, Anaheim, CA

“Evolving IP Value: Recent Developments in Damages and Licensing”, Top IP Retreat, September

16, 2011, Pebble Beach, CA

"Patent Exhaustion", IP Damages Institute, November 8, 2010, Century City, California

"Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case", The 2010 Midwest

Intellectual Property Institute, September 24, 2010, Minneapolis, Minnesota

“Do’s and Don’ts of Being and Expert Witness”, 24th Annual Bankruptcy and Restructuring

Conference, Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors, June 7, 2008, Las Vegas,

Nevada

“Enforcing the License Agreement, Royalty Audits, Collections, and Litigation” The Intellectual

Property Law Section of the State Bar of California, April 9, 2008, San Francisco, California

“Effective Presentations of Financial Information at Trial”, 2007 Advanced Litigation Conference,

California Society of CPAs, May 3, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada

“Discounting Damages to Present Value: Today’s Hottest Issues,” panelist, Business Valuation

Resources, July 20, 2005, Telephonic Conference

“Assessing and Proving Damages from Infringement,” panelist, USC Law School 2004 Intellectual

Property Institute, May 25, 2004, Beverly Hills, California

“Economic Damages,” AICPA National Business Valuation Conference, November 17, 2003,

Phoenix, Arizona

“Discovery of Expert Drafts and Notes, Panel Discussion,” Advanced Workshop on Calculating &

Proving Patent Damages, Law Seminars International, November 12, 2003, Seattle, Washington




“Calculating and Presenting Lost Profits: The Bread and Butter of Litigation Services” and “Mock

Arbitration for Lost Profits”, panelist on both presentations, AICPA National Conference on

Advanced Litigation Services, October 1, 2003, Miami, Florida

“Discount Rates and Taxation Issues in Damages,” 2003 Advanced Business Litigation Institute,

California Society of CPAs, May 9, 2003, La Quinta, California

“Current Issues in Patent Damages,” The Sedona Conference, November 10, 2000, Sedona,

Arizona

“Tax Issues in Lost Profits Damage Calculations” and panelist for “Expert Shootout, or Shoot the

Expert,” 2000 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 17, 2000, Beverly

Hills, California

“IP Valuation: A Critical Component in Transactional and Litigation Strategy,” Silicon Valley

Intellectual Property Law Association, September 20, 2000, Palo Alto, California

“Damages, Damages, Damages: Business Damages In Commercial Litigation,” 1999 AICPA

National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 18, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia.

“Commercial Damages: A Case Study on Lost Profits,” 1998 AICPA National Advanced Litigation

Services Conference, October 14, 1998, Tempe, Arizona.

“Damages—What You Need to Know as Taught by the Experts,” 1998 ABA Section of Litigation

Annual Meeting, April 24, 1998, New York, New York.

“Expert Witnessing in a Fraud Case,” 1997 AICPA National Conference on Fraud, December 8,

1997, San Antonio, Texas.

“Advanced Issues in Determining Discount and Growth Rates,” 1997 AICPA National Advanced

Litigation Services Conference, October 16, 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada (with Greg Hallman).

“Alter Ego” and “More Effective Testimony,” EPA Third Annual Financial Analyst Workshop, May 7–

8, 1997, Denver, Colorado.

“More Effective Testimony,” 1996 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference,

October 1, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Expert Witness,” The 1996 AICPA Practitioners’ Symposium, June 10, 1996, Las Vegas, Nevada.

“Calculating Damages,” 1996 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely

Held Businesses, January 26, 1996, Orlando, Florida.

“Calculating Damages,” 1995 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely

Held Businesses, January 26, 1995, Las Vegas, Nevada.

“The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure That Apply to Expert Witnesses,” 1994 AICPA

National Advanced Litigation Services. Conference, October 20, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona.

“Damages In Employment Litigation,” Employment And Labor Law In Oregon, Lorman Education

Services, April 29, 1994, Portland, Oregon.

“Damages, Time Value of Money” and panel participant on “Practical Problems of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure No. 26,” 1994 Litigation Advanced Forum, California Society of CPAs, April 25,

1994, Monterey, California.




“Patent Infringement/Intellectual Property,” 1993 Litigation Services Conference, California Society

of CPA’s, December 1, 1993, Los Angeles; December 2, 1993, San Francisco, California.

“Expert Witness Depositions,” 1993 Oregon Society of CPA’s Litigation Support Services

Miniseries, November 17, 1993, Portland, Oregon.

“Panel: The Many Roads to Alternative Dispute Resolution” and “Basic Concepts in Litigation

Services,” Fifth Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in Litigation Services,” July 22–23,

1993, La Jolla, California.

“Professional Standards” and “Litigation Process/Role of Expert Witness” 1993 Litigation Services

Conference, Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants, May 20, 1993, Bellevue,

Washington.

“The Deposition of the Expert Witness,” Fourth Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in

Litigation Services,” July 17, 1992 Washington, DC; October 23, 1992, Las Vegas, Nevada.

“Litigation Services Standards,” 1992 Litigation Services Conference, Washington Society of

Certified Public Accountants, May 9, 1992, Silverdale, Washington.

“The Litigation Process Through Discovery,” 1991 Litigation Services Conference, California Society

of Certified Public Accountants, November 20, 1991, San Francisco; November 21, 1991, Los

Angeles, California.

“Professional Standards and Work Papers,” Oregon Society of CPAs, Litigation Support Services

Conference, September 27, 1991, Portland, Oregon.

“Economic Analysis of Damages: Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties,” IRR’s

Conference on Securing and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights for Competitive Advantage,

September 26, 1991, San Francisco, California.

“How to be a Better Testifying Expert,” the Third Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in

Litigation Services,” July 11, 1991, Denver, Colorado; October 10, 1991, Atlanta, Georgia.

“Accounting Standards in Litigation Support—Current and Future,” Colorado Society of CPAs 1990

Litigation Support Conference, December 3,1990, Denver, Colorado.

“Mini Trials—New Work for Experts” and “Issues in Forensic Accounting,” National Forensic

Center’s 7th National Conference, December 8, 1990, Palm Springs, California.

“Deposition of the Expert,” California Society of CPAs 1990 Litigation Services Conference,

November 19, 1990—San Francisco; November 20, 1990, Los Angeles, California.

“Examining Damage Experts,” PLI’s Accountant’s Liability: Trial Strategies Conference, August 10,

1990, San Francisco, California.

“Developing Damages: Mock Trial Demonstration, “AICPA’s Conference on the CPA’s Role in

Litigation Services, July 13, 1990, Dallas, Texas; September 7, 1990, Washington, DC.

“Lost Profits, Business Interruptions” and “The Discovery Process,” 1990 Litigation Consulting

Conference, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, April 26, 1990, Los Angeles,

California.




“Standards in Litigation Services Engagements” and “Expert Witness Strategy Tactics,” Arizona

Society of CPAs’ Conference on the CPA as an Expert, September 25, 1989, Phoenix, Arizona.

“Damage Management,” AICPA’s Conference on the CPA’s Role in Litigation Support Services,

May 12, 1989, San Francisco; July 11, 1989, Boston; October 27, 1989, Chicago; December 8,

1989, Palm Beach, Florida.

“Litigation Services—Damage Studies,” AICPA’s 101st Annual Meeting, October 4, 1988, Los

Angeles, California.

“Litigation Update,” 1988 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of Certified Public

Accountants, September 26, 1988, San Francisco; September 27, 1988, Los Angeles, California.

“The Mini-Trial Approach to Dispute Resolution,” Los Angeles County Bar Association and the

American Arbitration Association Conference on New Techniques in Dispute Resolution, February

4, 1988, Los Angeles, California.

“Damages Issues During Trial,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers 14th Annual Seminar,

October 17, 1987, Rancho Mirage, California.

“Litigation Services Committee Update,” 1987 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of

Certified Public Accountants, September 22, 1987, Los Angeles, California.

“Using a CPA in Litigation,” 1987 Annual Meeting of the Florida Bar, June 11, 1987, Orlando,

Florida.

“Litigation Services,” 12th Annual AICPA Small Business Management Advisory Services

Conference, September 9–10, 1986, Dallas, Texas.



EXPERT TESTIMONY—COURT (*Indicates number in deposition section if deposition testimony was given)


No. Lawsuit** Court Type Law Firm/Attorneys Work Performed

127. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (2012)*308

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division

Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis

126. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)*309

U.S. District Court, District of Delaware


125. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corpo-ration Case No. 2:06-CV15139 (2011)*282

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate

Meagher & Flom Damages Analysis

124 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:09cv58 (2011)*285

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia

Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis

123. Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139 SC (2011)*252

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Fran-cisco Division

Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis

122. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 2:10cv248 (2011)*293


Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis

121 Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac-tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2011)*281

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Di-vision

Theft of trade secrets, Breach of contract, Tor-tious Interference with Prospective Business Re-lations

Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis

120. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)*260

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas

Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Smyser Kaplan & Veselka

Damages Analysis

119. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole Foods Market California and Whole Foods Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845 (2011)*290

San Joaquin County Superior Court, California

Breach of contract, Fraud, Tortious Interference with Contract.

Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher & Silva

Damages Analysis

118. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc. Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)*287

U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Texarka-na Division







117. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger Cleve-land Golf Company, Inc. Case No. 07CC12309 (2010)*266

Orange County Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis

116. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. Case No. 2-007-CV-279 (2010)*268

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Di-vision


115. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v. Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV-1384 (JVS) (2009)*262

U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division

Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Damages Analysis

114. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP Ameri-ca, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action No.: 2:07-cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)*261

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Di-vision

Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP

Fish & Richardson

Ropes & Grey

Damages Analysis

113. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC (2009)*255

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Fran-cisco Division

Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis

112. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc., KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case No. SA08-CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)*257

U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear

Irreparable Harm

Damages Analysis

eBay Factors

111. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED (2009)*254

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division

Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis

110. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International, Inc. Case No. 05CC06828 (2008)*241


Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Bo-noni

Alter ego analysis

109. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc. Civil Action 5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated) (2008)*246

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis






108. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case NO. CV 07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727 (2008 and 2011)*240

U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Copyright Infringement Trade Secret Misappropri-ation

Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis

Business Valuation

107. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil Action No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)*244


Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis

106. North American Title Company v. Liberty Title Company Case No. C 06-00187 (2008)*238

Contra Costa County Court, California

Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea Chediak

Jackson Lewis

Seyfarth Shaw

Damages Analysis

105. Global Sign, LLC, et al. v. Robert Merto, et al. Civil Action No. 05 CC 04088 (2008)


Unfair Competition Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis

104. Computer Acceleration Corporation v. Mi-crosoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV-140 (2007)*235

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Lufkin Divi-sion


103. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority, Inc., & Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Case No. 2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)*230

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Marshall Divi-sion

Patent Infringement Russo & Hale Damages Analysis

102. Electromotive, Inc. v. Mercury Marine Case No. 1:06CV1139 (GBL/TRJ) (2007)


Patent Infringement Kaufman & Canoles Damages Analysis

101 Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incor-porated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS (RNBx) (2007) *224

U.S. District Court Central Dis-trict of California, Southern Division

Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr

Damages Analysis &

Irreparable Harm

100. In re 3dfx Interactive, Inc. and William A. Brandt, Jr., Trustee v. nVidia Corporation and nVidia Investment Company Case No. 02-55795 RLE (2007) *213

U.S. Bankruptcy Court North-ern District of California San Jose Division

Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Business Valuation






99. MAN Aktiengesellschaft, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, Freightliner LLC, et al. No. 0412-13050 (2006)

Multnomah Circuit Court, Oregon

Fraud Ball Janik

Alston & Bird

Solvency analysis, Ordinary Course of Business, Reasonably Equivalent Val-ue

98. In the Matter of the George L. Brichetto and Elizabeth M. Brichetto Living Trust Dated October 1, 1987, as Amended. Case No. 328789 (2006)

Stanislaus Superior Court, California

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva

Trust Accounting and Dam-ages Analysis

97. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB) (2006) *217

U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary; Sheppard Mullin

Damages Analysis

96. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung Com-pany, Tatung Company of America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and View-Sonic Corporation. Civil Action No. 05-292 (JJF) (2006) *218

U.S. District Court District of Delaware

Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis

95. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In Motion, Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02-04483 SI and C03-0521 SI (2006) *210

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, San Fran-cisco Division

Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Damages Analysis

94. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B. Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979 (2005) *211

Sacramento Superior Court, California

Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Relationship

Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold

Damages Analysis Alter Ego Analysis

93. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan-ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1 (2005) *206

Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County, Florida

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Punitive Damages

92. Tarik Omari, et al. v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. et al. Case No. BC280010 (2005)

Los Angeles Superior Court, California

Fraud Law Offices of Victor L. George

Punitive Damages

91. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos. 591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and 0537454-1 (2003) (2005) (2006) *176

Fresno Superior Court, Cali-fornia

Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva Lange Richert & Patch Parish & Nelson

Damages Analysis






90. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Case No. BC 308355 (2005) *205


Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James Rosen

Damages Analysis & Puni-tive Damages

89. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-2494CW & 97-0378CW (2005) ) *191


Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold

Damages Analysis

88. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding Trail-ers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029 (2004) *203

Eighteenth Judicial Court, Sedgewick County, Kansas

Trademark Infringement & Interference with Contract

Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis

87. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *199


Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi

Damages Analysis

86. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *198



Damages Analysis

85. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Comput-er Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft Corpo-ration No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB) (2004) *189

U.S. District Court Northern District of California Oakland Division

Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis

84. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v. Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case No. 03CC06858 (2004) *196


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton

Damages Analysis

83. Protocol Services, Inc. v. Evolve Tele-Services, et al. Case No. 5:03 CV 0174 (2004)

U.S. District Court Western District of Michigan Southern Division

Theft of Trade Secret Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

82. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v. L’Koral and Peter Koral Case No. BC 286577 (2004) *193

Los Angeles County Superior Court, California

Fraud and Breach of Fidu-ciary Duty

Browne & Woods Law Offices of Gary Freedman

Business Valuation






81. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM (2004) *132

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa

Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi

Damages Analysis

80. Mallinckrodt, Inc., et al. v. Masimo Corpora-tion Case No. CV 00-6506 MRP (2004)

U.S. District Court Central Dis-trict of California


Damages Analysis

79. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. Case No. 4:01CV1955CDP (2004) *185

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division

Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Mori-arty & McNett

Damages Analysis

78. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil Ac-tion No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) *179

U.S. District Court District of New Jersey


Damages Analysis

77. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions, Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2003) *173

U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Divi-sion

Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P. O’Melveny & Myers

Damages Analysis

76. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry, et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2003) *163


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis & Punitive Damages

75. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2003) *164

U.S. District Court Western District of Washington

Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, Johnson & Kindness

Damages Analysis

74. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. General Elec-tric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028 (2002) *135

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia Rome Divi-sion

Environmental Contamina-tion

Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis

73. City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152 (2001) & (2002) *154


Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis & Punitive Damages

72. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case No. 997170 (2001) *157

San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Folk

Damages Analysis

71. True North Composites LLC v. Trinity Industries Case No. 99-783 (2001)


Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis

70. MET-Rx Foundation for Health Enhance-ment, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC., et al. Case No. 771551 (2000) *126


Breach of Contract Feldhake, August & Roquemore

Damages Analysis






69. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec Securi-ty, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000) *125


Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis

68. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No. SC 049754 (2000) *124


Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dor-man

Damages Analysis

67. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ) (1999) *121

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, Oakland Division


Damages Analysis

66. Trovan, Ltd., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. Case No. 98-0094 (1999) *120


Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis

65. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness Civil No. C94-1586C (1999) *117


Patent Infringement, Un-fair Competition

Christensen, O’Connor, Johnson & Kindness

Damages Analysis

64. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange Case No. 66 2216 (1999) *114


Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

63. Airgas, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc. Case No. 115 (1999)

Common Pleas, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania

Breach of Contract Cozen & O'Connor Damages Analysis

62. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone Container Corporation Case No. BC 188858 (1999) *113


Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

Damages Analysis

61. Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg, Weiss, et al. No. 92C7768 (1999)

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Abuse of Process Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

60. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al. Case No. 387467 (1999) *111

San Mateo Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Nelson, Greenberg & Cohen

Damages Analysis

59. 9850 Meadowglen Properties v. A.G. Spanos Enterprises, Inc. Case No. BC 084216 (1998) and (1997)


Breach of Contract Freeman & Brown Damages analysis

58. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk GmbH, et al. Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998) *106

U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division

Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada & Witt

Damages Analysis






57. Ayre, et al. V. Attwood Corp., et al. Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998) *103

Circuit Court, County of Kent, Michigan

Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch; Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn & Washburn

Damages Analysis

56. AMETRON v. Entin, et al. Case No. BC160521 (1998) *101


Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity

Mahoney, Coppenrath, Jaffe & Pearson

Damages Analysis

55. Koutney v. Exxon Corporation Case No. CV 748293 (1997)

Santa Clara Superior Court, California

Unfair Competition McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalvaca & MacCuish

Damages Analysis

54. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems Corp. Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997) *95


Unjust Enrichment, Quan-tum Meruit

Irell & Manella Damages Analysis

53. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997) *92

2nd

Judicial District State of Idaho

Breach of Contract Sacks Montgomery Damages Analysis

52. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin Vision, Ltd. Case No. BC 016305 (1997) *91


Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis

51. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST Research, Inc. Case No. 74 82 37 (1996) *79


Tortious Interference with Contract

Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

50. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Management Services No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996) *77

U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Divi-sion

Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine

Damages Analysis

49. Cook v. Carousel Mall Case No. SCV 07595 (1996)

San Bernardino Superior Court, California

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis

48. Forti v. General Dynamics No. KC 016871/017393 (1996) *73


Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation

47. Wilcox & Devineni v. Wilkes-Barre General Hospital Case No. 5418-C-1990 (1996)

Court of Common Pleas, Lu-cerne County, Pennsylvania

Breach of Contract Nash & Company Damages Analysis

46. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software Civil No. 95WY621 (1996) *72

U.S. District Court of Colorado Tortious Interference with Contract


Damages Analysis






45. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation CV-94-1370 SVW (1995) *66


Class Action Securities Case

Prongay & Mikolajcyk; Greenfield & Rifkin

Damages Analysis

44. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995) *64

U.S. District Court, District of Arizona

Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvin; Cohen & Cotton

Damages Analysis

43. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enterpris-es, Inc. BC 093085 (1995) *61


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

42. Portland 76 v. UNOCAL, et al. Case No. 92-1635 (1995)

U.S. District Court District of Oregon

Breach of Contract Ball, Janik & Novack Damages Analysis

41. Mortorff v. Scotti Bros. Entertainment No. BC 022503 (1995)


Breach of Contract Law Offices of James P. Tierney

Damages Analysis

40. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf No. BC069435 (1994) *59


Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Oliver

Damages Analysis

39. Castro v. Paine Webber, Inc. No. 1:94CV65 and No. 1:94CV256 (1994)

U.S. District Court, Eastern Division of Texas


Provost & Umphrey Fairness of Settlement

38. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. No. BC-013701 (1994) *58


Intellectual Property Law Offices of James P. Tierney

Damages Analysis

37. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger & Jensen Civil No. 900903226CV (1994) *55

Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake City, Utah

Patent Attorney Malprac-tice

Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis

36. In re: Information Resources, Inc. Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994) *53



Freeborn & Peters; Katten, Muchin & Zavis

Budgeting

35. Lawrence v. Equipment Denis (1993)

Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Oregon

Products Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis

34. Georgia Pacific v. Corrugated Partitions, Inc. (1993)


Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Alter Ego Analysis

33. Grice Industries v. Ingman (1993)

Circuit Court, Lane County, Oregon

Patent Attorney Malprac-tice

Williams & Troutwine Damages Analysis






32. Boly v. Boly (1992)


Marital Dissolution Gevurtz, Menashe, Hergert, Larson & Kurshner

Business Valuation

31. Rekdahl v. Owens Illinois (1992)


Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages

30. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries (1992) *42

King County Superior Court, Washington

Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis

29. Glock v. Owens Illinois (1991)

Philadelphia County Court, Pennsylvania

Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages

28. Ixsys v. Stratagene (1991) *38

San Diego Superior Court, California

Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis

27. WSI v. Port of Portland (1991)


Breach of Contract Bogle & Gates Damages Analysis

26. Torppe v. Saint Joseph Medical Center (1991)

Los Angeles, Superior Court, California

Medical Malpractice Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis

25. Keike v. Owens Illinois (1991) Circuit Court, Hawaii Asbestos Greeley, Walker & Kowen Punitive Damages

24. Gresham v. Warren Tool (1991)


Product Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis

23. Ingram v. Owens Illinois (1990) *36

U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages

22. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC (1990) *33


Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis

21. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC) (1990) *30


Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation

20. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp. (1990) *27

U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Damages Analysis

19. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation Seeds (1989) *26

U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis






18. In re: Desert High Foods, Inc. (1989)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, East-ern District of California

Bankruptcy Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro & Quittner

Business Valuation

17. ASD, Ltd. v. Carolina Lanes, Inc. (1989)


Unlawful Detainer Law Offices of Frank Whitehead

Revenue Analysis

16. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp. (1989) *25


Breach of Implied Warran-ties, Fraud

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sus-man

Damages Analysis

15. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines (1989) *23

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida

Wrongful Death Steven Walker; Jenner & Block

Damages Analysis

14. Lippman v. Levy (1989) *22


Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation

13. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries (1989) *20


Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis

12. Challenge/Cook Brothers v. LCB Holdings (1989)

Federal District Court, Central District of California

Breach of Contract Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation

11. Gursey v. Landon (1988)


Accounting Malpractice Haight, Brown & Bonesteel Professional Standards

10. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) *17 Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence & Damages Analysis

9. George W. Gaulding, Jr. v. River Downs Investments Co. (1988)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California

Bankruptcy, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Lobel, Winthrop & Broker Investigatory Accounting

8. Egilsson v. Polarknit (1987)

Federal District Court, Central District of California

Antitrust Shea & Gould Damages Analysis

7. Newman v. Stutman, Treister & Glatt (1986)


Legal Malpractice Irell & Manella Damages Analysis

6. Stewart v. Stewart 1986)


Fraud to Set Aside Marital Dissolution Property Settlement

Hunt, Colaw & Roe, Inc. Business Valuation

5. Prowizor v. City of Los Angeles (1986)

Los Angeles City Administra-tive Hearing, California

Wrongful Termination Lowe & Marr Damages Analysis






4. Asphalt Specialties, Inc. v. State of Califor-nia (1986)

Riverside Superior Court, Cali-fornia

Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California Department of Transporta-tion

Damages Analysis

3. Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. 1985)

Federal District Court, North-ern District of California

Breach of Insurance Con-tract

Irell & Manella Analysis of Reasonableness of Attorney Fees

2. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian (1983 and 1988) *3

San Francisco Superior Court, California

Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis

1. Bernstein v. L.A. New Hospital (1983)


Breach of Contract Gold, Herscher, Marks & Pepper

Damages Analysis



EXPERT TESTIMONY—DEPOSITION (**If Protective Order in place)


No. Lawsuit Court Type Law Firm/Attorneys Work Performed

314. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC Civil Action 1:11-cv-00736 (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana

Satisfaction of Royalty Ob-ligation

Finnegan Henderson Farabow, Garrett & Dunner

Damages Analysis

313. Mee Industries, Inc. v.Wasserman Comden & Casselman, L.L.P., I Donald Weissman, David & McElyea, P.A., John McElyea and D. Paul McCaskill Case No. 2011-CA-004008-O (2012)

Ninth Judicial District, Orange County, Florida

Legal Malpractice Hill Ward Henderson Damages Analysis

312. TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony Corporation; Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.,; Sony Computer Entertainment Ameri-ca, Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; and Sony Electronics Co., Ltd Case No. C 10-00475 PJH (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis

311. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH Civil Action No. 09-080 (JJF) (2012)**


Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis

310. Gen-Probe, Incorporated v. Becton, Dickin-son and Company Case Action No. 09 CV 2319 and 10 CV 0602 BEN (NLS) (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Southern District of California

Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis

Commercial Success

309. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)**



308. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jo-se Division

Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm

Damages Analysis

307. Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc. (f/k/a NeXT Computer v. Motorola, Inc., and Motorola Mobility, Inc. Case No. 1:11-CV-08540 (2012)**



306. iHance, Inc. v. Eloqua Limited and Eloqua Corporation Case no. 2:11 CV 257 (MSD/TEM) (2012)**


Patent Infringement Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis






305. CooperVision Inc. v. CIBA Vision A.G. Docket No. 50-122-T-00363-11 (2012)**

American Arbitration Associa-tion International Centre for Dispute Resolution

Breach of Patent License Irell & Manella Damages Analysis

304. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corporation, Fugro-Geoteam, Inc., Fugro-Geoteam AS, Fugro Norway Marine Ser-vices AS, Fugro, Inc., Fugro (USA), Inc., and Fugro Geoservices, Inc. Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-1827 (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

Patent Infringement Royston Raynor Damages Analysis

303. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, and Acer Civil Action No. 09-353-JJF, 09-704-JJF, and 10-282-LPS (2012)**


Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer PLLC

Damages Analysis

302. Technology & Intellectual Property Strate-gies Group PC v. Basil P. Fthenakis and Cambridge CM, Inc. Case No. CV 11-02373 CRB (2012)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Copyright, Trademark, Conversion, Labor Code Violations & Breach of Con-tract

Law Office of William Milks Damages Analysis

301. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyoma Part-ners, LLC, Peter Pau d/b/a Sand Hill Prop-erty Company, Peter Pau, Sand Hill Prop-erty Management Company, Susanna Pau, and Capella-Mowry, LLC Case No. CV-10-0325 SI (2011)**


Breach of Contract and Unfair Competition

Fox Rothschild LLP Alter Ego and Damages Analysis

300. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00819-J-32-JRK (2011)**

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jackson-ville Division


299. Datel Holdings, Ltd. And Datel Design & Development, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Case No. CV-09-5535 EDL (2011)**


Theft of Trade Secret, Cop-yright, Trademark

Howard Rice Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin

Damages Analysis

298. Whirlpool Corporation and Maytag Corpo-ration v. Sensata Technologies, Inc. and Texas Instruments, Inc. Case No. 09 L 1022 (2011)

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

Product Liability Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis






297. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)** American Arbitration Associa-tion- New York

Breach of Patent Transfer Agreement

Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP

Damages Analysis

296. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (2011 and 2012)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jo-se Division

Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm & Damages Analysis

295. HTC Corporation et al. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG 1:08:cv-01897-RMC (2011)**

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Patent Infringement Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Damages Analysis

294. Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. 1:10-CV-24063 Moreno (2011)**


Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis

293. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 2:10cv248 (2011)**


Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis

Commercial Success

292. Starcrest Products of California v. Millenni-um Corporate Solutions and Lexington In-surance Company Case No. RIC 434493 (2011)**

Riverside County Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Law Office of David Gerber Damages Analysis

291. Tamrarack Scientific Co., Inc. v. Ultratech, Inc. Case No. RIC450454 (2011)**

Riverside County Superior Court, California

Malicious prosecution Thompson & Knight

Hale & Associates

Damages Analysis

290. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole Foods Market California and Whole Foods Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845 (2011)

San Joaquin County Superior Court, California

Breach of contract, Fraud, Tortious Interference with Contract.

Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Palli-os, Pacher & Silva

Damages Analysis

289. Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-119 (2011)**


Theft of Trade Secrets Interference with Contract


288. Tecsec, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. Case No. 1:10-cv-115-LMB/TCB (2010}**


Patent Infringement Hunton & Williams Damages Analysis

287. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc. Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)**

U.S. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Texarka-na Division







286. Lectec Corporation v. Chattem, Inc. and Prince of Peace Enterprises, Inc. Case No. 5:08-cv-00130-DF (2010)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Divison

Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer Damages Analysis

285. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:09cv58 (2010)**


Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis

284. Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, and In-fineon Technologies North America Corp. Case No. CV 08-5129 JCS (2010)**


Patent Infringement Farella Braun & Martel Commercial Success

283. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al. Civil Action No. CV-08-0986-SI (2010)**



Damages Analysis

282. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corporation Civil Action No. 2:06-15139 (ADT)(MKM) (2010 and 2011)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom

Damages Analysis

Commercial Success

281. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac-tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2010)**


Theft of trade secrets, Breach of contract, Tortious Interference with Prospec-tive Business Relations


280. Thomas Weisel Partners LLC & Thomas Weisel International Private Limited v. BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas Securities (Asia) Limited, and Praveen Chakravarty Case No. 3:07-cv-06198 MHP (2010)**


Theft of Trade Secrets, Intentional Interference with Contract, Breach of Fiduci-ary Duty

Howard Rice Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin

Damages Analysis

279. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Kyocera Communica-tions, Inc., and Kyocera Wireless Corpora-tion Civil Action No. 06-404-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis






278. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semi-conductor International, Inc., Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, and Systems General Corporation Civil Action No. 08-09-JFF-LPS (2010)**


Patent Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis

277. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Research In Motion, LTD., Research In Motion Corp., and General Imaging Co. Civil Action No. 08-371-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis

276. Rosetta Stone Ltd. V. Google, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:09CV736 GBL/JFA (2010)**


Trademark Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis

275. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Corporation, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., Fujifilm U.S.A., Inc., and Fujifilm America Inc. No. 08-373-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis

274. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (now known as Panasonic Corpora-tion), Matsushita Corporation of America (now known as Panasonic Corporation of North America), Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. And JVC Company of America No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis

273. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company Civil Ac-tion No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis

272. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis






271. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. HTC Corporation, H.T.C. (B.V.I.) Corp., and HTC America, Inc. Civil Action No. 06-404-JJF-LPS (2010)**



Damages Analysis

270. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Marvell Asia PTE., LTD., and Marvel International, LTD v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-204 (LED) (2010)**


Patent Infringement Townsend and Townsend and Crew

Damages Analysis

269. Codonics, Inc. v. DatCard Systems, Inc. Case No. 1:08CV1885 (2010)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

False advertising, False Patent Marking

Law offices of Michael W. Kin-ney

Damages Analysis

268. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. Case No. 2-007-CV-279 (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division


267. Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications, Inc. & VTech Telecommunications, Ltd. Case No. 5:07-CV-00171-DF-CMC (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division

Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis

266. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. Case No. 07CC12309 (2009)**


Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis

265. MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. BTG International, Inc. Case No. 108CV109292 (2009)**


Breach of Contract Korda Johnson & Wall Damages Analysis

264. Aircraft Technical Publishers v. Avantext, Inc. Case No. C 07-4154 SBA (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division


263. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. True Fitness Technology, Inc. Case No. 5:08-CV-00026 (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division

Patent Infringement Workman Nydegger Damages Analysis

262. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v. Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV-1384 (JVS) (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division

Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis






261. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP America, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action No.: 2:07-cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division

Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP Damages Analysis

260. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)**


Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione

Smyser Kaplan & Veselka

Damages Analysis

259. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Asarco, LLC Case No. 05-21207 (2009)**

United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas

Alter Ego Baker Botts Alter Ego Analysis

258. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters of Charity Health System v. Hector C. Ra-mos, M.D., Hector C. Ramos, M.D., Inc., Richard R. Lopez, Jr., M.D., and Richard R. Lopez, Jr. M.D. Inc. Case No. 1220037027 (2009)

JAMS Fraud, Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Jones Day Damages Analysis

257. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc., KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case No. SA08-CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)**

U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division

Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Irreparable Harm

256. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 6-07CV-048 (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Divi-sion

Patent Infringement The Roth Firm Damages Analysis

255. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC (2009)**


Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis

254. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Divi-sion


253. Finmeccanica S.p.A. and Ansaldo Ricerche S.p.A. v. General Motors Case No. 07-08222 SJO (PJWx) and No. 07-07537 SJO (PJWx) (2009)**

U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division

Trade Secret Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis






252.

Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139 SC (2008)


Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis

251. Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. American Stores Company, LLC, New Albertson’s, Inc., Al-bertson’s LLC, and Save Mart Supermar-kets. Civil Action No. C06-2173 JSW (2008)**


Trademark Infringement Craigie, McCarthy & Clow

Pirkey Barber LLP

Damages Analysis

250. Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology LLC Case No. 00 Civ. 5141 GBD (2008)**

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Patent Infringement Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft

Damages Analysis

249. Intel Corporation and Dell, Inc. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Civil Action No. 6:06CV550 (2008)**



Damages Analysis

248. Ainsworth Engineered (USA) LLC et al v. Advanced Manufacturing Corporation et al Case No. 1:07 CV 00909 CAB (2008)**

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

Product Liability Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis

247. Vanguard Products Group v. Merchandis-ing Technologies, Inc. Case No. 07-1405-BR (2008)**

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon

Patent Infringement Stoll Berne Damages Analysis

246. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc. and Herbalife International, Inc. Civil Action 5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated) (2008)**


Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis

245. Oracle Corporation v. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. Civil Action No. 06-cv-414 SLR (2008)**


Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

244. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil Action No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)**


Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis

243. Brent Williams, As Plan Trustee for Touch America Holdings, Inc. v. Robert P. Gan-non, et al. Cause No. DV-2-201 (2008)**

Montana Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Winston & Strawn Damages Analysis






242. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and Abbott Pharmaceuticals PR Ltd. V. Sandoz, Inc. Civil Action No. 05 C 5373 (2008)**


Patent Infringement Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis

241. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International, Inc. Case No. 05CC06828 (2008)


Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Bononi Alter ego analysis

240. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case No. CV 07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727 (2008, 2010, and 2011)**


Copyright Infringement Trade Secret Misappropria-tion, RICO

Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis

239. Comcast Cable Communication Corporation, LLC v. Finisar Corporation Case No. C-06-04206-WHA (2008)**


Patent Infringement Morgan & Finnegan Damages Analysis

238. North American Title Company v. Liberty Title Company Case No. C 06-00187 (2008)**

Contra Costa County Court, California

Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea Chediak

Jackson Lewis

Seyfarth Shaw

Damages Analysis

237. Eastman Kodak Company v. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc., et al. Case No. 1-05-CV-039164 (2008)**

Santa Clara County Court, California

Slander of Title Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis

236. Diana Gabriel, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. Case No. 04 CC 00591 (2007)


Breach of Contract Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker

Damages Analysis

235. Computer Acceleration Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV-140 (2007)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Lufkin Divi-sion


234. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company Case No. 04-CV-02791 (2007)**

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York

Business Interruption Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis

233. Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation Case No. 2:06-cv-00703-JCC (2007)**

U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle

Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis






232. Polycom, Inc. and Polycom Israel, Ltd. v. Codian Ltd. And Codian, Inc. Case No. 2-05CV-520 DF (2007)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division


231. ISP.NET LLC d/b/a IQuest Internet v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. Case No. IP01-0480 C B/S (2007)**

U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division

Trademark Infringement Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver Damages Analysis

230. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority, Inc., & Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Case No. 2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)**



229. Timeline, Inc. v. Proclarity Corporation and Microsoft Corporation Case No. CV05-1013JLR (2007)**

U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Se-attle

Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Damages Analysis

228. David Gill, Post Confirmation Trustee for the Estate of Lyon & Lyon v. Orrick, Her-rington & Sutcliffe, LLP, et al. Case No. LA-03-10365-VZ (2007)**

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Central District of California Los Angeles Division

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howard Rice Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin

Damages Analysis

227. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Sales Corporation, Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, and Anna Mirowski v. St. Jude Medi-cal, Inc. and Pacesetter, Inc. Civil No. 1:96-CV-1718-DFH/TAB (2007)**

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapo-lis Division

Patent Infringement Finnigan Henderson Farabow Barrett & Dunner LLP

Damages Analysis

226. Creative Concepts Software, Inc. and ITEK Services, Inc. v. MobileTech Solutions, Inc. Case No. SA CV 05-00670 DOC (MLGx) (2007)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California, Southern Division

Breach of contract The Feldhake Law Firm Damages Analysis

225. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Chi MEI Optoelectronics Corp., Interna-tional Display Technology Co., Ltd., Inter-national Display Technology USA, Inc., Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC and CTX Technology Corp. C04-4675 RS (2007)**








224. Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS (RNBx (2007)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California, Southern Division


Damages Analysis

223. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp.; Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.; Samsung Optoelectronics America, Inc.; Matsunichi Hi-Tech Ltd.; and Matsunichi Hi-Tech (USA), Inc. Case No. CV 04-4783 TJH (2006)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California


222. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1662 B (BLM) (2006)**

U.S. District Court Southern District of California


Damages Analysis

221. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1958 (2006)**

U.S. District Court Southern District of California


Damages Analysis

220. The Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 02-1420 RSM (2006)**

U.S. District Court of Western District of Washington

Trademark Infringement Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar-maro

Damages Analysis

219. Moss, et al. v. Veneco et al. Case No. 297083 (2006)


Mass Tort Gallagher & Gallagher; Steptoe & Johnson

Alter Ego

218. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and ViewSonic Corporation. Civil Action No. 05-292 (JJF) (2006)**


Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis

217. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB) (2006)


Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary Damages Analysis

216. Dey, L.P. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Eon Labs, Inc. Case Nos. SACV 04-00079 CJC (FMOx) and SACV 04-00243 CJC (FMOx) (2006)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California Southern District

Patent Infringement Hennigan Bennett & Dorman Commercial Success






215. McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. Civil Action No. 04-1258 (2005)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of Delaware

Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom

Damages Analysis

214. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corporation Civil Ac-tion No. 4:04cv131 (Brown) (2005)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division

Patent Infringement Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis

213 Trustee in Bankruptcy for 3dfx v. NVIDIA Corp. Case No. 02-55795 JRG (2005) **

U.S. Bankruptcy Court North-ern District of California San Jose Division

Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Fields & Younger

Business Valuation

212 John R. Jamison v. Olin Corporation-Winchester Division; U.S. Repeating Arms Co., Inc,; Browning; Browning Arms Co.; and G.I. Joe’s Case No. 3-03-01036-KI (2005)**

U.S. District Court District of Oregon

Patent Infringement Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter

Damages Analysis

211. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B. Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979 (2005)


Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Relationship

Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold

Damages Analysis Alter Ego Analysis

210. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In Motion, Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02-04483 SI and C03-0521 SI (2005)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Damages Analysis

209. Network Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc Corporation Case No. C 03-05665 MHP (2005)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division

Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis

208. Teri J. McDermott, CMI, et al. v. Advanstar Communications, Inc. Case No. 1:98 CV 515 (2005)


Copyright Infringement Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis

207. Storage Technology Corporation v. Quantum Corporation Civil Action No. 03-M-0672 PAC (2005)**

U.S. District Court District of Colorado

Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis

206. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan-ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1 (2005)

Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County, Florida

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Business Valuation

Punitive Damages Anal-ysis






205. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Case No. BC 308355 (2005)


Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James Rosen Damages Analysis

204. Intergraph Hardware Technologies Company v. Hewlett Packard Civil Action No. 2-02CV-312 TJW (2004)**



203. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029 (2004)**

Eighteenth Judicial Court, Sedgewick County, Kansas

Trademark Infringement & Interference with Contract

Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis & Alter Ego Analysis

202. LiveWorld, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc., MatchNet PLC, et al. Case No. 1-01-CV799864 (2004)**

Santa Clara County Superior Court, California

Fraudulent Transfer Bergeson, LLP Alter Ego Analysis

201. Comdisco, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc., MatchNet, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 800 611 (2004)**

Santa Clara County Superior Court, California

Fraudulent Transfer Winston & Strawn Alter Ego Analysis

200. Everything For Love, Inc. v. Tender Loving Things, Inc., D/B/A The Happy Company Case No. CIV-02-2605-P:HX-EHC (2004)**

U.S. District Court District of Arizona

Patent Infringement Law Offices of A. Peter Rausch Damages Analysis

199. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **



Damages Analysis

198. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **



197. Kathy Papale v. Pacific Bell Directory Company, Pacific Telesis, SBC Communications, et al. Case No. 2002055171 (2004)

Alameda County Superior Court, California

Sex and Age Discrimination Pillsbury Winthrop Damages Analysis

196. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v. Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case No. 03CC06858 (2004)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair & Compton

Damages Analysis






195. Marjorie Bright and Edward Bright v. The Bright Family Foundation, et al. Case No. 274513 (2004)**

Stanislaus County Superior Court, California

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva

Damages Analysis

194. Misha Consulting Group, Inc. d/b/a eBusiness Design v. Source Medical Solutions, Inc. Case No. CO2 04908 JW (HRL) (2004)

U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Jose Division

Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin

Damages Analysis

193. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v. L’Koral and Peter Koral Case No. BC 286577 (2004)

Los Angeles County Superior Court, California

Fraud and Breach of Fidu-ciary Duty

Browne & Woods Law Offices of Gary Freedman

Business Valuation

192. Neoris de México, S.A. de C.V., v. Ariba, Inc. Case No. C 02 1670 JSW (2004)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division


Damages Analysis

191. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-2494CW & 97-0378CW (2004)


Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Ar-nold

Damages Analysis

190. TV Interactive Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. Case No. 02 C 02385 (SBA) (2004)**



189. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB) (2004) **



188. Kelly-Moore Paint Company v. Union Carbide Corporation No. 19785-BH02 (2004) **

District Court of Brazoria County Texas 23rd Judicial District

Products Liability Weil Gotshal & Manges Business Valuation

187. Kaiser Aerospace Electronics v. Teledyne Industries, et al. Case No. 95-05288 CA 15 (2003) and (2005)**

11th Circuit Court Miami-Dade County Florida

Breach of Contract Weil Gotshal & Manges Damages Analysis






186. The Profit Recovery Group, Inc. v. Neil Loder & Associates, et al. Case No CV 01-6200 AN (2003)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California, Western Division

Trademark & Theft of Trade Secret

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis

185. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. Case No. 4:01CV1955CDP (2003)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division

Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty & McNett

Damages Analysis

184. Hauselmann v. Hauselmann Case No. 307662 (2003)

Stanislaus County Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva

Business Valuation

183. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Fidelity National Information Solutions, Inc. & Vista Infor-mation Solutions, Inc. Case No. 02CC02336 (2003)


Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

182. Winn Incorporated & Ben Huang v. Eaton Corporation. Case No: CV03-1568-SJO (2003)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California Western Division

Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

Damages Analysis

181. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. V. Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and AU Optronics Corp. Case No. C 02-02800 WHA (2003)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division


180. Cambrian Consultants, Inc. et al. v. Stuart Lubitz & Hogan & Hartson LLP Case No. BC 271707 (2003)


Patent Attorney Malpractice Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Damages Analysis

179. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil Action No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) **



178. Deltakor Investments, Inc. v. Carl Karcher, et al. Case No. 01-CC13626 (2003)



Damages Analysis






177. Fonovisa, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8614 JSR (2003)**; Fonomusic, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8617 JSR (2003)**; HMS Distributors, Inc. et al. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8616 JSR (2003)**; Musical Productions, Inc. et al. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8618 JSR (2003)**


Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges

Damages Analysis

176. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos. 591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and 0537454-1 (2003) (2005)

Fresno Superior Court, Cali-fornia

Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva Lange Richert & Patch Parish & Nelson

Damages Analysis

175. BCE Emergis, Inc. v. Ariba, Inc. Civil Action No. C01-21221 PVT (2003) **

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, San Jo-se Division

Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin

Damages Analysis

174. Bob Dylan, Billie Joel, James Taylor, et al. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8006 (JSR) (2003) **


Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges

Damages Analysis

173. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions, Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2002)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Divi-sion

Breach of Contract Baker & Botts O’Melveny & Myers

Damages Analysis

172. Robert Carver and Diana Carver v. Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. Civil Action No. C00-1194L (2002)**


Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, John-son & Kindness

Damages Analysis

171. Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. et al. v. Ford Motor Company Civil Action No. 99 CV 741 (JCL) 2002


Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard

Damages Analysis

170. Feltheimer v. Sony Corporation of America, et al. Case No. BC-244836 (2002)



169. Booneville Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Cloverleaf Healthcare Services, Inc., et al. Cause No. 32D01-0204-CC-38 (2002)

Superior Court of Hendricks, County, Indiana

Breach of Contract Leeuw & Doyle Alter Ego and Damages Analysis






168. Superior National Insurance Group v. Foundation Health Corporation, et al. Case No. 02 CV 5155 (2002) (2003)

U.S. District Court Central District of California, Western Division

Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom

Business Valuation and Damages Analysis

167. United States of America ex rel. William Gilliam v. General Dynamics Corporation Case No. 2:01-3023-18 (2002)

U.S. District Court District of South Carolina, Charleston Division

Qui Tam Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

166. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Elan Transdermal Technologies, Inc. Case No. 01-1120-CIV-MOORE (2002)**

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, Miami Divi-sion


165. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University, College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)**

American Arbitration Associa-tion


Damages Analysis

164. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2002)**



Damages Analysis

163. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry, et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2002 and 2003)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis

162. Cyberspace Headquarters, LLC v. MacMillan USA, Inc, Case No. 00 CV 9764 CBM (JWJx) (2001)**

U.S. District Court Central District of California

Lanham Act Mahoney Coppenrath Jaffe & Pearson

Damages Analysis

161. Tri Valley Growers v. Oracle Corporation (2001)

San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis

160. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262 00 (2001)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts Townsend and Townsend and Crew

Damages Analysis Due Diligence

159. Idea Man v. Silver & Freedman, Case No. BC235669 (2001)


Legal Malpractice Krane & Smith Damages Analysis

158. Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation, CIV 97-N-3023-NE (2001)**

U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama


Damages Analysis

157. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case No. 997170 (2001)

San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Folk

Damages Analysis






156. Berclain America Latina, S.A., et al. v. Baan Company, et al. Case No. 403080 (2001)**


Intentional Interference with Contract

Townsend and Townsend and Crew

Damages Analysis

155. Modesto City Schools, Stockton Unified School District. V. Riso Kagaku Corporation CIV S-99-2214 FCD/GGH (2001)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

Antitrust Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard

Damages Analysis

154. City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152 (2001) (2002)**



153. Zomba v. MP3.com Case Nos. 00 CIV 6831 and 6833 (2001)**


Copyright Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis

152. Marconi Communications, Inc. v. Vidar-SMS Co. Civil No. CV-1293-L (2001)**

U.D. District Court Northern District of Texas

Theft of Trade Secret Breach of Indemnity Agreement

Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis

151. In re: BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation MDL No. 1264 (2001)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri

Class Action Securities Litigation

Green Schaaf & Jacobson Damages Analysis

150. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation Case No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001)


Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

149. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. Dynamic Details, Inc. and GSI Lumonics, Inc. Case No. SACV00-272 AH (2001)

U.S. District Court Central District of California Southern Division


148. Farallon Capital Partners, L.P. v. Gleacher & Co. Inc. Case No. BC 215260 (2001)


Misrepresentation Hennigan Bennet & Dorman Alter Ego Analysis

147. Flying J Inc. et al. v. Comdata Network, Inc. and Trendar Corporation Civil No. 1:96CV0066K (2001)**

U.S. District Court District of Utah Northern Division

Antitrust Bendinger Crockett Peterson & Casey Stokes Bartholomew Evans & Petree

Damages Analysis

146. Process Specialties, Inc. v. Sematech, Inc. Case No.: CIV-S-00-414 (2001 and 2002)**

U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

Antitrust Herum, Crabtree, Brown, Dwyer, Zolezzi & Terpstra

Damages Analysis

145. Re/Max of California & Hawaii v. Robert Lesh, et al. No. BC186234 (2001)


Breach of Contract Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson

Damages Analysis






144. True Fitness Technology, Inc. v. Precor Incorporated Case No. 4:99 CV1306-DJS (2001)**

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri


Damages Analysis

143. TeeVee Toons, Inc., et al v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 00 CIV. 3951 (JSR) (2000)**


Copyright Infringement Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis

142. Marketel v. priceline.com, Inc. Case No. C-99-0161 CAL (2000)**


Theft of Trade Secret Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Damages Analysis

141. Venture Industries Corporation, et al. v. Masco Tech, et al. No. 99-07219-CK (2000)

Circuit Court For The County of Kent, Michigan


140. Perry v. Miller Wagner & Co. Case No. CV 98-11591 (2000)

Superior Court, State of Ari-zona, County of Maricopa

Professional Malpractice Mower, Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson & Haluck

Standard of Care and Damages Analysis

139. Lussier Subaru, et al. v. Subaru of New England, Inc., et al Case No. C-99-109-B (2000) **

U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire

Class Action Wiggin & Nourie Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard

Damages Analysis

138. Optical Solutions, Inc. v. Michael S. Hawes and Associates Case No. 99AS05264 (2000)


Professional Malpractice Law Offices of Richard H. Hart Damages Analysis

137. St Luke’s Hospital v. California Pacific Med-ical Center No. 300518 (2000)**


Unfair Competition Antitrust Townsend and Townsend and Crew

Damages Analysis

136. Pactiv Corporation v. S.C. Johnson, Inc. Case No. 98C-2679 (2000)**



135. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. General Electric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028 (2000) & (2001) **

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia Rome Di-vision

Environmental Contamina-tion

Williams &Connolly Damages Analysis

134. MicroGuild, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corporation No. CV774054 (2000) **


Fraud Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis

133. Rush Hour Music, L.L.C. v. Magix Entertainment Corp. Case No. 2:99cv1003 (2000) **

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia Norfolk Division

Patent Infringement Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens

Damages Analysis






132. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM (2000) **

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa


Damages Analysis

131. Guzik Technical Enterprises v. KMY Instruments, Inc. Case No. CV762875 (2000) **


Theft of Trade Secret Gray, Cary, Ware & Friedenrich Damages Analysis

130. Merchandise Mart Owners, LLC v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, Co. Case No. 98 CH 3566 (2000) **

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois


129. Winkler Forming, Inc., PMC, Inc. v. Lewis Anten Case No. BC 194 364 (2000)


Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard

Damages Analysis

128. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata, Inc. (2000)

CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor, John-son & Kindness

Damages Analysis

127. Topanga and Victory Partners, L.P., et al. v. Jones, et al. Case No. LC 038853 (2000)


Breach of Contract Hamburg, Hanover, Edward & Martin

Alter Ego Analysis

126. MET-Rx Foundation for Health Enhancement, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC., et al. Case No. 771551 (2000)


Breach of Contract Feldhake, August & Roquemore

Damages Analysis

125. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec Security, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000)


Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis

124. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No. SC 049754 (2000)


Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman Damages Analysis

123. Placerita Oil Company, Inc. v. Berry Oil Trading & Transportation Co., et al. Case No. PC 017079 Z (1999) **


Breach of Contract Norman, Cormany, Hair & Compton

Damages Analysis

122. GATX/Air log Company, and GATX Capital v. Evergreen, Ellsinore, et al. Civil Action No. C 96-2494 WHO (1999) (2000) **


Breach of Contract Murphy, Sheehan, Julian & Rogers

Alter Ego Analysis

121. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ) (1999)

U.S. District Court Northern District of California, Oakland Division


Damages Analysis






120. Trovan, Ltd, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 98-0094 (1999)


Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis

119. Norfolk Southern Railroad v. Flexivan & Dole Case No. 99 Civ. 055 WHP HBP (1999)


Breach of Contract O’Melveny & Myers Damages Analysis

118. Bitner, et al., v. Bayshore, et al. Case No. 771246 (1999)


Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Law Offices of Jay Seltzer Damages Analysis

117. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness Civil No. C94-1586C (1999)


Patent Infringement, Unfair Competition

Christensen, O’Connor, John-son, Kindness

Damages Analysis

116. Salant v. Spensley, Horn, Jubas & Lubitz Case No. SC033055 (1999)


Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard

Damages Analysis

115. Susman v. GTE Information Services, Inc. Case No. 97-06677 (1999) **

44th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas

Breach of Contract Baker & Botts Business Valuation

114. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v. Truck Insurance Exchange Case No. 66 2216 (1999)


Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

113. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone Container Corporation Case No. BC 188858 (1999)


Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

Damages Analysis

112. Imatec, Ltd, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. Civil Action No. 98 CV 1058(JGK) (1999) **


Patent Infringement Fenwick & West Damages Analysis

111. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al. Case No. 387467 (1999)



Damages Analysis

110. ProCom Marketing v. Prestolite Wire Corp. Case No. C-96-20978 JF PVT (1998) **

U.S District Court, Northern District of California

Theft of Trade Secret Morrison & Forester Damages Analysis

109. Irvine Ranch Water District v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Case No. 96-8932 (1998)


Intentional Misrepresenta-tion


108. Zemco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Navistar Int’l Transportation Corp. Case No. 1:97CV0260 (1998)

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana

Breach of Contract Leeuw, Popper, Bee man & Doyle; Swift & Finlay son

Damages Analysis






107. Orlaford Limited, et al. v. BBC International, et al. Civil Action No. 97-C-0540-S (1998)

U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin

Patent Infringement Foley & Lardner Damages Analysis

106. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk GmbH, et al. Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998)

U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division

Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada & Witt

Damages Analysis

105. Livadas v. Graham & James Case No. BC 145386 (1998)


Legal Malpractice Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Folk

Damages Analysis

104. Summa Four, Inc. v. Claircom Communications Group, Inc. d.b.a. AT&T Wireless Services Case No. 95-E-293 and 95-C-973 (1998) **

Superior Court Northern Dis-trict of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire

Breach of Contract Hale & Dorr Damages Analysis

103. Ayre, et al. v. Attwood Corp., et al. Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998)

Circuit Court, County of Kent, Michigan

Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch; Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn & Washburn

Damages Analysis

102. AQC Holdings, L.P. v. Dynamic Circuits, Inc. CV760815 (1998) **


Breach of Contract Freeborn & Peters Damages Analysis

101. AMETRON v. Entin, et al. Case No. BC160521 (1998)


Usurpation of Corporate Opportunity

Mahoney, Coppenrath, Jaffe & Pearson

Damages Analysis

100. Mastercard Int’l, et al. v. Meridian Enterprises Corp. Case No. CA-94-4105 (DRD) 1997 **

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey

Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty & McNett

Damages Analysis

99. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Company Case No. 395CV01764 (1997) **

U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis

98. McCaw v. McCaw Case No. 95-3-07235-0 SEA (1997) **


Marital Dissolution Perkins, Coie; Danielson, Harri-gan & Tollefson; Kinzel, Allan, Skone & Searing; Law Offices of Gordon Wilcox

Investigatory Accounting






97. Foodmaker, Inc. v. The Vons Companies, Inc. Case No. BC085705 (1997) **


Defamation Thorsnes, Bartolotta, McGuire & Padilla

Damages Analysis

96. JRS Products v. Network Office Systems Case No. 95 AS 04411 (1997)

Sacramento County Superior Court, California

Libel Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis

95. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems Corp. Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997)


Unjust Enrichment, Quan-tum Meruit


94. Rubin v. Southwest Leasing Corp. Case No. SC0322254 (1997)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Browne & Woods; Baker, Sil-berberg & Keenen

Damages Analysis

93. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao Case No. GC 012436 (1996)

Los Angeles Superior Court (Baseball Arbitration)

Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Matz


92. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997)

2nd

Judicial District State of Idaho


91. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin Vision, Ltd. Case No. BC 016305 (1997)



90. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996)


Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel, Falconer, Zulauf & Hall

Damages Analysis

89. Cook Inc. v. Palmaz Case No. IP 94-1459C (TIG) (1996)

U.S. District Court, District of Indiana

Breach of Contract Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

Damages Analysis

88. Cinnamon, et al. v. Reaz Shera, et al. No. 95AS01471 (1996)

Sacramento County Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis

87. United Rock Products Corp. v. City of Ir-windale (1996)

Arbitration before the Honor-able Robert Wenke

Inverse Condemnation Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar-maro

Damages Analysis

86. Ferreira v. Virco Manufacturing Corp. No. L003894 (1996)

Solano County Superior Court, California

Product Defect Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis






85. In re: America Honda Motor Co., Dealerships Relations Litigation MDL Case No. 1069 (1996) **

U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

RICO Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Gerard

Fairness of Settlement

84. Brooktree Corporation v. S3 Incorporated Civil Action No. 95-2388R (ATB) (1996) **

U.S. District Court, Southern District of California

Patent Infringement Howrey & Simon; Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro

Damages Analysis

83. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa-tion

Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis

82. In re: Radica Games Limited CV-S-94-00653-DAE (LRL) (1996)

U.S. District Court, District of Nevada


Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis

81. Martin v. Sprint Case No. (IV-S-93-1731) (1996)

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

Breach of Contract Law Offices of Lisa Wright Damages Analysis

80. Thermodyne v. McDonald’s Corp. Case No. 1:95 CV 0232 (1996)


Theft of Trade Secret Swift & Finlayson; Leeuw & Doyle

Damages Analysis

79. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST Research, Inc. Case No. 74 82 37 (1996)




Damages Analysis

78. Ah Young Industrial Co. v. Brunswick Corp. Case No. 2340 CA (1996)


Breach of Contract Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges

Damages Analysis

77. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Manage-ment Services No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996)


Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine

Damages Analysis

76. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries, Inc. Case No. 89-1920 (1996)


Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine; Cohen & Cotton

Damages Analysis

75. Wadsworth Golf Construction Co. v. Castle Oak Investment Corp. Case No. 18250 (1996)

Amador County Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Mark Wleklinski, Ann Rankin Alter Ego Analysis

74. Conte v. Kelly Case No. LC 018879 (1996)


Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard

Damages Analysis

73. Forti v. General Dynamics No. KC 016871/017393 (1996)


Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation






72. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software Civil No. 95WY621 (1996)

U.S. District Court of Colora-do



Damages Analysis

71. Strand Home Video v. Affiliated Regional Communications SC028 190 (1995)


Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis

70. Schlessinger v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America Case No. SC027965 (1995)


Bad Faith Schlessinger & Wheeler Damages Analysis

69. J.H. Design v. The Walt Disney Company No. BC090 485 (1995) **



Damages Analysis

68. Hewlett-Packard Company v. GenRad, Inc. No. 94-10675 RCL (1995) **

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis

67. Licensing Funding Partners v. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, et al. BC 059176 (1995)


Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith, Blecher & Collins

Damages Analysis

66. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation CV-94-1370 SVW (1995)



Prongay & Mikolajcyk; Green-field & Rifkin

Damages Analysis

65. AJIR, et al. v. Exxon Corp. No. C-93 20830 RMW PVT (1995)


PMPA McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & Mac-Cuish

Damages Analysis

64. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995)


Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvin; Cohen & Cotton

Damages Analysis

63. Fordiani v. Siino, et al. No. C93-05885 (1995)

Contra Costa Superior Court, California

Misrepresentation King, Shapiro, Mittelman & Buchman

Damages Analysis

62. Gonsalves v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel and SVAR Industries No. C92-3561 MHP (1995)


Antitrust Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges

Damages Analysis

61. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enter-prises, Inc. BC 093085 (1995)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis






60. Adams v. Calif. State Automobile Assoc. No. 916163 (1994)


Various Business Torts Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges

Cost Allocation and Rea-sonableness of Commis-sions

59. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf No. BC069435 (1994) *58


Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Oliver

Damages Analysis

58. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. No. BC-013701 (1994)


Intellectual Property Law Offices of James P. Tierney

Damages Analysis

57. Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Richard-Allen Medical Industries No. C2940501 (1994) **

U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio

Patent Infringement Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis

56. Knickerbocker v. Scudder Reality Advisors Inc. Case No. 200169 (1994)

Riverside Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Giles & Burkhalter Damages Analysis

55. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger & Jensen Civil No. 900903226CV (1994)

Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake City, Utah

Patent Attorney Malpractice Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis

54. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Company, et al. Civil No. 92-4894-JMI (1994) **


Lanham Act Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton

Damages Analysis

53. In re: Information Resources, Inc. Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994)



Freeborn & Peters; Katten, Muchin & Zavis

Budgeting

52. Guy v. United Healthcare Corp. Case No. C2-92-397 (1993)

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio

Breach of Contract Robert J. Feldhake Damages Analysis

51. The Boulders on the River v. First Interstate Bank of California Civil No. 90-19MA (1993)

U.S. District Court, Oregon Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears Lubersky Damages Analysis

50. American Savings Bank v. MGM-Pathe Communications Corp. (1993)


Breach of Guarantee Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Alter Ego Analysis

49. Liebert Corp. v. North American Phillips Corp. (1993)


Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis






48. Precor v. Weider Civil No. C91-1743Z (1993)

U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington

Patent Infringement Christensen, O'Connor, John-son & Kindness

Damages Analysis

47. Astec v. North American Phillips Corp. (1993)


Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis

46. Gill v. American Savings Bank (1992)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Cen-tral District of California

Bankruptcy Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy

Bankruptcy Analysis

45. Haro v. The Hahn Company (1992)


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages

44. Tube Forgings of America v. Weldbend (1992)

U.S. District Court, Oregon Lanham Act Mayer, Brown & Platt Damages Analysis

43. State of California v. Bio-Rad (1992)

Alameda Superior Court, Cali-fornia

Eminent Domain James Whittaker Damages Analysis

42. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries (1992)


Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis

41. Stafford v. Miller, Wagner & Co. (1991)

State Court, Phoenix, Arizona

Accounting Malpractice Greengard & Finley Professional Standards

40. Firnschild v. Wyandotte Hospital (1991)

State Court, Detroit, Michigan

Breach of Contract Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney

Damages Analysis

39. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (1991)

JAMS, Los Angeles, Califor-nia

Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay, Baker & Hill

Damages Analysis

38. Ixsys v. Stratagene (1991)

San Diego Superior Court, California

Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis

37. Falcon Cable Media v. Booth American Co. (1990)



Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges

Damages Analysis

36. Ingram v. Owens Illinois (1990)

U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages

35. Sucperity Corp. of California v. Shih (1990)


Breach of Contract Fred & Lewin Investigatory Accounting

34. Moreland v. Planet Insurance Company (1990)

Santa Barbara Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Business Valuation






33. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC (1990)


Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis

32. El Torito v. La Mirada Redevelopment Agency (1990)


Condemnation Bidna & Keys Business Valuation

31. Moss v. Shepp (1990)


Legal Malpractice Musick, Peeler & Garrett Damages Analysis

30. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC) (1990)


Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation

29. Lines v. Bank of America (1990)



Damages Analysis

28. Major Projects, Inc. v. Hismeh (1990)

Riverside Superior Court, California

Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis

27. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp. (1990)

U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Damages Analysis

26. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation Seeds (1989)

U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis

25. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp. (1989)


Breach of Implied Warran-ties, Fraud

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Damages Analysis

24. Lim v. Lehman (1989)


Breach of Contract Wolf & Leo Damages Analysis

23. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines (1989)


Wrongful Death Steven Walker; Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

22. Lippman v. Levy (1989)


Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation

21. In re: Technical Equities Federal Securities Litigation (1989)



Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger

Damages Analysis

20. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries (1989)


Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis






19. Pacific Dataware Inc. v. Novell (1989)

U.S. District Court, Utah

Antitrust Kirton, McConkie & Poleman Damages Analysis

18. Cole v. Benvenuti (1989)


Breach of Contract Lovitt & Hannan Damages Analysis

17. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence & Damages Analysis

16. Sunwest Bank v. Alec Sharp (1988)


Breach of Contract Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard

Damages Analysis

15. Standard Wire & Cable v. Ameritrust (1988)


Lender Liability Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy

Damages Analysis

14. Small v. Rogers (1988)


Breach of Contract and Fiduciary Duty

Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation

13. Cleanmaster v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (1988)


Business Interruption Crouch & Fern Damages Analysis

12. Benvenuti v. Evans (1988)


Fraud, Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard

Real Estate Valuation

11. In re: Technical Equities (1988)



Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger

Damages Analysis

10. Avila v. Goeden (1988)


Fraud, Breach of Contract Rogers & Wells Damages Analysis

9. Skeen v. Wynn's International (1987)


Fraud, Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Business Valuation

8. Dumke v. Buffalo Chips, Inc. (1987)


Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard

Damages Analysis

7. General Dynamics v. AT&T (1986)


Antitrust Jenner & Block Damages Analysis

6. Zelmans v. Tarzana Medical Partners (1985)


Breach of Contract Fischer, Krane, & Jacobson

Damages Analysis






5. Ambassador Foods, Inc. v. State of California (1985)


Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California Dept. of Transportation

Damages Analysis

4. Grizzard v. Western Kraft (1985)


Breach of Implied Warran-ties

Stern & Miller Damages Analysis

3. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian (1983 and 1988)


Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis

2. Morse Products v. AT&T (1983)


Antitrust Blecher, Collins & Weinstein Damages Analysis

1. Atherton Industries v. Sweda International (1982)


Breach of Implied Warran-ties of Fitness and Mer-chantability

Cutler & Cutler Damages Analysis



EXPERT TESTIMONY—ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUMS

(*Indicates Number in Deposition Section if deposition testimony is given



34. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)*297 American Arbitration Associa-tion – New York

Breach of Patent Transfer Agreement

Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP

Damages Analysis

33. Key Brand Entertainment, Inc. v. Dancap Productions, Inc. Ref. No. 1220038984 (2011) *281

JAMS Breach of Contract Jeffer Magels Butler & Marmaro

Damages Analysis

32. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP American, Inc. CA No. 4:09-CV-1511 (KPE) (2010)**


Breach of Contract, Theft of Trade Secrets

Laminack, Pirtle & Martines

Matthews, Lawson & Bow-ick

Damages Analysis

31. Gold Canyon Mining and Construction, LLC v. American Asphalt and Grading Company (2010)**

The Honorable Eli Chernow Breach of Warranty Howarth & Smith Business Valuation

30. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. Victor C. Ramos, M.D., Inc. and Richard R. Lopez, Jr. M.D., Inc. JAMS Matter No. 1220037027 (2009)**

JAMS Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud

Jones Day Damages Analysis

29. Redacted v. Redacted Case No. 74 180 Y 00729 06 DEAR (2007)**


Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin

Fairness of Partner Com-pensation

28. SilentAir Corporation v. Maytag Corporation, et al. Case No. 77133 0022205NADE (2006)


Breach of Contract Holland & Knight LLP Damages Analysis

27. George Yardley Company, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc. Case No. 72 11001086 02 (2005)


Antitrust Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth

Damages Analysis

26. Anthony M. Trolio v. RemedyTemp, Inc. Case No. 72-114-305-02 MACR (2004)


Breach of Contract Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith

Damages Analysis

25. 911Notify.com v. Verizon Delaware, Inc. Case No: 71Y1810072202 (2003)


Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis

24. SPX Corporation v. Franklin Electric Corporation Case No. 51 Y 198 00469 01 (2002)


Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Business Valuation







23. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University, College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)* 165



Damages Analysis

22. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys-tems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262 00 (2002)*160


Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts Townsend and Townsend and Crew

Damages Analysis Due Diligence

21. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation Case No. 99-2177 (PJW) (2002)

JAMS, San Francisco, Califor-nia


20. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation Case No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001) *150



19. Fourthchannel, inc. v. Pivotal Corporation No. 50 T 133 00200 (2001)

American arbitration Associa-tion

Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney LLP Bordon Ladner Gervais

Damages Analysis

18. Glass & Associates v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company Civil No. 99-6105-HO (2000)

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon

Breach of Contract Ball Janik Damages Analysis

17. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata, Inc. (2000)*127

CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor, Johnson & Kindness

Damages Analysis

16. RAM Consulting, Inc. v. Adams Golf No. 74-Y181-0602-98 (1999)



Damages Analysis

15. Synnex Information Technologies v. Tandy Corp., et al. C97-3757 WHO (1999)

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Referral


Damages Analysis

14. The Ischemia Research & Educational Foundation v. UCB, S.A. No. 74 T181 0440 97 (1998)



Damages Analysis

13. Green Hills Software, Inc. v. Integrated Systems, Inc. No. 72 117 01213 97 (1998)


Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis

12. Prestige Card, Inc. v. Bank One, et al. (1998)


Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears Lubersky

Damages Analysis







11. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao Case No. GC 012436 (1996) *93

Los Angeles Superior Court (Baseball Arbitration)



10. Polo Ralph Lauren L.P. v. The Magnin Company, Inc. (1997)


Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis

9. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa-tion

Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis

8. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996) *88


Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel, Falconer, Zulauf & Hall

Damages Analysis

7. Kenady v. Cooper, White & Cooper No. 940973151 (1995)

JAMS, San Francisco, Califor-nia

Breach of Contract Quinn, Kully and Morrow Damages Analysis

6. Dahle v. Integrated Resource Equity Corp. (1991)

NASD Arbitration, Portland, Oregon

Securities Violations Garvey, Schubert & Barer Damages Analysis

5. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (1991) *39

JAMS, Los Angeles, California Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay, Baker & Hill

Damages Analysis

4. Kernohan v. Prudential Bache (1989)


Breach of Fiduciary duty Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

Damages Analysis

3. Scherick v. Taft Entertainment Co. (1989)


Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman

Damages Analysis

2. Nuvision Eyecare v. Southern California Glazers (1987)


Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis

1. Pittsburgh/Des Moines Corp. v. Garden Grove Community Church (1984)


Breach of Construction Contract




EXPERT TESTIMONY—WRITTEN TESTIMONY ONLY



8. In re Textile Rental Services Litigation Case No CV-05-19 (2006)

Circuit Court of Barbour Coun-ty (Clayton Division), Alabama

Class Action Fraud and Breach of Contract

14 different law firms Fairness of Settlement

7. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. v. Waste Management of California, Inc. No. CV760322 (1997)

JAMS/ENDISPUTE Breach of Contract Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May

Business Valuation

6. IMACC Corporation v. Dorothy Myers Warburton, et al. Case No. C 93 114 CW (1996)


Environmental Cleanup Morrison & Foerster Lane Powell Spears Lubersky Larson & Burnham

Alter Ego Analysis

5. Williams v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel & SYAR Case No. C92-3561 (1995)



Damages Analysis

4. State Farm, et al. v. Garmendi Case No. 918689 (1995)


Declaratory Relief Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe

Reasonableness of Fees

3. In re: Phar-Mor Inc. Securities Litigation Case No. 93-631 (1995)

U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

Securities Litigation Zelle & Larson Damages Analysis

2. Reggie White, et al. v. N.F.L. Civil No. 4-92-906 (1993)

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 4th Division

Antitrust Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis

1. McCarthy v. Pollet (1983)

State Court, Hawaii Fraud Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn & Stifell


FD


Wagner Declaration

EXHIBIT B


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1

Summary of Reductions

Product(s)

Amount Before

Reduction Reason For Reduction

Amount of

Reduction

Amount

Remaining

[a] 11 Phones (Design Patent Only) $599,859,395 Correct Notice Dates $253,328,000 $346,531,395

[b] 11 Phones (After Adjustment for

Correct Notice Dates)

$346,531,395 Profits Attributable to IP

(5%)

$329,204,825 $17,326,570

[c] 5 Phones (Design Patent & Trade

Dress)

$381,683,562 No Lost Profits $70,034,295 $311,649,267

[d] 5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost

Profits)

$311,649,267 Correct Notice Dates $220,952,000 $90,697,267

[e] 5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost

Profits and Correct Notice Dates)

$90,697,267 Profits Attributable to IP

(5%)

$86,162,404 $4,534,863

[f] Prevail $57,867,383 No Basis for Award of

Samsung's Profits

$57,867,383 $0

Sources:[a] Schedule 1B.[b] [Amount Remaining] = 5% * [Amount Before Reduction][c] Schedule 1A.[d] Schedule 1B.[e] [Amount Remaining] = 5% * [Amount Before Reduction][f] Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931).

Exhibit B, Schedule 1LitiNomics, Inc.

Page 1 of 3


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1A

Adjustment For No Lost Profits

Products Jury Award

Samsung's Profits

Sought by Apple

in PX25A1.5

Jury

Adjustment

Factor

40% of

Samsung's

Profits Sought by

Apple in

PX25A1.5

Amount of

Reduction

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f]Fascinate $143,539,179 $267,735,061 40% $107,094,024 $36,445,155

Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $155,204,780 40% $62,081,912 $11,262,756

Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $22,002,146 $53,518,267 40% $21,407,307 $594,839

Mesmerize $53,123,612 $114,099,746 40% $45,639,898 $7,483,714

Vibrant $89,673,957 $188,565,314 40% $75,426,126 $14,247,831

Total $381,683,562 $779,123,168 $311,649,267 $70,034,295

Notes:[a] 5 products liable for trade dress dilution and design patent infringement.[b] Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931).[c] Trial Exhibit PX25A1.[d] Adjustment factor used by jury to arrive at verdict. See Declaration for replication of jury damages award.[e] = [c] * [d].[f] = [b] - [e].

Exhibit B, Schedule 1ALitiNomics, Inc.

Page 2 of 3


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1B

Adjustment For Correct Notice Dates

Products Jury Award

Samsung's

Profits Sought by

Apple in

PX25A1.5

Revenue Prior

to Notice

Mr.

Musika's

Profit Rate

Profit Prior to

Notice Date

(Per Mr.

Musika)

Samsung's Profits

Sought by Apple in

PX25A1.5 Adjusted

for Notice

Jury

Adjustment

Factor

40% of Samsung's

Profits Sought by

Apple in PX25A1.5

Adjusted for Notice

Amount of

Reduction

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i] [j]Captivate $80,840,162 $202,100,404 $457,000,000 35.5% $162,235,000 $39,865,404 40% $15,946,162 $64,894,000

Continuum $16,399,117 $40,997,793 $89,000,000 35.5% $31,595,000 $9,402,793 40% $3,761,117 $12,638,000

Droid Charge $50,672,869 $126,682,172 $241,000,000 35.5% $85,555,000 $41,127,172 40% $16,450,869 $34,222,000

Epic 4G $130,180,894 $325,452,234 $758,000,000 35.5% $269,090,000 $56,362,234 40% $22,544,894 $107,636,000

Galaxy S II (AT&T) $40,494,356 $101,235,891 $0 35.5% $0 $101,235,891 40% $40,494,356 ($0)

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $83,791,708 $209,479,270 $0 35.5% $0 $209,479,270 40% $83,791,708 $0

Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) $100,326,988 $250,817,469 $0 35.5% $0 $250,817,469 40% $100,326,988 $0

Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $32,273,558 $80,683,895 $0 35.5% $0 $80,683,895 40% $32,273,558 $0

Gem $4,075,585 $10,188,963 $46,000,000 35.5% $16,330,000 ($6,141,037) 40% ($2,456,415) $6,532,000

Indulge $16,011,184 $40,027,960 $55,000,000 35.5% $19,525,000 $20,502,960 40% $8,201,184 $7,810,000

Infuse 4G $44,792,974 $111,982,436 $138,000,000 35.5% $48,990,000 $62,992,436 40% $25,196,974 $19,596,000

Total for 11 Phones (Design

Patent Only)$599,859,395 $1,499,648,487 $1,784,000,000 $633,320,000 $866,328,487 $346,531,395 $253,328,000

Products

Jury Award

(After

Adjustment

for No Lost

Profits)

Samsung's

Profits Sought by

Apple in

PX25A1.5

Revenue Prior

to Notice

Mr.

Musika's

Profit Rate

Profit Prior to

Notice Date

(Per Mr.

Musika)

Samsung's Profits

Sought by Apple in

PX25A1.5 Adjusted

for Notice

Jury

Adjustment

Factor

40% of Samsung's

Profits Sought by

Apple in PX25A1.5

Adjusted for Notice

Amount of

Reduction

[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i] [j]Fascinate $107,094,024 $267,735,061 $601,000,000 35.5% $213,355,000 $54,380,061 40% $21,752,024 $85,342,000

Galaxy S 4G $62,081,912 $155,204,780 $242,000,000 35.5% $85,910,000 $69,294,780 40% $27,717,912 $34,364,000

Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $21,407,307 $53,518,267 $64,000,000 35.5% $22,720,000 $30,798,267 40% $12,319,307 $9,088,000

Mesmerize $45,639,898 $114,099,746 $205,000,000 35.5% $72,775,000 $41,324,746 40% $16,529,898 $29,110,000

Vibrant $75,426,126 $188,565,314 $444,000,000 35.5% $157,620,000 $30,945,314 40% $12,378,126 $63,048,000

Total for 5 Phones (Design

Patent & Trade Dress)$311,649,267 $779,123,168 $1,556,000,000 $552,380,000 $226,743,168 $90,697,267 $220,952,000

Notes:[a] 16 products for which jury awarded Samsung's profits. Galaxy Prevail not included.[b] For the 11 phones (design patent only): Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931). For the 5 phones (design patent & trade dress): Schedule 1A.[c] Trial Exhibit PX25A1.[d] Trial Exhibit JX 1500. Includes revenues for the entire quarter in which the notice date falls.[e] Profit rate testified to by Mr. Musika. See August 13, 2012 Tr. at 2073:21-2074:19.[f] = [d] * [e].[g] = [c] - [f].[h][i] = [g] * [h].[j] = [b] - [i].

Adjustment factor used by jury to arrive at verdict. See Declaration for replication of jury

Exhibit B, Schedule 1BLitiNomics, Inc.

Page 3 of 3


02198.51855/4974139.1 -1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL

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




Plaintiff,


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW


02198.51855/4974139.1 -2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL

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

THE COURT, having considered Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of

Law, and/or for New Trial and/or Remittitur, HEREBY ORDERS that judgment in favor of

Samsung pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) is GRANTED as to all of Apple’s

remaining affirmative claims in this action , and judgment in favor of Samsung is GRANTED as

to Samsung’s affirmative claims against Apple for patent infringement as to the ‘516, ‘941, ‘460,

‘893, and ‘711 patents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2012 Honorable Lucy H. Koh

United States District Judge


1990 - Samsung Mot for JNOV

Documents

lauschaer

surgin surgical

corporate

fuji photo

crown roll

semiconductor

charity health

mirowski family