Apple vs Samsung 5 December 2013

8/13/2019 Apple vs Samsung 5 December 2013

1/129

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

APPLES ADMIN.MOT.TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3361324

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

APPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL APPLES MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)[email protected] A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)[email protected]

ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)[email protected] & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Plaintiff andCounterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

WILLIAM F. [email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109

Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)[email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 3


2/129

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

APPLES ADMIN.MOT.TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO.11-CV-01846-LHK 1

sf-3361324

In accordance with Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Apple Inc. (Apple) submits this

motion for an order to seal its Motion for Attorneys Fees and Exhibit A to the Declaration of

Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees (Jacobs Declaration).

Exhibit A to the Jacobs Declaration contains information that is confidential and

competitively sensitive as set out in the Declaration of Ruth Borenstein in Support of Apples

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Borenstein Declaration), filed herewith. As detailed

in the Borenstein Declaration, Exhibit A contains extensive competitively sensitive and

confidential information regarding the negotiated billing rates of Apples counsel in this action,

Morrison & Foerster LLP. (Borenstein Decl. 2.) The billing rates of Morrison & Foerster

timekeepers are confidential, and are not generally revealed to the public. (Id.) Exhibit A

contains the rates for 91 timekeepers. The breadth of the information revealed in Exhibit A could

provide insight into Morrison & Foersters firm-wide billing structure and reflects Morrison &

Foersters confidential financial relationship (including negotiated discounts) with Apple.

Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees refers to one specific timekeeper rate that is not publicly

known. This information is competitively sensitive and confidential and could be used by

Morrison & Foersters competitors to its disadvantage, as disclosure of the information would

reveal the firms billing structure and confidential pricing strategy, as well as its negotiated

financial relationship with Apple. (Id.)

Numerous courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that, In trademark/dress matters, attorney

billing rates which are not publicly known and are competitively sensitive, warrant sealing.

E&J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc., No. CV-00411, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94581, at *2

(E.D. Cal. July 9, 2012) (citing China Intl Travel Servs. (USA) v. China & Asia Travel Serv.,

No. 08-cv-01293, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106622, at *29 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) (noting that

counterclaim plaintiff would request its attorneys fees by way of a declaration, submitted for

filing under seal, . . . because the attorneys hourly rates are competitively sensitive and not

publicly known.);Mine OMine, Inc. v. Calmese, No. 10-CV-00043, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

53077, at *10 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2012) (sealing negotiated billing rates)); Genl Elec. Co. v.

Wilkins, No. 10-CV-00674, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97647, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2012)



3/129

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

APPLES ADMIN.MOT.TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO.11-CV-01846-LHK 2

sf-3361324

(same);Herb Reed Enters., Inc. v. Monroe Powells Platters, LLC, No. 11-cv-02010, 2013 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 96948, at *2 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013) (same). TheE&J Gallo court also found that a

law firms confidential billing rate, if [it] became known, would likely impact the law firms

competitiveness. E & J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc., No. 10-cv-00411, 2012 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 64525, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2012).1 The relief requested in this motion is necessary

and is narrowly tailored to protect only the billing rates of counsel.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Apple files herewith Exhibit A to the Jacobs

Declaration entirely under seal; a public redacted version of its Motion for Attorneys Fees; and,

under seal, an unredacted version of its Motion for Attorneys Fees indicating with highlighting

the specific number Apple requests to seal.

Dated: December 5, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Rachel KrevansRachel Krevans

Attorney for PlaintiffAPPLE INC.

1This Court recently denied a request to seal attorney billing records that included hourly rates.See Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-CV-01455, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103038, at *4-6 (N.D.Cal. July 22, 2013). That case is distinguishable, however, as the moving party argued only thatthe records were covered by attorney-client privilege. Id. at *4-6. There was no argument thatthe rates were confidential and competitively sensitive. To the contrary, the Court noted that thehourly rates were reflected in the very declarations that attached the billing records at issue, andthat the moving party was not seeking to seal those declarations. Id. at *5.



4/129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISOMOTION TO FILE UNDER SEALCASENO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3361361



SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF RUTH N.

BORENSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF APPLES

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL







Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-1 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 3


5/129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISOMOTION TO FILE UNDER SEALCASENO.11-CV-01846-LHK 1

sf-3361361

I, RUTH N. BORENSTEIN, do hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for Apple Inc. in theabove-captioned action. I submit this declaration in support of Apples Administrative Motion to

File Under Seal Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees. I have personal knowledge of the matters

set forth below. If called as a witness I could and would competently testify as follows.

2. Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees and Exhibit A to the Declaration ofMichael A. Jacobs in Support of Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees (Jacobs Declaration)

contain confidential and competitively sensitive information regarding Morrison & Foersters

negotiated billing rates. Specifically, Exhibit A contains the rates for 91 timekeepers. The billing

rates of Morrison & Foerster timekeepers are confidential, and are not generally revealed to the

public. The breadth of the information revealed in Exhibit A could provide insight into

Morrison & Foersters firm-wide billing structure and reflects Morrison & Foersters confidential

financial relationship (including negotiated discounts) with Apple. Apples Motion for

Attorneys Fees refers to one timekeepers rate that is not publicly known. This information is

competitively sensitive and confidential and could be used by Morrison & Foersters competitors

to its disadvantage. Publishing this data would reveal the firms confidential pricing strategy and

its negotiated financial relationship with Apple and would cause harm to Morrison & Foerster and

its relationship with Apple.

3. Exhibit A to the Jacobs Declaration should remain under seal in full, for thereasons articulated above. Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees should remain under seal in part,

as shown in Apples proposed redactions.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th

day of December 2013 at San Francisco, California.

________/s/ Ruth N. Borenstein_______Ruth N. Borenstein



6/129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISOMOTION TO FILE UNDER SEALCASENO.11-CV-01846-LHK 2

sf-3361361

ATTESTATION

I, Rachel Krevans, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Ruth Borenstein has

concurred in this filing.

Dated: December 5, 2013 /s/ Rachel KrevansRachel Krevans



7/129

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

[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEALCASENO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3361369



SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTINGAPPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TOFILE UNDER SEAL



8/129

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

[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEALCASENO.11-CV-01846-LHK

sf-3361369

Apple filed a motion to seal its Motion for Attorneys Fees and Exhibit A to the

Declaration of Michael Jacobs in Support of Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees (Jacobs

Declaration)

The Court finds that Apples sealing request is narrowly tailored and justified and that

there is good cause to seal the requested documents. Therefore, the above documents may be

filed under seal:

Document Sealable Portion

Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees Reference to specific timekeeper rate at page 8.

Exhibit A to Jacobs Declaration Sealed in full.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________________ ______________________________________

HONORABLE LUCY H. KOHUnited States District Judge



9/129

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

APPLES MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3360108



SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; andSAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONSAMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany,

Defendants.


APPLES MOTION FORATTORNEYS FEES

Date: January 30, 2014Time: 1:30 p.m.Place: Courtroom 8, 4th FloorJudge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED









10/129

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

APPLES MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

sf-3360108

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard before the Honorable Lucy Koh in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled

Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Apple will move, and hereby

does move, for an award of $15,736,992 in attorneys fees against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

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

This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and

authorities; supporting declarations filed herewith and exhibits attached thereto; and such other

written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under

submission by the Court. The parties counsel met and conferred regarding Apples request, as

set out in the accompanying Declaration of Nathan Sabri, but Samsung has not stipulated to

Apples request.


By: /s/Rachel Krevans

RACHEL KREVANS

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC.



11/129


12/129

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

APPLES MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) ii

sf-3360108

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs.,No. CV 03-0597-PHX-MHM,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131813 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009) .................................................... 13

Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus.,352 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 6

Fifty-Six HopeRoad Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.,915 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2013) ............................................................................ 11, 12

Gates v. Deukmejian,987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................. 10

Gracie v. Gracie,217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................passim

Gucci Am., Inc. v. Pieta,No. CV 04-9626,2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96694 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) ....................................................... 8

Hensley v. Eckerhart,461 U.S. 424 (1983) .............................................................................................................. 8

Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia,475 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 2, 7

Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc.,636 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 3, 4

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entmt, Inc.,No. CV 04-9049,2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85998 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) ...................................................... 13

Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Intl Ltd.,726 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 13

Natl Prods. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC,449 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................... 3

Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Baccarat Clothing Co.,692 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................................... 7

San Diego Police Officers Assn v. San Diego City Emps. Ret. Sys. ,568 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.2009) .................................................................................................. 2



13/129

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

APPLES MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) iv

sf-3360108

Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v. Beseder Inc. ,No. CV 03-13-10,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83782 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2007) ....................................................... 12

Spalding Labs., Inc. v. Ariz. Biological Control, Inc.,No. CV 06-1157,

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56100 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2008)..................................................... 12

Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs.,549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 13

TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc.,653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 2

STATUTES

15 U.S.C. 1125(c) .............................................................................................................................. 2 1117(a) .....................................................................................................................passim

35 U.S.C. 285 ........................................................................................................................ 13

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Fed. R. Civ. Proc.Rule 50 ................................................................................................................................. 1Rule 52 ................................................................................................................................. 1Rule 54 ................................................................................................................................. 1Rule 59 ................................................................................................................................. 1

Rule 60 ................................................................................................................................. 1



14/129

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

APPLES MOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 1

sf-3360108

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Apple brings this motion and the accompanying bill of costs now, because the parties

were unable to reach agreement on an extension of time for Apples Rule 54 filings, and thus

Apple must comply with Rule 54s deadlines. Recognizing that the Court will be presented with

the parties Rule 50, 52, 59, and 60 motions in this same time period, Apple will count this

motion as part of the 40-page limit the Court set for those motions.

I. INTRODUCTIONUnder any measure, this was an exceptional case. The evidence that Samsung deliberately

copied every aspect of Apples revolutionary iPhone product was overwhelming. Apple

prevailed on one or more claims of trade dress dilution or patent infringement against 26 of 28

accused products. A jury found that Samsung willfully diluted Apples protected trade dresses

and willfully infringed five of the seven asserted patents. The original trial and partial damages

retrial juries awarded Apple $930 million for Samsungs violation of Apples IP rights. Apple

also scored a complete victory in its defense of Samsungs claims. Given the high stakes in this

head-to-head battle of what are now the two leading competitors in the U.S. smartphone market,

the case garnered international press attention.

Samsungs willful, deliberate, and calculated copying of Apples iPhone makes this an

exceptional case under Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act. The record conclusively

establishes that, once the iPhone became a spectacular success and Samsungs smartphones

became far less desirable, Samsung made a calculated decision to capture market share by

copying the look and features of the iPhone. After a thorough study of the iPhone, Samsung gave

126 Directions for Improvement to make Samsungs inferior phone in development look and

operate like the iPhone. (PX44.) Samsung carried out those directions without making any effort

to identify and avoid violating Apples IP rights. Samsungs efforts to compete against Apple by

misappropriating Apples own IP had their intended effectSamsungs sales of its infringing and

diluting phones has increased its market share dramatically. Given Samsungs blatant disregard

of Apples IP rights, Apple should not be forced to bear the full expense of prosecuting its claims.

This motion addresses Apples request for attorneys fees under the Lanham Act. Apple



15/129

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


sf-3360108

seeks $15,736,992, which is less than one-third of the fees billed through March 1, 2013the

date of the last order on motions arising from the first trial. Apportioning only one-third of the

fees incurred to Apples intertwined trade dress and design patent claims is conservative, as these

claims were the focus of most of the parties attention throughout the case. In fact, both parties

spent twice as much time on design/trade dress witnesses as utility patent witnesses at trial.

II. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD APPLE THE FEES ATTRIBUTABLE TOSAMSUNGS WILLFUL TRADE DRESS DILUTION

Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act addresses remedies for willful trade dress dilution in

violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), as well as for other Lanham Act violations, including

infringement of registered and unregistered trademarks or trade dress, and false advertising.

15 U.S.C. 1117(a). The statute permits an award of reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing

party in exceptional cases. Id. As shown below, Apple is the prevailing party, this case is

exceptional, and Apple should be awarded the reasonable attorneys fees it requests.

A. Apple Is The Prevailing PartyThe jurys verdict and damage award clearly make Apple the prevailing party in this case

as a whole and in its Lanham Act claims in particular. (Dkt. No. 1931 at 11-12 (verdict of willful

dilution of Apples registered iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress).) A

party need not prevail on all of its claims to be the prevailing party. See,e.g., San Diego Police

Officers Assn v. San Diego City Emps. Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 741 (9th Cir. 2009).

B. This Case Is Exceptional Under The Lanham ActAlthough 1117(a) does not define exceptional, the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held

that exceptional cases include those involving fraudulent, deliberate or willful conduct.

Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming fee award

under 1117(a) in trade dress dilution case); Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir.

2000) (generally a trademark case is exceptional for purposes of an award of attorneys fees

when the infringement can be characterized as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820,

832 (9th Cir. 2011) (court erred by denying exceptional case status based solely on relief awarded



16/129

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


sf-3360108

to prevailing plaintiff; court instead must weigh the unlawfulness of defendants conduct).

Applying that standard, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed exceptional case findings under

1117(a) based on jury verdicts of willfulness. See,e.g., Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068 (affirming

exceptional case determination based on willful infringement verdict);Natl Prods. v. Gamber-

Johnson LLC, 449 Fed. Appx. 638, 639 (9th Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (affirming

exceptional case[s] finding based on jurys finding of deliberate infringement).

The Ninth Circuit also has looked more broadly to address a defendants wrongful

conduct, including deliberate and calculated attempts to take advantage of a plaintiffs IP rights

Horphag, 475 F.3d at 1039 (affirming exceptional case finding in trademark dilution case where

defendant made deliberate and calculated attempts to confuse its product with plaintiffs); see

Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 636 F.3d 501, 510-11 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming exceptionality under

1117(a) in light of pattern and practice of disregard for . . . trademark rights, bad faith and

abusive litigation practices).

Here exceptionality is established both by the jurys finding of willful dilution and

Samsungs deliberate and calculated strategy of copying Apples iPhone.

1. The jury verdict establishes willfulnessThe jury found that Samsungs dilution of Apples registered iPhone trade dress and

unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress was willful. (Dkt. No. 1931 at 14.) This Court has ruled that

the jurys finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record, citing evidence that

Samsung viewed the iPhone as revolutionary (PX36.20), and that Samsung attempted to create

similar products (PX44). (Dkt. No. 2220 at 14.)

2. The record establishes that Samsung engaged in a willful, deliberate,and calculated effort to gain market share by copying the iPhone,including the iPhone trade dress

When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, Samsung initially continued to make phones

as it always had. (PX3A.1-2.) But Samsung later changed its tune, after it became convinced tha

the iPhone was phenomenally successful while Samsungs sales lagged behind. As detailed

below, Samsung fought back with a deliberate strategy of copying every aspect of the iPhone

including the whole look of the iPhone, which is the trade dresswithout making any effort to



17/129

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


sf-3360108

avoid Apples protected IP.

Soon after Apple released the iPhone, Samsungs LSI divisionwhich manufactured

components for Appleanalyzed the iPhone. Their report ranked the iPhone first in a list of

four key factors that we expect will shape handsets in the coming five years. (PX34.13.) It

also concluded that the iPhones [b]eautiful design and [e]asy and intuitive UI were among

the key iPhone [s]uccess [f]actors and that copying them would be easy. (PX34.38.) In

2008, Samsung hired consultants to assess the iPhones impact. The consultants reported that

pundits and iPhone users alike considered the iPhone a revolution. (PX36.)

Samsungs phone sales fell dramatically as iPhone sales soared. (Dkt. No. 1839 at

2044:17-18 (Musika testimony that Samsung was losing market share during the period prior to

2010).) By February 2010, carriers were pressuring Samsung to make something like the

iPhone. (PX40.2.) Samsung executives concluded that Samsung was suffering a crisis of

design and that the difference between the iPhone and the products Samsung had in development

was the difference between heaven and earth. (PX40.5.)

Samsung responded by preparing a 138-page Relative Evaluation Report, which

contained 126 Direction[s] for Improvement to make Samsungs phone like the iPhone.

(PX44.) The Relative Evaluation Report compared virtually every aspect of the iPhone with the

Samsung phone then in development, each time finding Samsungs phone wanting and each time

directing that Samsungs phone be changed to resemble the iPhone. Samsung acted in complete

disregard of Apples IPthere is not a shred of evidence in the record to suggest that Samsung

made any effort to determine whether the various iPhone features were protected, much less to

avoid violating Apples IP rights. Instead, Samsung forged ahead and followed the Reports

directives to make Samsungs phone like the iPhone in 126 ways. All of those copying directives

should be considerednot only those directly related to the IP in suitas exceptional case

findings and fee awards under 1117(a) look to the totality of a defendants conduct. See,e.g.,

Lahoti, 636 F.3d at 510-11 (addressing pattern and practice of disregard for . . . trademark

rights, bad faith and abusive litigation practices).

Samsungs intensive effort produced the Galaxy S i9000, which the press called very



18/129

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


sf-3360108

iPhone 3GS-like. (PX6.) Consistent with the Relative Evaluation Reports copying directives,

the Galaxy S i9000 copied the iPhone industrial design (PX3 (comparing Samsung smartphones

before iPhone to Samsung smartphones after iPhone)) and copied the iPhone home screen, down

to the shading on the icons (PX44.131 (comparing iPhone icons with [L]ight used . . . gives a

luxurious feel to GT-i9000 icons in development and concluding [I]nsert effects of light for a

softer, more luxurious icon implementation); PX35 (iPhones icons to are colorful and vibrant,

however they are in contained square which appear more organized and consistent.). The

Galaxy S i9000 also copied numerous iPhone features, including interface features claimed in the

patents-in-suit (PX36 (Lists bounce, icons flitter the iPhone has a sense of whimsy); PX38

(Adopt Double-Tap as a supplementary zooming method . . . . The UX of iphone can be used as

a design benchmark.); PX44.58 (comparing iPhone Double Tap to S1 in development,

Double Tap zoom in/out function needs to be supplemented); PX46.66 (comparing iPhone

bounce to Behold3 in development, Provide a fun visual effect when dragging a web page);

PX57.19 (lack of Fun, Wow Effect is Critical and concluding [B]ounce effect is scheduled

to be reviewed); PX186.1 (there is no latex effect of having the screen follow along and then

returning when you are moving past the edge. (Refer to the iPad)); PX195.1 (With regards to

bounce, we used the Mass Spring Damper model which was modeled after the actual physical

effect and obtained the bounce effect that is similar to the iPad[.]).)

In August 2010, immediately after Samsung introduced its Galaxy S i9000 and Vibrant

smartphones, Apple met with Samsung and explicitly told Samsung to stop copying Apples

iPhone patents and designs. (PX52 (Apple August 2010 presentation); PX201 at 31:15-16;

31:18-20; 33:21-24; 37:21-38:05 (testimony of Jun Won Lee that Apple raised Samsungs

infringement of Apple phones patents and design).) Apple pointed out the similarities between

the iPhone design (protected by the trade dress and the D677, D087, and D305 patents) and the

Galaxy S i9000s design. (PX52.17-19; Dkt. No. 1695 at 19581962 (testimony of Boris Teksler

regarding Apples presentation to Samsung in August 2010 which included discussion of

similarities of iPhone and Galaxy S i9000).) Yet Samsung continued to introduce phones that

copied the iPhone, including the Galaxy S Vibrant, the Galaxy S Fascinate, the Galaxy S



19/129

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


sf-3360108

Mesmerize, the Galaxy S Showcase, and the Galaxy S 4G. This last product was introduced in

February 2011, six months after the August 2010 meeting, and was sold until at least June 2012.

The jury found it diluted Apples registered iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPhone 3G trade

dress and infringed every one of Apples patents-in-suit. This phone alone sold over 1.45 million

units and generated over $473 million in revenues for Samsung in the U.S. (JX1500).

With these and other diluting and infringing products, Samsung flooded the market with

over 21 million copied smartphones during the two years prior to June 30, 2012. Samsungs

strategy of copying the iPhone to boost its smartphone sales succeeded: Between June 2010,

when the first Galaxy S phone was introduced, and June 30, 2012, Samsungs U.S. market share

jumped six-fold from 5% to above 30%. (Dkt. No. 1982-2 30.) As Julie Davis testified, 90% of

the dramatic increase in Samsungs U.S. smartphone market share in the third quarter of 2010

was due to sales of infringing phones. (Dkt. No. 2840 at 719:9-721:3 (discussing PDX100.8).)

Samsungs market share gain eroded Apples position as the market leader. Samsungs

successful strategy has been to blunt and undercut Apple using the Galaxy products to take

the leading position in the U.S. smartphone market. (PX62.11-15.) In February 2012, Samsung

concluded that as a result of its own rapid growth in market share, the U.S. smartphone market

was becoming a two horse race between Apple & Samsung. (PX60.8.)

C. The Court Should Award Apples Requested Fees Of $15,736,9921. A fees award is warranted

A district court has discretion as to whether to award fees in an exceptional case.

Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus., 352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing

decision to award fees under 1117(a) for abuse of discretion). The same factors that render a

case exceptional also support an award of fees. See, e.g., id. at 1219 (no abuse of discretion in

awarding fees when court considered willful, deliberate infringement of a mark similar to that

of its competitor). Indeed, where a jury has returned a willfulness finding, arguments against an

award of fees are difficult to advance successfully. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068. That is because

the award of fees to the prevailing party flows quite naturally from the jurys finding of willful

infringement and the legal standard for exceptional cases under 1117. Id.



20/129

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


sf-3360108

The Court should award Apple fees in this exceptional case. Awarding fees to Apple

flows quite naturally from the jurys willfulness verdict as well as Samsungs extensive record

of willful, deliberate, and calculated decisions to copy the iPhone, in blatant disregard for Apples

IP, discussed above. Courts routinely award fees, and the Ninth Circuit affirms fee awards under

1117(a), based on evidence that a defendants conduct was willful, deliberate, or calculated.

See,e.g., Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068 (affirming district courts decision to award fees based on

willful infringement);Horphag, 475 F.3d at 1039 (affirming award of fees for trademark dilution

where defendant made deliberate and calculated attempts to confuse its product with

plaintiffs);Natl Prods., 449 Fed. Appx. at 639 (affirming fees award when sufficient evidence

supported jurys finding of deliberate infringement); see also Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Baccarat

Clothing Co., 692 F.2d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir. 1982) (reversing denial of fees where defendants

were not innocent infringers, but premeditatedly sought out infringing behavior, and noting

that exceptional case fees [were] specifically directed towards eliminating such blatant

activity).

2. Apples requested fees are reasonablea. Apple incurred over $60 million in fees for prosecuting its

claims through the two trials, after discounts and reductions

Apple and its counsel from Morrison & Foerster LLP (M&F), who prosecuted its claims

against Samsung, have taken numerous steps to ensure that the fees addressed in this motion are

reasonable, as detailed in the accompanying declarations of Michael Jacobs and Rachel Krevans.1

Among other things, M&F attorneys carefully review each invoice before sending it to Apple to

confirm that it reflects time appropriately charged to Apple and complies with the combination of

M&Fs and Apples rigorous billing requirements for this case. (Jacobs Decl. 259.) Apples in-

house attorneys managed this case to a very disciplined budget. (Id. 258.) For purposes of this

motion, Apple included only the fees it incurred for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000

1This motion discusses only fees that Apple incurred in prosecuting its claims; no feesfrom Apples successful defense against Samsungs claims are included.



21/129

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


sf-3360108

in this case, thereby eliminating fees from timekeepers who provided meaningful work but did

not play a substantial ongoing role in the case. (Id. 60.) Apple made further reductions in the

amounts of fees in connection with this motion to be conservative. (Id. 250.) As a result of all

of these efforts and reductions, the hours underlying the fees at issue are reasonable.

The billing rates for the fees at issue also are reasonable, and reflect substantial discounts.

No M&F attorney billing to this matter charged over per hour, and the rest were well below

that number. (Id. Ex. A.) The rates are within the ranges of the American Intellectual Property

Law Association Economic Survey and are generally less than the rates that Samsung has paid for

lawyers at Quinn Emanuel with comparable experience. (Id. 251-55 & Ex. A.)

Applying these parameters, Apple has paid or expects to pay M&F approximately $60

million for its work on this case through the damages retrial. (Krevans Decl. 6.) Apple also has

paid or expects to pay approximately $2 million to Wilmer Hale for its fees in the damages retrial

again counting only timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 to the case. (Selwyn Decl. 2,

4.) In total, using these parameters, Apple has incurred over $60 million in fees for prosecuting

its claims against Samsung.

b. Apple seeks only one-third of the fees billed through March 1,2013, for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 for work

on Apples claims against Samsung

Section 1117(a) permits recovery of fees for successful Lanham Act claims or those

inextricably intertwined with such claims. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1069. Claims that are based on

similar factual bases and legal theories are related for the purposes of determining a fee award.

Gucci Am., Inc. v. Pieta, No. CV 04-9626, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96694, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July

17, 2006). Work that involve[s] a common core of facts cannot be viewed as a series of

discrete claims. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983).

Apples trade dress and design patent claims are inextricably intertwined and involve a

common core of facts. Apples unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress has the following elements:

a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners; a flat clear surface covering the front of the product; the appearance of a metallic bezel around the flat clear surface;



22/129



23/129

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


sf-3360108

D087 and D677 patents, testified about Apples design process and investment in design, which

is highly relevant to Apples trade dress claims. Thus, the work Apples counsel performed

relating to designs was relevant to Apples trade dress claims, although it also related to other

design IP. Apple may, therefore, recover for all its fees related to iPhone trade dress and design.

In a case of this magnitude, with various claims with differing degrees of overlap, courts

may apportion fees based on a high-level consideration of the percentage of the case involving the

Lanham Act claims or those inextricably bound to them. SeeMcCarthy on Trademarks 30:103

(When there is an overlap in the attorneys work expended between the exceptional Lanham

Act claims and nonattorneys fee recoverable claims, it is appropriate for the court to reduce a

total attorneys fee amount by a percentage which represents work on the non-Lanham Act

claims.). This is especially true when courts consider voluminous fee application[s]. Gates v.

Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). In those cases, the court need not perform an

hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request. Id. Instead, across-the-board percentage cuts may

be used to reduce unrecoverable fees. See id. Determining an exactpercentage of the fees

attributable to Lanham Act claims is unnecessary so long as there is some attempt, even if

imprecise[], to account for the unrecoverable fees. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1069 (emphasis added).

Apple has conservatively allocated as recoverable under the Lanham Act only one-third of

fees billed through March 1, 2013, for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 for work on

Apples claims against Samsung. Broadly, Apples offensive case was split across three

substantive areas: phone design (which included patents on the iPhone design as well as iPhone

trade dress rights), tablet design, and utility patents. (Krevans Decl. 8.) But throughout the

case, the parties litigation of Apples claims against Samsung focused a disproportionate amount

of time on the design issues. (Id. 9-11.) Apples Amended Complaint devoted a substantial

amount of attention to Samsungs copying of Apples designs, including numerous side-by-side

design comparisons and discussion of Samsungs copying. (Dkt. No. 75.) Samsungs 22-page

trial brief devoted over nine pages to Apples designs; by contrast, it spent just two-and-a-half

pages on utility patents. (Dkt. No. 1322 at 3-15.) Both parties served many more expert reports

relating to design/trade dress issues than to utility patentsnine design/trade dress experts



24/129

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


sf-3360108

compared to six utility patent experts for Apple; and eight design/trade dress and five utility

patent experts for Samsung. (Krevans Decl. 10.) Apples trial brief devoted the vast majority

of its fourteen-page discussion of Samsungs violation of Apples intellectual property rights to

Apples designs/trade dress, with only two pages on utility patents. (Dkt. No. 1323 at 3-15.)

Consistent with this focus, at trial, Apple presented seven witnesses who were entirely or

predominantly relevant to design issues (including trade dress), and three specific to its utility

patents. (Krevans Decl. 11.) In addition to Mr. Bressler, Ms. Kare, and Mr. Stringer, who as

noted above, discussed both trade dress and design patent issues, some of these witnesses

addressed issues related solely or primarily to trade dress. Dr. Russell Winer testified on the

distinctiveness and fame of the Apple trade dress elements, and . . . the infringement and dilution

[of] the Apple brands. (Dkt. No. 1612 at 1497:17-22.) Hal Poret testified about consumer

surveys he designed and conducted to determine whether or not the iPhone and the iPad trade

dress have acquired secondary meaning. (Id. at 1577:17-20.) Kent van Liere also testified about

two trade dress-related surveys, one that measured the extent to which consumers associate the

look and the design of Samsung Galaxy phones with iPhone and one that measured consumer

confusion regarding tablets. (Dkt. No. 1695 at 1691:13-22.) And a significant portion of the

testimony of Phil Schiller, Apples Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, was devoted

to the marketing, advertising, and fame of Apples brand and designs, as well as the harm to

Apple from Samsungs dilution of the Apple brand. (Dkt. No. 1610 at 597-611, 618-665.)

Perhaps the best evidence of the importance of the design and trade dress issues, in a trial

where time was the parties most precious commodity, was how much time each side chose to

spend on these issues. Totaling the trial time that each side spent on the design/trade dress

witnesses and utility patent witnesses, each partyspent twice as much time on design/trade dress

as it did on utility patents. (Krevans Decl. 11-12.)

Based on all of these facts, allocating one-third of fees to Apples successful Lanham Act

claims is eminently reasonable. In Fifty-Six HopeRoad Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 915 F.

Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2013), the district court awarded fees under 1117(a) using a similar

methodology to that advanced here by Apple. Although that plaintiffs successful Lanham Act



25/129

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


sf-3360108

claim was only one of five asserted claims, the court rejected defendants proposal to simply

award one-fifth of the fees as not a fair apportionment. Id.at 1189. The court reasoned that

[m]ost of the fees related to discovery and much of the other work would have been incurred

whether there was a single, or many, claims. Id. Taking into consideration the relative time and

resources devoted to the various claims, the court apportioned sixty percentof plaintiffs hours

to the Lanham Act claim through summary judgment. Id. After summary judgment, when only

the Lanham Act and a state unfair competition claim remained, the court allocated seventy

percentof the hours to the Lanham Act claim, noting that a fifty-fifty split would be unfair. Id.

at 1189-90.

Like Fifty-Six HopeRoad, other courts in this circuit have apportioned a similar, or even

significantly higher, percentage of fees for Lanham Act claims when other claims were asserted

than the one-third that Apple seeks here. See, e.g., Spalding Labs., Inc. v. Ariz. Biological

Control, Inc., No. CV 06-1157, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56100, at *16-17 (C.D. Cal. May 29,

2008) (reducing fees by 10% when Lanham Act claim was one of nine claims); Societe Civile

Succession Richard Guino v. Beseder Inc., No. CV 03-13-10, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83782, at

*43-44 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2007) (awarding one-third of fees when Lanham Act claim was one of

three claims).

By seeking only one-third of its fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000,

Apple ensures that it is not recovering fees for its unsuccessful claims concerning the unregistered

combination iPhone trade dress or for tablet design. First, the only differences between the

unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress on which Apple did prevail and the combination iPhone trade

dress is that the latter lacks two of the iPhone 3G trade dress elements (a metallic bezel around

the flat clear surface and a row of small dots on the display screen) and also covers neutral

(black or white) borders rather than the black borders covered by the 3G trade dress. (Compare

Dkt. No. 75 59 (iPhone 3G trade dress), with id. 63 (combination trade dress).) Thus, the

same work would have been required to address the iPhone 3G trade dress even if the

combination trade dress had not been at issue. The only possible additional work required by

having the combination trade dress in the case was whatever might have been required to address



26/129

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


sf-3360108

neutral (black or white) borders in addition to black borders. Apples request for only one-

third of fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 ensures that any such minimal fees

are not included in its request.

Second, phone design by the nature of the complaint was far more the focus of the trial

than was tablet design: 19 of the 28 accused products in the first trial were phones accused of

infringing Apples phone design rights, while only three of accused products were tablets accused

of infringing Apples tablet design rights. Moreover, almost all of Apples damages request at the

first trial was for infringement by accused phones rather than tablets. Of the $2.75 billion Apple

requested at the first trial, only $80.97 millionjust 2.9%was for Samsungs tablets. (See

PX25A1.4.) Asking for only one-third of fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000

ensures that fees related to tablet design are not included in the fees request.

Applying the parameters discussed in the prior section, M&F billed Apple $47,210,976

for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 in this case for their time through March 1, 2013,

when the Court issued its last order on motions from the first trial. (Krevans Decl. 3.) One-

third of that total is $15,736,992, which Apple requests as its fee award under the Lanham Act.2

III. CONCLUSIONFor the reasons stated above, Apple respectfully requests that the Court find this case

exceptional and award Apple $15,736,992 in attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1117(a).

2Courts have awarded fees comparable to and far higher than Apples request. For

example, a $105.7 million award in a copyright case was upheld on appeal. Mattel, Inc. v. MGAEntmt, Inc., No. CV 04-9049, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85998 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011), affd, 705F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit upheld an award of $16.8 million for attorney feesin a patent case. Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., 549 F.3d 1381, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2008); seealsoBard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., No. CV 03-0597, 2009 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 131813, at *41 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009) (awarding $19 million in fees in patent case).

The Patent Act also permits attorneys fees in exceptional cases. 35 U.S.C. 285.Exceptionality may be based on litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise badfaith litigation; a frivolous suit; or willful infringement. Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro IntlLtd., 726 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Considered together, Samsungs misconduct duringlitigation, the jurys finding of willful infringement on five of Apples seven asserted patentclaims, and other aspects of Samsungs litigation tactics render this case exceptional within themeaning of 285. Apple separately addresses Samsungs litigation misconduct as a ground foran exceptional case finding under 285 in proceedings currently before Judge Grewal. (SeeDkt.No. 2838-2.) Apple also preserves its right to seek fees on other grounds under 285, includingin the event that the Courts finding of no objective willfulness is reversed.



27/129

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


sf-3360108


By: /s/ Rachel KrevansRACHEL KREVANS

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC.



28/129

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

DECL.OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISOAPPLES MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO.11-CV-01846LHK(PSG)

sf-3189895

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)[email protected] A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)[email protected] J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)[email protected] & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522


WILLIAM F. [email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000




SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Yorkcorporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,

Defendants.


DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A.JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF

APPLES MOTION FORATTORNEYS FEES

Date: January 30, 2014Time: 1:30 p.m.Place: Courtroom 8, 4th FloorJudge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh



29/129

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

DECL.OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISOAPPLES MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO.11-CV-01846LHK(PSG)

sf-3189895

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1II. OVERVIEW OF SUIT AND THE APPLE LITIGATION TEAM .................................. 1

A. Apples Claims .................................................................................................... 3i. Asserted Design Patents ........................................................................... 3ii. Asserted Utility Patents ............................................................................ 4iii. Trademarks .............................................................................................. 4iv. Trade Dress .............................................................................................. 5

B. Written Discovery ............................................................................................... 6C. Depositions .......................................................................................................... 7D. Discovery Disputes .............................................................................................. 8

i.

Samsung was sanctioned for failure to comply withdiscovery orders regarding copying documents ........................................ 9ii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding source code ............................ 10iii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding financial

information ............................................................................................ 10iv. Samsung was sanctioned for untimely disclosure of its

theories .................................................................................................. 11v. Samsung was compelled to produce witnesses ....................................... 11

E. Experts .............................................................................................................. 12F. Motions ............................................................................................................. 13G. Sealing .............................................................................................................. 14H. Substantive and Procedural Sub-Teams ............................................................. 15I. The Jury Trial and the Jurys Verdict ................................................................. 18J. Post-Trial Briefing ............................................................................................. 20

III. BIOGRAPHIES AND ROLES OF THE MORRISON & FOERSTERTEAM ........................................................................................................................... 21A. Lead Trial Counsel ............................................................................................ 21B. Partners ............................................................................................................. 24C. Of Counsel and Associates ................................................................................ 41D. Paralegals and Other Employees ........................................................................ 78

IV. MORRISON & FOERSTERS RATES ARE COMPARABLE TOPREVAILING RATES IN THE COMMUNITY FOR LIKE-SKILLEDPROFESSIONALS. ...................................................................................................... 82

V. DISCOUNTS, WRITE DOWNS, AND WRITE OFFS. ................................................ 83



30/129

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

DECL.OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISOAPPLES MOT.FOR ATTORNEYSFEESCASENO.11-CV-01846LHK(PSG) 1

sf-3189895

I, MICHAEL A. JACOBS, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel forApple Inc. (Apple). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal

knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from members of my

litigation team or other professionals within Morrison & Foerster. I make this declaration in

support of Apples Motion for Attorneys Fees.

I. INTRODUCTION2. Apple submits this declaration, the declaration of Rachel Krevans, and the

declaration of Mark Selwyn in support of its motion for attorneys fees. As set forth in Apples

motion, Apple is entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees but at this time requests only a portion

of the fees it has incurred in prosecuting this case. My declaration will focus on the development

of the case and the work of the Apple team from inception of the case through April 2013.

Rachel Krevans will address in a separate declaration the portion of its fees that Apple requests.

II. OVERVIEW OF SUIT AND THE APPLE LITIGATION TEAM3. Apple filed the Complaint instituting this action on April 15, 2011. Apple initially

asserted 7 utility patents, 3 design patents, iPhone and iPod trade dress rights, iPad trade dress

rights, and trademark rights. Apple filed its Amended Complaint on June 16, 2011, asserting 8

utility patents and 7 design patents, as well as trade dress and trademark rights. Apple accused

Samsungs Galaxy mobile phones and tablet computers of infringing on Apples intellectual

property rights, and named 28 specific examples of infringing phones and tablets. On June 30,

2011, Samsung filed counterclaims alleging infringement of 12 utility patents, seeking

cancellation of Apples trade dress and trademark registrations, and seeking declarations of

noninfringement and invalidity of Apples intellectual property rights.

4. The case was hotly contested and heavily briefed. Before the beginning of the firsttrial on July 30, 2012, there were 1,456 docket entries (and by the final post-trial ruling on

March 1, 2013, the number had increased to 2,270). The litigation required many lawyersas

listed on the Courts docket, 62 attorneys have appeared to represent Apple and 52 have appeared

to represent Samsung.



31/129

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


sf-3189895

5. The case culminated in a three-and-a-half week jury trial. Due to several rounds ofpretrial case narrowing at the Courts direction, trial proceeded, on Apples claims, as to three

utility patents, three phone design patents, one tablet design patent, iPhone trade dress rights, iPad

trade dress rights, and 28 accused Samsung products. After several days of deliberation, the jury

found that 26 of the 28 accused Samsung products infringed and/or diluted at least one of Apples

asserted intellectual property rights (the two exceptions were the Intercept, which was accused

only of infringing the 163 and 915, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE), which was accused only

of infringing the D889). The jury found that Samsung infringed the 381, 163, 915, D677, ad

D305 patents willfully, and that Samsung diluted Apples trade dress willfully. The jury also

found that none of Apples patents was invalid and that Apples registered iPhone trade dress and

unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress were protectable. The jury found that Apple did not infringe

any of Samsungs asserted intellectual property rights. The jury awarded Apple damages in the

amount of $1,049,343,540.

6. The breadth of work continued with the parties post-trial motions. Apple filed abrief regarding non-jury claims; a motion for permanent injunction and damages enhancements;

and a motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and amended judgment. Samsung filed a

motion regarding non-jury claims; a motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and/or

remittitur; as well as three motions to compel relating to the parties post-trial motions. The post-

trial motions were so substantial that they led to seven separate orders from December 2012

through March 2013, not counting orders on motions to compel or other ancillary filings:

(1) order regarding waiver, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition, (2) order

regarding Apples request for a permanent injunction, (3) order regarding Samsungs allegations

of juror misconduct, (4) order regarding Apples JMOL/new trial motion, (5) order regarding

Samsungs JMOL/new trial motion, (6) order regarding damages enhancements, and (7) the order

regarding damages that led to a November 2013 damages retrial.

7. Two law firms represented Apple in this case throughout the time period discussedabove. Broadly speaking, Morrison & Foerster prosecuted the claims brought by Apple, and

WilmerHale defended against the counterclaims brought by Samsung. A brief summary of the



32/129

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


sf-3189895

claims brought by Apple in this matter and the Morrison & Foerster team that litigated those

claims follows.

A. Apples Claims8. Apple asserted a range of intellectual property rights directed to aspects of

smartphones and tablet computers, including design patents, utility patents, trademarks, and trade

dress. Apple described in detail that Samsung exhibited a pattern of copying to make Samsungs

products look and work like Apples products. Apple noted that Samsung had even copied

Apples distinctive product packaging. Apple included illustrations throughout the Complaint to

demonstrate Samsungs copying efforts, including side-by-side comparisons showing Samsungs

products compared to Apples asserted design patents; Samsungs products compared to Apples

trade dress; and Samsungs icons compared to Apples icons.

i. Asserted Design Patents9. Apples amended complaint asserted patent infringement claims based on the

following design patents:

U.S. Patent No. D504,889: The D889 patent is directed to the design of a tabletcomputer.

U.S. Patent No. D593,087: The D087 patent is directed to the design of theiPhones front face and bezel.

U.S. Patent No. D604,305: The D305 patent is directed to the design of iPhonesgraphical user interface.


U.S. Patent No. D618,677: The D677 patent is directed to the design of iPhonesblack front face.

U.S. Patent No. D622,270: The D270 patent is directed to the design of the iPodtouch.




33/129

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


sf-3189895

ii. Asserted Utility Patents10. Apples amended complaint asserted patent infringement claims based on the

following ut ility patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381: The 381 patent is directed to a feature that informsthe user that an edge of an electronic document has been reached.

U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163: The 163 patent is directed to a feature that allows auser to zoom into and navigate a structured electronic document.

U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915: The 915 patent is directed to a feature thatdistinguishes between single-finger scroll and multi-finger gestures.

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607: The 607 patent is directed to touchscreen hardware. U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129: The 129 patent is directed to touchscreen hardware. U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828: The 828 patent is directed to a feature that interprets a

users contacts on a touchscreen.

U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002: The 002 patent is directed to features in a status barfor computing devices.

U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891: The 891 patent is directed to timed notificationwindows for computing devices.

iii. Trademarks11. Apple asserted claims for federal trademark infringement (under 15 U.S.C.

1114), common law trademark infringement, and unfair business practices (under California

Business & Professions Code 17200) based on the following registered trademarks:

U.S. Registration No. 3,886,196 for an icon that is green in color with a whitesilhouette of a phone handset arranged at a 45 degree angle and centered on the

icon that represents the application for making telephone calls.

U.S. Registration No. 3,886,200 for an icon featuring a yellow and greensunflower against a light-blue background that represents the application for

photographs.



34/129

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


sf-3189895

U.S. Registration No. 3,889,642 for an icon that is green in color with a whitesilhouette of a speech bubble centered on the icon that represents the application

for messaging.

U.S. Registration No. 3,889,685 for an icon that features gears against a graybackground that represents the application for settings.

U.S. Registration No. 3,886,169 for an icon that features a yellow notepad thatrepresents the application for notes.

U.S. Registration No. 3,886,197 for an icon that features a silhouette of a man on aspiral-bound address book that represents the application for contacts.

U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038 (the iTunes Eighth Note and CD DesignTrademark) for an icon that features a two eighth note and CD logo for iTunes

on-line music services.

12. Apple asserted common law trademark infringement and unfair business practicesclaims (under California Business & Professions Code 17200) based on the following

unregistered trademark:

Purple iTunes Store Trademark (unregistered trademark as shown in U.S.Application Serial No. 85/041,463) for an icon with a purple background color

with a white circle and a silhouette of two white eighth notes within the white

circle.

iv. Trade Dress13. Apple asserted claims for federal trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. 1114),

federal trade dress dilution (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), and unfair business practices (under California

Business & Professions Code 17200) based on the following registered trade dresses:

U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 for the configuration of a handheld mobile digitalelectronic device.




35/129

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


sf-3189895


14. Apple asserted claims for federal false designation of origin and unfair competition(under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)), federal trade dress dilution (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)), and unfair

business practices (under California Business & Professions Code 17200) based on the

following unregistered trade dresses:

iPhone Trade Dress iPhone 3G Trade Dress iPhone 4 Trade Dress iPhone/iPhone 3G/iPhone 4 Trade Dress (aka Combination Trade Dress) iPad Trade Dress iPad 2 Trade Dress

15. At the direction of the Court, Apple narrowed its case several times during thecourse of the litigation, dropping certain claims, patents, and trade dresses. Ultimately, trial

proceeded on the 381, 163, and 915 utility patents; the D677, D087, D305, and D889 design

patents; the 983 trade dress, unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress, and unregistered iPhone

combination trade dress; and unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress.

16. In addition to this action, Morrison Foerster represented Apple in other actions inthe United States involving utility and/or design patents that Apple has brought against Samsung.

See, e.g.,In re Elec. Digital Media Devices & Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-796 (2012) and

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 12-cv-0630-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.). Work done for each of those

cases was recorded using a separate matter number, and although certain depositions and

discovery from one or more of those actions were designated for use in this matter, Apple is only

seeking fees billed for this matter.

B. Written Discovery17. The parties served and responded to extensive written discovery in this action.

Including both the offensive and defensive sides of the case, Samsung served 583 requests for

production, 89 interrogatories, and 2,518 requests for admission. Also across both sides of the



36/129

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


sf-3189895

case, Apple served 694 requests for production, 86 interrogatories, and 1,529 requests for

admission. Given the complexity of the case, individual requests for documents often

encompassed a large number of documents, and many interrogatories contained numerous

subparts.

18. Samsung produced many documents in Korean but did not provide translations forthese documents during discovery. This required Apple to retain Korean language translators and

attorneys with Korean language skills to review them.

C. Depositions19. The parties conducted many depositions in this matter. Across both sides of the

case, the parties conducted over 200 depositions, resulting in well over 2,500 deposition exhibits.1

These included depositions of Apple, Samsung, and third-party witnesses. Because Samsung

generally made its employees available for deposition in the location where they worked, many

depositions occurred in or around Seoul, South Korea. The depositions of most Apple employees

were taken in Northern California. The parties also conducted a substantial number of third-party

depositions in locations across the United States. In all, the parties conducted depositions in

South Korea and England, as well as in California, New York, Utah, Texas, Illinois,

North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Massachusetts,

Pennsylvania, Georgia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Florida, and Washington, D.C.

Throughout the fact discovery period, there were often numerous depositions across the

United States and in South Korea in a single week, and often multiple depositions on a single day,

requiring a very large team to accomplish all the necessary discovery.

20. There were a substantial number of documents produced that had to be reviewedand analyzed for depositions. Selection of documents for depositions required numerous

attorneys and a multi-step process. On average, about one-tenth of the documents produced by

1Because of the scope and complexity of the case, the Court authorized the parties toconduct discovery beyond some of the usual limitations. For example, the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure limit depositions to ten per side (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i)) and those depositionscannot exceed seven hours (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1)).



37/129

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


sf-3189895

Samsung were sourced to a given custodian and flagged by Apples Korean-language attorneys as

potentially useful for the custodians upcoming deposition. Before Apples outside counsel could

review the flagged documents and consider them for use in deposition, however, each document

had to be translated into English. On average, each document produced by Samsung contained

about 12 pages of text. Apples experience was that an informal translation of 12 pages of text

suitable for internal use could be prepared in about 45 minutes, but formal translation took much

more time. Translation of documents needed for depositions typically took multiple full-time

Korean-language translators several days to complete. After documents were translated, Apples

outside counsel analyzed and selected the translated Samsung documents for deposition purposes.

21. For Samsung designers, developers, and marketing custodians, Apple had to piecetogether from the custodians files what role (among the multitude of possible roles) he or she

played in the design, development, and/or commercialization of products that took several months

and sometimes years to plan, design, develop, and launch. Understanding the development of the

infringing features also involved reviewing e-mails and documents containing source code and

other technical information. The review of Samsungs financial information was equally

complicated, as data had to be stitched together from several documents before the relevance of

financial materials could be determined. Further, Samsung produced multiple, conflicting

versions of certain key financial documents and produced documents in a manner that failed to

consolidate the financial information from its Korean and United States operations. These

failures were particularly important in connection with the trade dress case, in which Samsungs

profits were an available remedy.

D. Discovery Disputes22. Apples discovery costs were further multiplied by Samsungs conduct during

discovery. Samsung forced Apple to file multiple motions to compel, including motions seeking

production of copying documents, source code, and financial information. In several instances,

Apple needed multiple orders before Samsung finally complied.

23. Samsung also pursued extensive discovery on hopeless defenses that it laterabandoned, including many arguments regarding the alleged functionality of the design patents



38/129

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


sf-3189895

and asserted trade dresses. For example, Samsung demanded depositions of individuals that

worked in Apples model shop or as paint mixers, including Amy Chuang, Chris Harris,

Chris Hood, Zack Kamen, Mark Lee, Fred Simon, and Aaron Von Minden. These depositions

required Apple to review tens of thousands of documents. Samsung insisted that Apple run

special searches regarding white iPhone issues, which resulted in Apple reviewing additional

thousands of documents totaling many tens of thousands of pages. White iPhone issues were not

raised at trial. Similarly, Samsung insisted on deposing multiple individuals regarding drop

tests for the iPhone, including Richard Dinh, Phil Hobson, Chris Prest, Fletcher Roth

Apple vs Samsung 5 December 2013

Documents

Transcript of Apple vs Samsung 5 December 2013