Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA496938
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`09/27/2012
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`91199897
`Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`GLEN A GUNDERSEN
`DECHERT LLP
`CIRA CENTRE, 2929 ARCH STREET
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2808
`UNITED STATES
`glenn.gundersen@dechert.com, christine.hernandez@dechert.com,
`trademarks@dechert.com
`Response to Board Order/Inquiry
`Glenn A. Gundersen
`trademarks@dechert.com, glenn.gundersen@dechert.com,
`christine.hernandez@dechert.com
`/Glenn A. Gundersen/
`09/27/2012
`91199897 Final.pdf ( 26 pages )(3223946 bytes )
`
`Proceeding
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`
`Signature
`Date
`Attachments
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In re the matter of Application Serial No: 85f041,463
`Mark:
`
`
`
`Published in the Qfficia! Gazette on April 19, 2011
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, LTD.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Opposer.
`v.
`
`Applicant.
`
`Opposition No. 91199897
`
`-
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY
`
`In response to the Board's August 28, 2012 Order, Applicant, Apple Inc., submits this
`
`update on the status of the federal court litigation involving the parties and respectfully requests
`
`that the Board resume the present proceeding.
`
`In its August 25, 2011 order, the Board suspended this Opposition pending the resolution
`
`of Applicant’s then-pending claims against Opposer and Opposer’s affiliates. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, in the US. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court Litigation”). As noted by the
`
`Board, in the District Court Litigation Apple asserted that Samsung infringed Apple°s trade dress
`
`rights in its iPhone, iPad and iPod touch devices, including the purple eighth-note icon that is at
`
`issue in this proceeding (the “iTunes Icon"). In its answer and counterclaims, Samsung asserted
`
`that the iTunes Icon, among other elements, was not protectable and sought a declaration that the
`
`application at issue was invalid. See Dkt. No. 13.
`
`
`
`

`
`However, in the ultimate trial, Apple did not present its claims concerning Sarnsung’s
`
`of the iTunes Icon to thejury. As a result, Samsung’s counterclaims concerning
`
`the iTunes Icon were mooted and were not tried to the jury. See Ex. A (Amended Verdict Form).
`
`Given the narrowing ofthe parties’ claims in the District Court Litigation, that proceeding no
`
`longer has any bearing on this Opposition. The jury’s decision does not address whether the
`
`iTunes Icon is distinctive and prctectable or Opposer’s contention that the iTunes Icon does not
`
`function as a trademark, and will not be at issue in any subsequent appeal. While the parties in
`
`the District Court Litigation are conducting additional briefing on certain non-jury claims, that
`
`briefing is limited to various equitable issues and again does not implicate the iTunes Icon. See
`
`Ex. B (Order Granting in Part App1e’s Motion Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury
`
`Claims). Accordingly, pursuant to TBMP 501.02, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board
`
`resume this proceeding.
`
`Date: September 27, 2012
`
`By:
`
`I Z!
`
`E 3 X
`
`Attorneys for Applicant
`APPLE INC.
`
`Glenn A. Gundersen
`
`Christine M. Hernandez
`Dechert LLP
`
`Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
`Telephone: 215~994—2183
`
`CERTIFICATE on SERVICE "
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Board Inquiry
`has been duly served by mailing such copy first class, postage prepaid to Michael T. Zeller,
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 856 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angcles,
`
`CA 90017-2543, onSeptember27, 2012.
`
`'
`
`I
`
`5
`
`Christine M. Hernandez
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK DOcument1931 Fi|edO8i24i12 Page10f2O
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`me No.: 1 1-CV-01846-LI-IK
`EN
`VERDIC -_ ORM
`
`) I I I
`
`APPLE INC., 21 California corporation,
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`)
`a Korean corporation;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
`a New York corporation;
`)
`SAMS UNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`)
`AMERICA, LLC,
`)
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`) )
`
`Defendants.
`
`)l )
`
`)
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`)
`a Korean corporation;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
`a New York corporation;
`)
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`) ) 3
`
`) ) I I J )
`
`V.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`' APPLE INC., a California corporation,
`
`Counterelairn-Defendant.
`
`LEE)
`
`We, thejury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
`under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
`
`Case No.: I I -CV-01 846-L]-IK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`I
`
`>---‘CD\DGo‘--JONU1‘-b
`\O%"-JUNLH-bl»-FINJ
`
`I-if
`:->-n—Ind:—I:-—II—nn—u
`
`IN.) G
`
`IQ I—I
`
`Ix.)t\J
`
`I?»-JDJ
`
`[NJ43-
`
`[NJLA
`
`I9O\
`
`[U'----l
`
`INJ O0
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|ed"O8i24;’12 Pagez of2O
`
`FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS
`
`API-"LE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsu ng Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), andfor
`Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the 38]
`Patent?
`
`_ (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`
`
`
`
`j-
`
`
`S.
`_.
`
`-T
`-1
`Ti
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inj
`
`-
`11
`311
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Galaxy Tab (IX 103 5)
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (IX 1037)
`
`.-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-
`Xi
`T-
`
`
`
`Case No.: 11—CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`:3\o-oe~..‘1cxuu.1=.-..u1~J
`--Ap—-)-—II—Iu—II—-n—-tp—-\Dx"-J°‘\‘J'l-I3-L-I-F[\J
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|edO8i24i12 Pages of2O
`
`2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), andfor
`Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`H 14~«:~«:<<-“‘Zi1
`
`a
`
`aia
`
`Captivate (IX 1011)
`
`'
`
`Continuum (IX 1016)
`
`Droid Charge (JX 1025)
`
`"
`
`Epic 4G (JX 1012)
`
`Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
`
`Fascinatc (IX 1013)
`
`Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
`
`. Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
`
`Galaxy S (i9000) (J X 1007)
`
`Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
`
`Galaxy S 11 (AT&T) (JX 1031)
`
`Galaxy S [I (i9100) (JX 1032)
`
`Galaxy S II (T~Mohile) (JX 1033)
`
`.
`
`Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
`
`‘
`
`Gem (Jx 1020)
`
`1ndulge(JX 1026)
`
`Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
`
`Intercept (JX 1009)
`
`Mesmerize (IX 1015)
`
`Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
`
`Replenish (IX 1024)
`
`Transform (IX 1014)
`
`Vibrant (IX 1010)
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`n—l 09
`
`E
`
`Case No.2 11-CV-01846-LHK.
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`Court.FortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|.edO8l24l12 Page4 of2O
`
`3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), andfor
`Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ‘I63
`Patent?
`.
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes" (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`=-._',_;|-I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I2~«:" H
`
`
`
`
`UnitedstatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`D 2.‘.§-4. 0 '52 >—n G IZI
`p
`(
`
`IZI
`
`)
`
`Continuum (IX 1016)
`
`Droid Charge (IX 1025)
`
`Epic 4G (IX 1012)
`
`Exhibit 4G (IX 1028)
`
`Fascinate (IX 1013)
`
`Galaxy Ace (IX 1030)
`
`Galaxy Prevail (IX 1022)
`
`Galaxy S (i9000) (IX 1007)
`
`Galaxy 3 4G (IX 101-9)
`
`Galaxy S II (AT&T) (IX 1031)
`
`Galaxy S 11 (i9l00) (IX 1032)
`
`Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (IX 103 3)
`
`Galaxy Tab (IX 1036)
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (IX 1037)
`
`Gem (IX 1020)
`
`Indulge (IX 1026)
`
`Infuse 4G (IX 1027)
`
`Intercept (IX 1009)‘
`
`Mesmerizc (IX 1.015)
`
`Nexus S 4G (IX 1023)
`
`Replenish (IX 1024)
`
`Transform (IX 1014)
`
`Vibrant (IX 1010)
`
`
`
`Case No.: I l-CV-D1846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|edO8i24i12 Page5 of2O
`
`4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known
`would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’9l5, or ’163 Patents?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no" (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`{I -'7“;
`
`-' ‘:9 .g'«T.g
`
`I.‘
`
`1‘:fg—u
`
`F
`
`F...
`
`V V i
`
`'
`
`Y
`
`i
`
`I
`
`Case No.2 1-1-CV-01846-L]-1K.
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`UnltedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`CaSe5:11-cv-01846-LHK Documen11931 Fi|edO8;’24;’l2 Pagefi of2O
`
`5.
`
`For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) andlor Samsung Telecommunications America
`(STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`"mg:
`
`.1
`
`
`01
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jm:
`
`
`
`
`1m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1m
`1-
`
`
`
`6. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) andfor Samsung Telecommunications America
`(STA) has infringed the _D’037 Patent?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y" for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`. Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`
`
`
`_ Galaxy s @9000) (17: 1007)
`'
`Galaxy 3 4G (IX 1019)
`Galax>'SI1<AT&T)<JX1031> ““
`Galaxy 3 II (19100) (IX-1032)
`-
`
`Galaxy 3 11 (Epic 40 Touch) (JX 1034)
`Galaxy s 11 (Skyrocket) (JX 1035) m N
`0 1nfuse4GUX1027)
`Vibrant OX 1010) -'-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 1 1-CV-01846—LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`I
`
`I
`
`N‘
`
`v-s:=\.Dor.1-—:IONU\-I2-w
`
`I:l|:I
`
`1—I IN-J
`
`u—I La.)
`
`b-I -P'-
`
`')—n L)!
`
`5- ON
`
`I—I ‘--J
`
`.-1 O0
`
`u—I \D
`
`I9 (3
`
`[NJ I--L
`
`M.l\J
`
`[*3 L»)
`
`[NJ-I-‘-'-
`
`I9 Ln
`
`IN.) Ch
`
`IN.) "--J
`
`INJ OO
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|edO8i24i12 Page? of2O
`
`7. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) andlor Samsung Telecommunications America
`(STA) has infringed the W305 Patent?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), -or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`:
`
`n"ar
`
`.
`
`.
`
`> --i
`
`Captivate (JX 101 l
`
`Continuum (IX 1016)
`
`Droid Charge (JX 1025)
`
`Epic 4G (JX 1012)
`
`Fascinate (IX 1013)
`
`Galaxy S (i90{]0) (JX 1007)
`
`Galaxy S 4G (DC 1019)
`
`Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (IX 1017)
`
`Gem (IX 1020)
`
`Indulge (JX 1026)
`
`Infuse 4G (DC 1027)
`
`Mesmerize (JX 1015)
`
`Vibrant (JX 1010)
`
`
`
`2'
`
`IHHHHIHIIHHHI IISW
`
`
`
`3.. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), audior
`Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the W889 Patent?
`
`(Please answer inueach cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`-my
`
`:19.--re.
`
`
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (IX 1037)
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.] (4G LTE)
`(IX 1038)
`
`Case No; I 1-CV-01 846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`'ua4=-wro
`\D0O‘--JON
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`I5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24'
`
`5 2
`
`6
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`'$;:3\3E$t':‘al-higxooo-1ax
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthemDistrictofCalifornia
`
`CaSe5:11-cv-01846-LHK DOCumenl1931 .Fi|edO8;’24;’12 Page8 of 20
`‘I
`r.\...1I\.
`"
`
`13'you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions I through 3, please skip to Question 11, and do
`not answer Questions 9 and 10.
`
`9.
`
`If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications
`America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a I
`_
`preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it
`knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087_._
`D’305 an d/or D’889 Patents?
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” fol‘ “no” (for
`Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`'
`
`
`
`Captivate (IX 1011)
`
`
`
`Continuum (IX 1015)
`
`Droid Charge (IX 1025)
`
`'
`
`
`
`. Epic 4G (IX 1012)
`
`Fascinate (JX 1013)
`
`Galaxy s 4G (JX 1019)
`Galaxy 3 ll (AT&T)
`I
`Gaxy 3 11 (T—Mobile)
`JX 1033
`
`
`Galaxy 3 II (Epic 4G Touch)
`(JX 1034)
`Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)
`(J X 1035)
`Galaxy S Showcase (£500)
`IX 101
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
`(JX 1037)
`Galax Tab 10.1 (40 LTE)
`JXI 33
`
`Gem (IX 1020)
`
`Indulge (IX 1026)
`
`Infilse 4G (IX 1027)
`
`Mesmerize (JX 1015)
`
`
`
`Vibrant UK 1010)
`
`Case No.: l 1-CV-01346-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|edO8i24i12 Pageg of2O
`
`10. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any
`Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent{s), has Apple proven by clear and
`convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?"
`
`(Please answer in each cell iavith a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`
`\
`
`4-‘ :
`
`--x
`
`'r:\£I¢2..H
`
`‘.331 Patent (Claim 19)
`
`’91S Patent (Claim 8)
`
`
`
`’ 1 63 Patent (Claim 50)
`D’677 Patent
`
`D’087 Patent
`
`D’?-05 Patent
`
`D’889 Patent
`
`11. Has Samlsulng proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility
`andior design patent claims are invalid?
`
`’38l Patent [Claim 191
`
`Yes W________ (for Samsung)
`
`No JL(for Apple)
`
`’915 Patent [Claim 81
`
`Yesj (foi Samsung)
`
`NoL (for Apple)
`
`‘I63 Patent Claim 50
`
`Yes ‘T (for Samsung)
`
`No __'-f:__ (for Apple)
`
`D’677 Patent
`
`D’O87 Patent
`
`D’305 Patent
`
`D’889 Patent
`
`Yesj (for Samsung)
`
`No *__a___/__ (for Apple)
`
`Yesj (for Samsung)
`
`No1 (for Apple)
`
`YesT (for Samsung)
`
`No mu; (for Apple)
`
`Yes_ (for Samsung)
`
`No _._4(f0r Apple)
`
`Case No; ll-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`9
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`\DO¢"--l|O"-
`
`I0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`'23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv-01846-LHK DoCument1931 Fi|edO8!24;’l2 Page100f2O
`
`APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
`
`Protectabilig
`
`12. Has Samslmg proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone
`trade dress ’983 is not protectahle?
`.
`Yes (not protectable — for Samsung)
`No (protectabie — for Apple) \/
`
`13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade
`dresses are protectable?
`(Please answer with a“Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with
`
`“N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
`
`
`
`Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
`Unregistered iPadfiPad 2 Trade Dress
`
`
`
`Trade Dress Dilution
`
`14. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are
`famous?
`
`(Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” {for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
`
`
`Ba
`,_
`
`-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`n U
`
`nregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.1 I1-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`|—'lI‘-JC'J\DOO'--JO\lJ‘I-I‘-‘-U-ltd
`
`>—-
`
`I—I DJ
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`._ 2o
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2’?
`
`28
`
`

`
`CaSe5:ll-CV-01846-LHK DOCLJmeI’1tl931 Fi|edO8;‘241’12 Page11of2O
`
`D‘you did notfind the registered iPitone trade dress protectable andfamous, piease skip to
`Question 16, and do not answer Question 15.
`
`15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectahle and famous, for each of the
`following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
`andior Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted
`Electronics Co. (SEC)
`the registered iI’hone trade dress?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`
`
`
`
`
`4ZZ3*‘:Z4:-_;P7r'_P';_;_-3:.“
`
`
`
`9%:
`
`Captivate (JX 101 1)
`
`Continuum (IX 1016)
`
`Droid Charge (IX 1025)
`
`Epic 4G (IX 1012)
`
`Fascinatc (JX 1013)
`
`.
`
`- Galaxy Prevail (IX 1022)
`
`Galaxy S (i9000) (IX 1007)
`
`Galaxy 3 4G (IX 1019)
`
`Galaxy S 11 (AT&T) (IX 1031)
`
`Galaxy S II (i9100) (J): 1032)
`
`‘Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
`
`Galaxy S 11 (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 103 4)
`
`Galaxy S I] (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
`
`Galaxy S 11 Showcase (i500) (DC 1017)
`
`Infuse 4G (IX 1027)
`
`Mesm erize (IX 1015)
`
`Vibrant (IX 1010)
`
`Case No.: 1 l-CV-01846—LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`1 1
`
`-11‘-
`
`‘-DO0"--JON
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`1'5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`13
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`23
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthemDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`CaSe5:1l-cv-01846-LHK DOCument1931 Fi|e_dQ8;‘24;’l2 Page12 0_f2O
`
`[fyou "did notflmi the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable andfamous, pfease skip to
`.Questt'on I 7, and do not answer Question 16.
`
`16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of
`the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the _eV_idenee that
`Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) andfor Samsung Telecommunications America (STA)
`has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress?
`
`bl:
`
`-h:.L.p.J
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`'
`_
`
`<:7»\DOO‘~—JO\UI
`
`)----l
`
`
`UmtedStatesDistrlct
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthemDistrictofCalifornia
`
`[1
`
`15
`
`16
`
`13
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`'27
`
`28
`
`
`je-
`
`jg-1:1
`
`1:1
`
`
`j-j-
`1:-
`
`
`j-
`
`
`j-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`j-
`
`
`1:-
`
`
`1-
`
`% Vibrantfix 1010)
`a
`
`jjj
`
`-
`
`Case No; I 1-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`

`
`CaSe5:ll-CV-01846-LHK DOCLJmeI’1tl931 Fi|edO8;‘24l12 Pagels 0120
`1"!
`
`lfyon did notfind the unregistered Combination r'P:':one trade dress pmtecteble andfamous,
`please skip to Question 18, and do not answer Question I 7.
`
`17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress profectable and famous,
`for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
`that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) andlor Samsung Telecommunications America .
`(STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Sam sung).)
`
`
`
` Ir
`
`Epic 4G (JX 1012)
`
`Fascinate (IX 1013)
`
`Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
`
`Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
`
`Galaxy S 09000) UK 100'?)
`
`Galaxy S 4G (IX 1019)
`
`Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
`Galaxy S II 09100) (JX 1032)
`
`Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
`
`Galaxy S ll (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
`
`Galaxy S 11 (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
`
`Galaxy S 11 Showcase (i500) (IX 1017)
`
`Infuse 4G (IX 1027)
`
`Mesmerize (JX 1015)
`
`'
`
`Vibrant (JX 1010)
`
`ptivate (IX 11)
`Continuum (JX 1016}
`Droid Charge (IX 1025)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 1 l —CV-01846—LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`6*-DD!-‘r‘--..‘lO'\¢.)I-lit.»-lE‘~3|'-‘
`
`has
`
`,_n
`
`l-—¢I—IU-Tl‘-3
`
`I—I -la
`
`15
`
`16
`
`I7
`
`20
`
`'22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`CaSe5:1l-cv-01846-LHK DoCumentl93i FiIedo8J24t12 Page14 0f2O
`
`Jfyon did notfind the unregistered t'Pm£/iPua' 2 trade dress protectabte andfamous, please skip
`to Question I9, and do not answer Question I8.
`
`18. If you found the unregistered iPad!iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each
`of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
`Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), andlor Samsung
`Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
`dress?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`
`'
`
`9'3
`Galaxy 2: 1o._1 (won)
`(JX 103 7)
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.1
`no LTB) (JX 103 3)
`
`.
`
`._
`
`_.
`
`.-,,-
`
`3
`
`.-a-
`
`.
`
`.<..
`
`..
`
`.— _‘.-__
`
`-at
`
`'
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`'
`
`Ifyou did not answer “Yes” to any ofQuestions 15 through I8, please skipto Question 20, and
`do not answer Question 19.
`
`19. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any
`Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful? '
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for _
`Samsung).)
`
`Dress
`
`‘
`
`Unregistered iPhone 3
`Trade Dress
`'
`
` Jilegistered iPhone Trade
`
`
`Unregistered Combination
`iPhone Trade Dress
`
`
`l'\i
`
`Unregistered iPad!iPad 2
`Trade Dress
`
`_
`
`N
`
`
`
`Trade Dress Infringement
`
`Ifyou did notfind the unregistered iPua'/iPao‘ 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question
`22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21.
`
`20. If you found the unregistered iPadliPad 2 trade dress protectahle, for each of the
`following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
`14
`
`Case No; 11-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`
`
`\D00'‘--.3O‘\U:43.03IO
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthern.DistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21'
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`CaSe5:ll-CV-01846-LHK DOCLJmeI’1tl931 Fi|edO8;‘24;’12 Page15 Of 20
`
`Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), an dior Samsung
`Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad;'iPad 2 trade
`dress?
`'
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`
`it
`
`~’=.d::9'='=‘eF:“
`
`E
`
`-“a-\?
`.
`Galaxy Tab 10.} (WiFi)
`(IX 1037)
`
`Galaxy Tab 10.}
`(4G LTE) (JX 103 8)
`
`
`
` ‘Tit
`
`
`l.
`-.
`
`HE
`
`"
`
`'
`
`lfyou did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 20, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer
`Question 21.
`
`21. If you answered “Yes” to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entity
`has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPadfiPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
`
`(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Samsung).)
`
`
`
`DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE]
`
`22. What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the
`claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?
`
`
`
`Case No.: l l-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`15
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`\DOO‘--.IO'\U'I-l?-‘-
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`I3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|edO8;‘24i12 Pagelfi of2O
`
`23. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar
`breakdown by product.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*En G
`
`alaxy s 11 (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
`Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (IX 1017)
`
`Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
`Galaxy Tab 10.1 (W’iFi) (JX 1037)
`Gaiaxy Tab 101 (46 LTE) (JX 1033)
`
`‘L -60 2 [(4 Q,
`
`‘ 8 33. 075;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..
`
`0
`
` I d
`
`
`
`
`~ 92 “wt
`
`"
`
`
`
`Case No.2 ll-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt_FortheNorlhcmDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CaSe5:ll-CV-01846-LHK DOCLJmeI’1tl931 Fi|edO8;‘24;’12 Page17 Of 20
`
`SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
`
`24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the
`evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?
`
`Please answer in each cell with a “Y" for “ es” for Samsun , or with an “N” for “no” (for
`Y
`8
`Apple). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
`
`(3;--
`re»?
`E2.::l><
`P.-.3
`
`
`
`iPhone3GS(JX1054 andJX
`
`iPad23G(IX1050 andIX
`
`
`
`iPodTouch4'“Gen.(IX1015?and IX10??)
`
`Case No; 1 I-CV-—U1846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`-l3‘a-U-?t~J
`
`
`
`12-‘O’00‘--.'lO\-U‘!
`
`ll
`
`13
`
`n—-n U’!
`
`n-—s O\
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`23
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`CaSe5:1l-cv-01846-LHK DOCument1931 Fi|edO8;‘24;’12 Page18 0f2O
`
`25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s),
`has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was
`willful?
`
`’5 16 Patent
`Claim 15:
`Claim 16:
`
`’94l Patent
`Claim 10:
`Claim 15:
`
`’71l Patent
`Claim 9:
`
`’893 Patent
`Claim 10:
`
`’460 Patent
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`.
`
`.
`
`(for Samsung) No
`(for Samsung) No
`
`(for Apple)
`{for Apple)
`
`(for Samsung) No
`(for Samsung) No
`
`(for Apple)
`(for Apple)
`
`Yes
`
`(for Samsung) No
`
`(for Apple)
`
`Yes
`
`(for Samsung) No
`
`(for Apple)
`
`.
`
`-
`
`Yes
`
`(for Samsung) No
`
`(for Apple)
`
`26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility
`patent claims are invalid?
`
`‘S16 Patent
`Claim 15:
`Claim 16:
`
`’941 Patent
`Claim 10:
`Claim 15:
`
`".711 Patent
`Claim 9:
`
`’893 Patent
`Claim 10:
`
`’46{} Patent
`Claim 1:
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`Yes
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`(for Apple)
`
`No
`No
`
`(for Samsung)
`3 1'
`5 5 (for Samsung)
`
`(for Apple)
`(for Apple)
`
`-
`
`No
`No
`
`(for Samsung) '
`(for Samsung)
`
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`
`No‘
`
`5 5
`
`(for Samsung)
`
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`
`No_ LL’
`
`{for Samsung)
`
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`
`No ' 54’
`
`(for Samsung)
`
`-ILUJIN-J
`\DOO‘--JONFJI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`'28
`
`Case No.: I 1-CV«01846-LHK
`V ERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`
`
`FortheNorthemDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv-01846-LHK DoCument1931' Fi|edO8;'24i12 Page190f2O
`
`DANIAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE [EF APPLICABLE!
`
`27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
`Samsm1g’.s utility patent infringement claims on the “S16 and ’941 patents?
`
`$ 0
`
`28. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
`San1sung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents?
`
`$§]
`
`.
`
`29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the
`breakdown by product.
`
`
`I~J’;r-
`‘.-‘:95
`
`1-3‘:-
`1.-,
`:-.3.-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST
`
`30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its
`contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights
`(“IPR”) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared
`essential” patents on fair, reasonable, and nomdiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
`
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`
`No \/ (for Samsung)
`
`31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section '
`2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related
`to the UMTS standard?
`'
`
`Yes
`
`(for Apple)
`
`No 3 4'
`
`(for Samsung)
`
`32. If you answered “Yes” to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that
`Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation andfor
`-breach of contract?
`
`Case No; 11-CV-01846-LHK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`19
`
`I-4
`
`<3\DOO*-JlO‘\Lh-ll’-D-ll'\J
`
`x_.
`
`r—.
`
`.—n
`
`n—I [NJ
`
`9-- DJ
`
`
`
`n—s'n‘-IK1’!-53‘-
`
`
`
`E -
`
`7:
`
`:--4 00
`
`n—- ‘.0
`
`[NJ O
`
`[9 n—A
`
`19M
`
`I‘-J Lo.)
`
`INJ-l-5»
`
`I‘-J U“-
`
`IN.) ON
`
`t\J ‘-1
`
`1*.) O0
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`

`
`Case5:11—cv—O1846-LHK D0cument1931 Fi|et:lO8;‘24i12 Pagezo of2O
`
`PATENT EXHAUSTION
`
`IN-J
`
`33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent
`exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
`
`‘S16 Patent
`
`Yes n/’ (for Apple)
`
`’941 Patent
`
`Yes 34 (for Apple)
`
`No
`
`No
`
`(for Sam sung)
`
`(for Samsung)
`
`©\OOO'--lO'\U'1-I3-‘sud
`
`
`
`Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
`
`Iii
`
`PRESIDING JUROR
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`Case No.: 1 I -CV-01 846-Ll-IK
`VERDICT FORM
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT BEXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`Case5:ll—cv—O1846—LHK Document1965 Fi|ed09.’l2f12 Page1of2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`APPLE INC., a California corporation,
`
`Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
`
`Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD_,
`a Korean corporation;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC_,
`a New York corporation; and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`AMERICA, LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaimants.
`
`V-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-—v'\-a'\-a'\-a'\-a'\-a'\-a’
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S
`MOTION REGARDING SCHEDULE
`
`FOR BRIEFING OF NON-JURY
`CLAIMS
`
`(re: dkt. #1956)
`
`On September 4, 2012, Apple filed a Motion Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury
`
`Claims, requesting that the Court set a briefing schedule for additional non-jury issues to be
`
`decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), namely Apple’s claims of waiver, equitable
`
`estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition. ECF No. 1956. On September 9, 2012, Samsung
`
`filed an opposition to Apple’s motion, arguing that: (1) the Court’s August 28, 2012 Scheduling
`
`Order requires Apple to raise any equitable claims in its Rule 50 motion and forecloses any
`
`additional briefing; (2) Apple’s equitable claims are moot or will be mooted by the Court’s rulings
`
`on the parties’ Rule 50 motions; and (3) if Apple is granted additional briefing on its non-jury
`
`claims, then Samsung should also be granted additional briefing on its non-jury claims, namely
`
`Case No.: l1-CV-01846-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR NON-JURY
`CLAIMS
`
`1
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2?
`
`28
`
`

`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrict
`
`
`
`
`
`CourtFortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`Case5:ll—cv—01846—LHK Document1965 Fi|ed09.’l2f12 Page2 of2
`
`indefiniteness of the ’ 163 Patent and Apple’s design patents. ECF No. 1961. Apple filed a reply
`
`on September 10, 2012. ECF No. 1962.
`
`The Court’s August 28, 2012 Order set forth a briefing schedule on all motions that the
`
`parties had thus far identified they intended to bring. It did not foreclose the parties from bringing
`
`separate motions on equitable issues and issues of law not presented to the jury at trial.
`
`Accordingly, Apple’s motion is GRANTED in part. The Court sets the following briefing schedule
`
`on the parties’ respective motions on all outstanding non-jury issues:
`
`Apple’s motion on all non-jury claims, September 21, 2012
`including waiver, equitable estoppel,
`
`A 1e’s rel max. 7 aes
`
`October 12, 2012
`December 6, 2012, at 1:30 .m.
`
`Samsung’s motion on all non-jury
`claims, including indefiniteness (max.
`12 aes)
`A le’s o osition (max. 12 aes)
`
`Samsun’s rel max. 1' aes
`
`September 21, 2012
`
`October 5, 2012
`
`October 12, 2012
`December 6, 2012, at 1:30 .111.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 12, 2012
`
`United States District Judge
`
`Case No.: l1-CV-01846-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLES MOTION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR NON-JURY
`CLAIMS
`
`2
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28