`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-750
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSES TO RESPONDENT MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S REBUTTAL EXHIBITS, INCLUDING
`APPLE’S REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENTS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 13, Complainant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) hereby submits its
`
`responses to Respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc.’s (“Motorola”) objections to Apple’s rebuttal
`
`exhibits, including Apple’s rebuttal witness statements. Apple’s responses to Motorola’s
`
`objections to Apple’s rebuttal trial exhibits are attached as Exhibit A. Apple’s responses to
`
`Motorola’s objections to Apple’s rebuttal witness statements and CX and CDX exhibits
`
`referenced therein (if any) are listed below.
`
`Key To Motorola’s Objections
`
`
`Objections
`Assuming facts not in evidence
`Argumentative
`Beyond the scope of the expert report
`Cumulative
`Calls for a legal conclusion
`Compound
`Exhibit does not match description
`Duplicate exhibit
`Duplicate exhibit
`Contains or sets forth expert opinions
`Lacks Foundation, no personal knowledge
`Hearsay
`Incomplete
`
`Objection Code
`AF
`ARG
`BSER
`C
`CLC
`COMP
`DNM
`DUP of CX-[xx]
`DUP of JX-[xx]
`EO
`F
`H
`I
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Objection Code
`ID
`IR
`
`IS
`IX
`L
`LO
`MIL
`M or MIS
`
`NA
`NAR
`NB
`NE
`NP
`NR
`NTD
`NTP
`P
`PC
`PLEAD
`R
`S
`SPEC
`SET
`UNE
`V
`408
`
`
`
`Objections
`Improper description
`Improper rebuttal exhibit / Not a rebuttal
`exhibit
`Improper sponsoring witness
`Incorrect exhibit number
`Leading
`Contains or sets forth legal opinions
`Exhibit subject to a motion in limine
`Misstates/mischaracterizes testimony or
`evidence
`Not authenticated
`Calls for a narrative / improper narrative
`No Bates range or incorrect Bates range
`Not evidence
`Exhibit not provided
`Non-responsive
`Not timely disclosed
`Not timely produced
`Prejudice, confusion, waste of time, misleading
`Poor quality or illegible copy
`Documents of record
`Relevance
`Beyond the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice
`Calls for speculation
`Seeks expert testimony
`Unavailability not established
`Vague/ambiguous
`Privileged settlement communications
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSES TO MOTOROLA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REBUTTAL WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR.
`RAVIN BALAKRISHNAN (CX-568C)
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`4
`
`L; NR
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`F
`
`L
`
`L
`
`L
`
`L; NR; NAR; BSER;
`NTD; M
`
`The question is not objectionable as leading. Further, leading questions are
`permissible with respect to preliminary matters that are necessary to provide
`background or context.
`
`The answer was responsive to the question.
`No additional foundation is needed. Dr. Balakrishnan prepared this document as
`part of his expert report and identifies it in his testimony.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. Further, leading questions are
`permissible with respect to preliminary matters that are necessary to provide
`background or context.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. Further, leading questions are
`permissible with respect to preliminary matters that are necessary to provide
`background or context.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. Further, leading questions are
`permissible with respect to preliminary matters that are necessary to provide
`background or context.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`report (¶ 67, 87, 90, 91) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶¶ 69, 86, 89). The
`testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by,
`among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C.
`Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and
`evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal
`report (¶ 20). The testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as
`demonstrated by, among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C
`and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to
`new opinions and evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr.
`Balakrishnan has not previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`4
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`L
`
`L
`
`BSER; NTD; M
`
`13
`
`L; NR; NAR; BSER;
`NTD; M; IS
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal
`report (¶ 21). The testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as
`demonstrated by, among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C
`and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to
`new opinions and evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr.
`Balakrishnan has not previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`No additional foundation is necessary, and Dr. Balakarishnan is not somehow an
`improper sponsoring witness for the deposition of the inventor, Mr. Nguyen. Both
`Dr. Balakrishnan and Dr. Locke relied on JX-489, and it is a joint exhibit.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`
`5
`
`14
`
`L; NR; NAR; BSER;
`NTD; M
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`responding to.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 87), Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶¶ 22, 86) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`rebuttal to Dr. Locke’s supplemental report (¶¶ 23, 24). The testimony is within the
`scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The exhibits are as described. The description is proper and reflects Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`
`6
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`L
`
`L
`
`L; NR
`
`DNM; ID; NAR
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`19
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD; M
`
`20
`
`21
`
`L
`
`L: NR; BSER; NTD
`
`responding to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`deposition testimony at 135:23-136:2 and 137:2-138:16. The testimony is within
`the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to, including characterizations of Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`deposition testimony, which occurred after expert reports were served.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 67) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 69). The testimony is within
`the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 66) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 70). The testimony is within
`the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`8
`
`22
`
`L: NR; BSER; NTD
`
`23
`
`L: NR; BSER; NTD
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`24
`
`L: NR; BSER; NTD
`
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 67) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 69). The testimony is within
`the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 66) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 71), and Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`deposition testimony at 135:23-136:2. The testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things, Section III of his
`opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s
`witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the opportunity to
`respond to.
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`25
`
`26
`
`L
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD
`
`27
`
`28
`
`L; NR
`
`L; NR
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 71, 72) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 73, 74). The testimony is
`within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other
`things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally,
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence
`discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`L; NR
`
`L; NR
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD;
`DNM; ID; NAR
`
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 105, 106) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 73, 74, 81, 82). The
`testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by,
`among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C.
`Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and
`evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`L: NR
`
`L
`
`L; NR; BSER: NTD
`
`The exhibits are as described. The description is proper and reflects Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 87) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 85, 86) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`rebuttal to Dr. Locke’s supplemental report (¶ 22-25). The testimony is within the
`scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`L; NR; BSER; NTD; NAR The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 87) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 85, 86) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`rebuttal to Dr. Locke’s supplemental report (¶ 22-25) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`deposition testimony at 122-123. The testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things, Section III of his
`opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s
`witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the opportunity to
`respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`L: NR; BSER; NTD; NAR The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`L
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 87) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 24, 25, 85, 86) and Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s rebuttal to Dr. Locke’s supplemental report (¶ 22-25). The
`testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by,
`among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C.
`Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and
`evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 87) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 85, 86) The testimony is
`within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other
`things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally,
`
`14
`
`38
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD;
`DNM; ID; P
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence
`discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The exhibits are as described. The description is proper and reflects Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is in no way prejudicial; it is a proper response to the
`allegation that Dr. Balakrishnan’s treatment of “properties” arose for the first time in
`the rebuttal report.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`
`15
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`L
`
`L; NR
`
`L; NR
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`L
`
`L; NR
`
`L
`
`L: NR; BSER; NTD
`
`L
`
`L
`
`M; BSER; NTD
`
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 97) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 92). The testimony is within
`the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other things,
`Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally, Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence discussed
`in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not previously had the
`opportunity to respond to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`49
`
`M; BSER; NTD; NAR
`
`50
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD
`
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 100-102) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 93-95, 419, 423). The
`testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by,
`among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C.
`Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and
`evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 100-102) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 93, 94, 419, 423). The
`testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by,
`among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C.
`Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and
`evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`The answer is not a narrative, and is proportional to the subject matter, including the
`length of the answers in Dr. Locke’s witness statement that Dr. Balakrishnan is
`responding to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`51
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD; M;
`ID
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal
`report (¶ 93, 94, 420) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s deposition testimony at 145:19-147:24
`The testimony is within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated
`by, among other things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-
`391C. Additionally, Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new
`opinions and evidence discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr.
`Balakrishnan has not previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`The question is not objectionable as leading. The question does not suggest the
`answer.
`
`The answer is responsive to the question.
`
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 100) and Dr. Balakrishnan’s rebuttal report (¶ 93, 95). The testimony is
`within the scope of Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise as demonstrated by, among other
`things, Section III of his opening report and CX-385C and CX-391C. Additionally,
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer is directly responsive to new opinions and evidence
`discussed in Dr. Locke’s witness statement, which Dr. Balakrishnan has not
`previously had the opportunity to respond to.
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s answer does not mischaracterize testimony or exhibits.
`Motorola’s apparent disagreement with Dr. Balakrishnan’s opinions does not make
`the answer objectionable—the description is proper and reflects Dr. Balakrishnan’s
`opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`
`The exhibits are as described. The description is proper and reflects Dr.
`Balakrishnan’s opinions, and the substance of this testimony is within the scope of
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`52
`
`BSER; NTD; M
`
`53
`
`L; NR; BSER; NTD; M;
`ID
`
`Apple’s Responses to Motorola’s Objections to the Rebuttal Witness Statement of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (CX-568C)
`Question
`Motorola Objection
`Apple Response
`Number
`
`Dr. Balakrishnan’s expertise.
`The substance of this testimony was timely disclosed in Dr. Balakrishnan’s opening
`report (¶ 100-102) and Dr.