Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement of any of the following patents was willful?

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted patent claims are invalid?

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed Claim 15 of the ’239 Patent?

For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed Claim 27 of the ’449 Patent?

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement of any of the following patents was willful?

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On September 26, 2014, Samsung filed a renewed administrative motion to seal certain

documents, and requests an extension to October 14, 2014 for third parties to file any additional declarations in support of sealing.

Samsung’s request for an extension for third- party declarations is GRANTED.

United States District Judge Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK

For the Northern District of California United States District Court

At the hearing, Google disagreed that search terms and custodians are not work product but admitted that courts generally have not found protection for that type of information.

It suggests instead that Apple should figure out what documents are missing or what terms it thinks would generate more responsive hits; in essence, the parties should be “forward-looking.” Google complains that “the impact of requiring non-parties to provide complete ‘transparency’ into their search methodology and custodians in responding to non-party subpoenas whenever unsubstantiated claims of production deficiencies are made would be extraordinary.”14 At the hearing, Google explained that providing custodians or search terms would open it to further burdensome discovery by Apple.

Although it should not be required to “subsidize” litigation to which it is not a party,25 it confuses undue burden with its obligations, once subject to a subpoena, to participate in transparent and collaborative discovery.

Once those terms and custodians are provided, no later than 48 hours from the tender, the parties shall meet and confer in person to discuss the lists and to attempt to resolve any remaining disputes regarding Google’s production.

The court notes that its order does not speak to the sufficiency of Google’s production nor to any arguments Google may make regarding undue burden in producing any further discovery.