1990 - Samsung Mot For JNOV

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

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER
PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION WITH JURORS
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261)
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009)
susanestrich@quinnemanuel.com
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER
PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM
COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS

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

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1990 Filed09/21/12 Page1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5, and General Order No. 62, Defendants Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) hereby bring this administrative motion for an order to
seal:
1. Highlighted portions of Samsungs Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 50 and 59 (Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion);
2. The Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of Samsungs Rule 50 and 59 Motion
(Estrich JMOL Declaration);
3. Exhibits A-O to the Estrich JMOL Declaration; and
4. Exhibits 13, 14, 18, 19, and 28 to the Declaration of John Pierce in Support of
Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion;
and for an order prohibiting the parties from any further communication with jurors who served
during the trial until the matters raised by this motion have been finally resolved.
The trial and the deliberations that led to the verdict have received extensive media
coverage. (See Estrich JMOL Decl. Exs. A-O.) Samsung believes that the publicity that will
surround this portion of the motion, and the details and legal issues presented here, have the
potential to subject all of the jurors to extra-judicial scrutiny and public criticism which they may
find unwelcome and intrusive. Moreover, the integrity of future proceedings on this matter may
be compromised by further inquiries from the parties, the media and others, and attendant
publicity. Samsung respectfully requests that in order to protect both the privacy of the jurors
and the integrity of the process, that portions of its Rules 50 and 59 Motion, the Estrich
Declaration, and Exhibits A-O thereto be sealed, and the parties ordered to have no further contact
with any of the jurors until the matters raised by the Rules 50 and 59 Motion have been finally
resolved. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006);
Bryson v. United States, 238 F.2d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 1956); Muhammad v. Woodford, 2008 WL
1734235, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2008).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Exhibits 13, 14, 18, and 28 to the Pierce Declaration contain information Apple Inc.
(Apple) has designated as confidential. Exhibit 19 to the Pierce Declaration contains
information third-party Intel has designated as confidential. Samsung expects that Apple and
Intel will file declarations pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d) establishing good cause to permit filing
under seal.
Pursuant to General Order No. 62, Samsungs entire filing will be lodged with the Court
for in camera review and served on all parties.

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

By /s/ Susan R. Estrich
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Susan R. Estrich
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG


02198.51855/4974302.1
-1-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL AND PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS
[P

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

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

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) have filed a Notice of Motion and
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 (Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion) and the Declarations of
Susan R. Estrich and John Pierce in Support of Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion.
Samsung, Apple Inc. (Apple), and third-party Intel have filed the declarations required
under Civil L.R. 79-5 and General Order No. 62 to provide evidence of good cause for this Court
to permit filing under seal.
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1990-2 Filed09/21/12 Page1 of 2

02198.51855/4974302.1
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL AND PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS
[P

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the following documents
shall be filed under seal:
1. Highlighted portions of Samsungs Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 50 and 59 (Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion);
2. The Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of Samsungs Rule 50 and 59 Motion
(Estrich JMOL Declaration);
3. Exhibits A-O to the Estrich JMOL Declaration; and
4. Exhibits 13, 14, 18, 19, and 28 to the Declaration of John Pierce in Support of
Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion.
The Court further ORDERS that that the parties shall have no further contact with any of
the jurors until the matters raised by Samsungs Rules 50 and 59 Motion have been finally
resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2012

Honorable Luch H. Koh
United States District Judge

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. BarNo. 170151)
2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: ( 415) 875-6600
4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
5 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261)
kathleensulli van@quinnemanuel.com
6 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
kevinj ohnson@quinnemanuel.com
7 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5
1
h Floor
9 Telephone: ( 650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
10
11 susanestrich@quinnemanuel.com
12 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
865 S. Figueroa St., 1Oth Floor
13 Los Angeles, California 9001 7
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
14 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
15 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
16 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
17
18
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff,
vs.
23 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
24 York corporation; SAMSUNG
25 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
26 Defendants.
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
SAMSUNG'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL
AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 50 AND 59
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:
December 6, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]
SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. NEW TRIAL AND REMITTITUR
2
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .......................................................................................... 1
5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................. 1
6 I. .............................................................. 2
7 II. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A
NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS .................. 4
8
A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple's Design Patents ............... 4
9
B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Design Patents Valid ............................... 7
10
III. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A
11 NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ...................................................... 8
12 A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Trade Dress Protectable .......................... 8
13 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Actionable and Willful Dilution ......................... 10
14 IV. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A
NEW TRIAL ON APPLE'S UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS ............... 12
15
A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Utility Patents Valid .............................. 12
16
B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement Of Apple's Utility Patents ............. 13
17
v. THE RECORD LACKS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL
18 INFRINGEMENT ............................................................................................................... 15
19 VI. THE RECORD LACKS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DIRECT
INFRINGEMENT OR ACTIVELY INDUCED INFRINGEMENT BY SEC .................. 16
20
VII. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND/OR
21 REMITTITUR ON DAMAGES ......................................................................................... 17
22 A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict.. .......... 18
23 1. The Award Of$948,278,061 For Samsung's Profits .................................. 18
24 2. The Award of$91,132,279 For Apple's Lost Profits ................................. 20
25 3. The Award Of $9,180,124 In Royalties ...................................................... 22
26 B. The Damages Rest Upon An Incorrect Notice Date ............................................... 23
27 C. At A Minimum, The Jury's Damages Award Should Be Remitted ........................ 24
28 1. Reduction Of $70,034,295 In Lost Profits .................................................. 24
02198.51855/4974375.1
-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
VIII.
IX.
2. Reductions of $253,328,000 And $220,952,000 To Reflect Correct
Notice Dates ................................................................................................ 25
3. Reductions Of$329,204,825 And $86,162,404 Based On The
Portion Of Samsung's Profits Attributable To Infringement or
Dilution ........................................................................................................ 25
4. Reduction of$57,867,383 On The Prevail.. ................................................ 26
SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ITS
OFFENSIVE CASE ............................................................................................................ 26
A. Judgment of Infringement Should be Entered for the '516 and '941 Patents ......... 26
B. Standards Patents Exhaustion .................................................................................. 28
C. Judgment Should Be Entered For Samsung On The '460, '893, & '711
Patents ..................................................................................................................... 29
A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ............. 30
-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
2
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
4 adidas Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc.,
2008 WL 4279812 (D. Or., Sept. 12, 2008) ......................................................................... 21, 27
5
Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
6 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 1
7 Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 24
8
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group,
9 611 F.2d 296 (9th Cir. 1979) ........................................................................................................ 8
10 Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................................ 6
11
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Rep lac. Co.,
12 377 u.s. 476 (1964) ................................................................................................................... 27
13 Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 8, 9
14
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton,
15 189 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 8, 10
16 BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc.,
1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................... 21
17
SEE S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
18 594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 29
19 Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.,
750 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 12
20
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. Gore & Assoc., Inc.,
21 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 15
22 Bell Commc'ns Res., Inc. v. Vita/ink Commc'ns Corp.,
55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 30
23
Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp.,
24 260 F. App'x 284 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 15
25 Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
489 U.S. 141 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 8, 16
26
Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc.,
27 809 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 10
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-m- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 Brocklesby v. United States,
767 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 25
2
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
3 222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) .............. ; ............................................................................................ 19
4 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ............................................................................................................. 19
5
Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp.,
6 283 U.S. 27 (1931) ..................................................................................................................... 19
7 Casanas v. Yates,
2010 WL 3987333 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) .............................................................................. 3
8
Coach Inc. v. Asia Pac. Trading Co.,
9 676 F. Supp. 2d 914 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................ 26
10 Colle geNET, Inc. v. XAP Corp.,
483 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Oregon 2007) .................................................................................... 12
11
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.,
12 376 U.S. 234 (1964) ..................................................................................................................... 8
13 Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.,
282 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 6
14
Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
15 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) .......................................................................... -....... 19, 25
16 Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int'l, Inc.,
246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 21
17
DSU Me d. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
18 4 71 F .3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 17
19 DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 16
20
Disc Golf Ass'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc.,
21 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 9
22 Duraco Prod., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enter., Ltd.,
40 F.3d 1431 (3d Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................... 10
23
Dyer v. Calderon,
24 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................ 2
25 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 4, 16
26
Elmer v. ICC Fab., Inc.,
27 67 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 9
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-iv- Case No. ll-cv-01846-LHK
1 Festa Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 25
2
In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.,
3 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 17, 25
4 Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp.,
394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 29
5
Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
6 616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 24
7 Gibson v. Clanon,
633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1981) ........................................................................................................ 3
8
Go Med. Indus., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp.,
9 4 71 F .3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 23
10 Goodyear Tire v. Hercules Tire,
162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 16
11
Hard v. Burlington N R. R.,
12 812 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 2, 3
13 Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmnt. Sys., Inc.,
687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 15
14
Hupp v. Siroflex of Am.,
15 122 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. .16
16 i4i Ltd. P 'ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 15
17
J.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co.,
18 163F.3d27(1stCir.1998) .................................................................................................... 8, 10
19 Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, Inc.,
2007 WL 2344962 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007) ........................................................................... 25
20
Int'l Seaway Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.,
21 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 6
22 Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.,
173 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D. Del. 2001) ........................................................................................... 29
23
Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
24 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 30
25 Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 28
26
Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.,
27 456 U.S. 844 (1982) ............................................................................................................... 9, 10
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-v- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 IpVenture, Inc. v. Cellco P'ship,
2011 WL 207978 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) .............................................................................. 15
2
Jazz Photo Corp. v. US.,
3 439 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 29
4 Jessen Elec. & Serv. Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co.,
106 F .3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................................ 1
5
Junker v. HDC Corp.,
6 2008 WL 3385819 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) ............................................................................ 19
7 Kellogg Co. v. Nat'! Biscuit Co.,
305 U.S. 111 (1938) ................................................................................................................... 10
8
LML Holdings, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Dist., Inc.,
9 2012 WL 1965878 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012) ........................................................................... 15
1 0 L& W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc.,
471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 13
11
Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty.,
12 556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................ 1
13 Laser dynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
_ F.3d _, 2012 WL 3758093 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2012) ...................................................... .10
14
Lee v. Dayton-Hudson,
15 838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................... 4
16 Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp.,
982 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 20
17
Litecubes, LLC v. N Light Products, Inc.,
18 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 29
19 Litton Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.,
140F.3d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 24
20
Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday Hardware Corp.,
21 825 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 14
22 Lotus Dev. v. Borland Int'l,
49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................... 6
23
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
24 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 17
25 MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon,
420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 16
26
McKeon Prods., Inc. v. Flent Prods. Co.,
27 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27123 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2002) ...................................................... 11
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-vi- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 Merch. & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Bldg. Products Co., Inc.,
963 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................... 8
2
Mgmt. Sys. Assocs., Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
3 762F.2d 1161 (4thCir.1985) .................................................................................................... 29
4 Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co.,
151 u.s. 186 (1894) ..................................................................................................................... 7
5
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
6 2011 WL6939526(Fed.Cir.Nov.10,2011) ............................................................................ 17
7 Molski v. MJ Cable, Inc.,
481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................ 1
8
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro Int'l Ltd.,
9 476 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ..................................................................................... 21
10 My Mail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
476 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 27
11
N Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc.,
12 35 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 29
13 Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Camp. Corp.,
378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 10, 11
14
OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
15 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................... 4
16 PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Cos.,
469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 7
17
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.,
18 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 13
19 Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Ins., Inc.,
180 F.R.D. 254 (D.N.J. 1997) .................................................................................................... 16
20
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc.,
21 553 u.s. 617 (2008) ................................................................................................................... 29
22 Read Corp. v. Portee, Inc.,
970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 5
23
ResQNet. com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
24 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 19, 23,24
25 Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 201 0) .................................................................................................... 4
26
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.,
27 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 21
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-vii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.,
215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 16
2
SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab., Inc.,
3 127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 24
4 Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.,
206 F .3d 900 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................ 3
5
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan,
6 Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993) ...................................................... 2
7 In re Seagate Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 15
8
Sealant Sys. Int '!, Inc. v. TEK Global,
9 2012 WL 13662 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) .................................................................................. 15
10 Sears v. Stiffel,
376 U.S. 225 (1964) ..................................................................................................................... 8
11
So/annex, Inc. v. Miasole,
12 2011 WL 4021558 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011) ............................................................................ .15
13 Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.,
620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 15
14
Sunbeam Prod., Inc. v. Wing Shing Prod. (BVI) Ltd.,
15 311 B.R. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................................................... 21
16 Talking Rain Bev. Co., Inc. v. South Beach Bev. Co.,
349 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 9
17
Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Elec. Co.,
18 248 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 17
19 Tel cordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 17
20
Textron,
21 753F.2dat1025 ......................................................................................................................... 11
22 Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kine dyne Corp.,
296 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 8
23
Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc.,
24 566 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 7
25 TrajFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc.,
532 U.S. 23 (2001) ............................................................................................................. 8, 9, 16
26
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.,
27 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 29
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-vm- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 U S. v. 4. 0 Acres of Land,
175 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................... 1
2
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
3 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh'g denied (Mar. 22, 2011) .................................................. 15
4 United States. v. Colombo,
869 F .2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................................... 2
5
United States v. Gonzalez,
6 214 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 2
7 United States v. Perkins,
748 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 3
8
In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan,
9 Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993) ....................................................... .2
10 Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................ 19, 28
11
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc.,
12 529 U.S. 205 (2000) ..................................................................................................................... 8
13 WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Pack., Inc.,
_ F.3d _, 2012 WL 3573845 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) ....................................................... 23
14
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
15 683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. .16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
Statutes
15 u.s.c. 1111 ........................................................................................................................ 24, 26
15 U.S.C. 1114 .............................................................................................................................. 26
15 U.S.C. 1117(a) .......................................................................................................................... 27
15 U.S.C. 1125(a) .......................................................................................................................... 26
15 U.S.C. 1125(c) ............................................................................................................................ 1
15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)(B) ................................................................................................................ 11
35 U.S.C. 1125(c) .......................................................................................................................... 11
35 U.S.C. 171 .................................................................................................................................. 4
35 U.S.C. 271 .................................................................................................................................. 1
35 U.S.C. 271(a) ............................................................................................................................ 16
3 5 u.s. c. 2 71 (b) ........................................................................................................................... 1 7
-ix- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
35 U.S.C. 284 ................................................................................................................................ 27
2 35 U.S.C. 287(a) ............................................................................................................................ 24
3 35 U.S.C. 289 .......................................................................................................................... 19, 21
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 14
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ........................................................................................................................... 1
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ........................................................................................................................... 1
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ................................................................................................................... 1, 25,31
8 Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) ...................................................................................................................... 2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-x- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable
3 Lucy H. Koh, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
4 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") shall and hereby do move the Court
5 for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), renewing Samsung's prior
6 request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), and alternatively for a new trial or remittitur pursuant to
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, as to each and every claim and issue on which Apple prevailed before the jury,
8 including both parties' claims for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271, Apple's claims
9 for trade dress dilution pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), and Apple's claims for damages, as more
10 fully set forth below. Samsung additionally requests new trial or hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
11 P. 49. This motion is based on the memorandum of points and authorities below, the trial record,
12 the accompanying declarations of Susan Estrich, John Pierce, and Michael Wagner, all pleadings
13 and papers on file in this action, such matters as are subject to judicial notice, and all other matters
14 or arguments that may be presented in connection with this motion.
15 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
16 Judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is required where a plaintiff fails
17 to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor. Lakeside-Scott v.
18 Multnomah Cty., 556 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2009). A new trial is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ.
19 P. 59 where '"the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, [] the damages are excessive, or []
20 for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving."' Molski v. MJ Cable, Inc., 481
21 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007); Rattray v. City ofNational City, 51 F.3d 793, 800 (9th Cir. 1994)
22 (same, prevent "miscarriage of justice"); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d
23 1272, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same, for "prejudicial legal error" in jury instructions). Remittitur
24 is appropriate under Rule 59 where the damages awarded by the jury are not supportable, and the
25 "proper amount of a remittitur is the maximum amount sustainable by the evidence." Jessen
26 Elec. & Serv. Co. v. Gen. Tel. Co., 106 F .3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997). Samsung is entitled to
27 judgment as a matter of law, new trial, or remittitur here for the reasons below.
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375. I
-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-3- CaseNo. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 II.
2
3
SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR A NEW
TRIAL ON APPLE'S DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple's Design Patents
The key to design patent infringement is whether a "hypothetical ordinary observer who is
4
conversant with the prior art" would in purchasing be deceived by similarities with an accused
5
product when focusing only on the ornamental features of the claimed designs. Egyptian
6
Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Design patent law protects only
7
designs that are new, original and ornamental, 3 5 U .S.C. 171, not "general design concepts,"
8
OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997), or a design's
9
"functional" and "structural" elements or "basic configuration," Lee v. Dayton-Hudson, 838 F.2d
10
1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Unprotected attributes must be "factored out" when analyzing
11
infringement, with only the remaining elements compared to the accused designs. Richardson v.
12
Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010); OddzOn Prods, 122 F.3d at 1405.
13
Even differences between the patented and accused designs that are so minor that they "might not
14
be noticeable in the abstract can become significant" in light of prior art. Egyptian Goddess, 543
15
F.3d at 678.
1
16
The record fails to support the jury's finding of infringement of any of Apple's design
17
patents under these standards. Apple conceded that some attributes of its designs were functional
18
or otherwise unprotectable. E.g., RT 1197:13-17; 1199:25-1200:4 (Bressler admitting "a clear
19
cover over the display element" is "absolutely functional"); 1438:13-19; 1440:7-12; 1474:5-76:7
20
(Kare admitting Apple's patents do not protect features like use of "the color green for go" on
21
icon, or images of clock, or square shapes with rounded comers, or "colorful matrix of icons"
22
arranged in grid). Apple conceded that it did not limit its infringement analysis to new and
23
ornamental designs. RT 1090:12-22 (Bressler did not factor out functional elements); 1470:12-
24
25
The Court's design patent instructions to the jury erred under these standards in failing to
26
explain that the jury's comparisons must be from the perspective of a hypothetical ordinary
observer who is conversant with the prior art; in relegating the comparison of patented and
27
accused designs to the prior art to a series of discretionary guidelines, in instructing that "[ m ]in or
differences should not prevent a finding of infringement," and in failing to factor out non-
28 ornamental elements. Dkt. 1903 at 63. These instructional errors require a new trial.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-4- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
16; 3475:1-24 (Kare did not consider functionality). And Apple failed to show that an ordinary
2 observer would be deceived by similarities, admitting that, "by the end of the smartphone
3 purchasing process, the ordinary consumer would have to know which phone they were buying."
4 RT 1103:13-1104:18.
2
Judgment as a matter of law for Samsung is therefore required. Read
5 Corp. v. Portee, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6 The D'677 and D'087 Patents. The jury should have factored out the non-ornamental
7 elements of these design patents in assessing infringement, especially since the record showed that
8 those designs are largely devoid of ornamentation (RT 1145:19-23 (designs do not "have much
9 ornament"); RT 522:8-12 (Apple wanted iPhone to be "as simple as possible")). The record
10 showed that the non-ornamental elements included designs that are rectangular and have curved
11 comers; have flat, clear, large screens; are of a size that can be handheld; are black; and have
12 speakers near the top, opaque borders and a bezel. RT 675:5-12; 678:5-680:15 (larger screens
13 benefit users, black and opaque borders hide components, speaker near top is required for sound,
14 and round comers "help you move things in and out of your pocket"); RT 1199:8-1200:4
15 (transparent cover). Moreover, as Apple admitted, the prior art discloses numerous elements of
16 these designs, including at least a "rectangular" display screen that is "balanced vertically and
17 horizontally within the design," "rounded comers," "narrower lateral borders," "larger borders
18 above and below the screen," a bezel, and a "lozenge shaped" speaker placed in the top border.
19 RT 1110:23-1121 :4, 1175:1-4 (referencing DX511, DX727, DX728 and JX1 093).
20 Considering only the ornamental attributes of Apple's designs in light of the prior art, no
21 reasonable jury could find infringement of the D'677 and D'087 patents by any accused device.
22 Apple's expert Peter Bressler admitted that "details are important" and "contribute to how an
23
2
Bressler admitted he lacked evidence "that any consumer has ever purchased a Samsung
24
smartphone believing it was actually a device manufactured by [Apple]" or that "consumers have
25
been confused at any time when purchasing Apple devices or Samsung devices into thinking they
are devices from the other manufacturer" or "whether anybody would ever be deceived" when
26
purchasing a smartphone. RT 1101:11-1102:8; 1103:2-1104:18; DX807. Bressler's opinions
were also based on the incorrect standard of whether an ordinary observer "might" mistake two
27
designs, and an erroneous belief that similarity need not "be deceptive." RT 1008:12-1010:4;
1105:6-22. Dr. Kare admitted she did not know whether consumers would be deceived after
28
turning a Samsung phone on and navigating to the application screen. RT 1424:1-1425:22.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-5- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
ordinary observer forms an overall impression" and pointed to the "very specific proportion[ s ]" of
2 Apple's phone designs and the "very specific impression" those dimensions create. RT 1016:11-
3 20, 1019:5-8, 1133:9-11, 1157:8-12. Apple distinguished its own designs from the prior art
4 based on "little differences" in details. RT 3613:6-11; 1154:3-15 (distinction in "lateral
5 borders"); 1176:6-21 (distinction that "lozenge shaped speaker opening" is "centered"); 1351:17-
6 1352:10,3597:10-3598:1 (prior art is "not absolutely flat all the way across the front"); 1121:7-10
7 (absence of bezel in prior art). The types of differences that suffice to separate Apple's designs
8 from prior art also suffice to prevent a finding of infringement. Int 'l Seaway Corp. v. Walgreens
9 Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Comparison of Samsung's products and Apple's
10 designs shows such differences and more exist here, as Apple's expert admits. RT 1176:13-
11 1178:25 (locations of speaker slots); 1126:10-1127:24, 1131:7-1132:1, 1138:5-1140:7 (absence of
12 bezel, differing shapes or forms of bezels); 1143:2-16 (shapes of comers); 1162:18-23 (additional
13 keys).
14 The D'305 Patent. Nor could any rational jury have found infringement of the D'305
15 when limited to its ornamental visual impression. Apple does not own the concept of colorful
16 icons arranged in a grid of square icons with rounded corners, nor can Apple claim protection over
17 the functional aspects of the D'305 design, including the use of pictures and images as "visual
18 shorthand" to communicate information (RT 1452:1-1455:25), the inclusion of sufficient space
19 between icons to allow for finger-operation (RT 1467:3-1468:22), and other elements discussed
20 above.
3
Apple's expert Susan Kare admitted that differences abound between the accused
21 Samsung products and Apple's designs, including the selection, location and shapes of, and
22 images on, the icons. RT 1426:2-1435:24; 1444:7-23. Apple only attempted to claim 2 of the
23 20 Samsung icons were substantially similar to Apple's icons. RT 1429:2-1430:25; 1433:9:-
24 1435:24; 1444:7-23. Apple admitted that the home screen of the accused products "doesn't, in
25 3
Courts have repeatedly denied a monopoly in the copyright context over the GUI design
concepts that Apple seeks to protect here. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d
26
1435, 1444 (9th Cir. 1994) ("No copyright protection inheres in the[] ideas" of"icons representing
27
familiar objects from the office environment that describe functions being performed"); Lotus
Dev. v. Borland Int'l, 49 F.3d 807, 815-18 (1st Cir. 1995) (similar). The result should be no
28
different under design patent law.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-6- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 fact, look like the patent" (RT 1397:1-4); the fact that users are required to pass through start-up
2 screens that say "Samsung" and the names of the products at issue (RT 1422:14-1424:2) shows
3 there is no risk of deception. Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1381
4 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ordinary observer test considers "normal use of the product"). The Court
5 should enter judgment for Samsung of non-infringement on all three of Apple's design patents, or
6 order a new trial.
7 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Design Patents Valid
8 The Court also should enter judgment on Apple's design patents because no rational jury
9 could find those patents valid. First, Apple's design patents are all invalid as functional in light
10 of the evidence discussed above. PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Cos., 469 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.
11 Cir. 2006) ("If the patented design is primarily functional rather than ornamental, the patent is
12 invalid.").
4
Second, the D'677 and D'087 patents are invalid as obvious based upon the prior art
13 (including the JP'638, as well as the JP'383, KR'547, and LG Prada) that Apple admitted
14 displayed design characteristics of the asserted patents (RT 2581:9-2590:18; 2591:2593:20;
15 2595:7-22; DX511; DX727; DX728; JX1093). Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566
16 F.3d 1372, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Third, the D'677 patent is invalid for double-patenting.
17 Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 198 (1894) (second patent must be "substantially
18 different" from first). D'677 and embodiments of D'087 (particularly the sixth embodiment)
19 depict the same design; the only elements added by the D'677 are the color black and oblique
20 lines, features that do not make D'677 "a separate invention, distinctly different and independent,"
21 id. at 198, and the D'087 subsumes the D'677 because Apple admits that "the flat front surface [of
22 D'087] could be any color. It could be transparent. It could be anything." RT 1019:12-17.
5
23
24
4
See also R T 2603:15-2611 :7 (functional elements include "rectangular shape for the
device" and the "display," "rounded comers," "flat surface," "location of the earpiece slot" and its
25
"elongated shape," and color "black"); RT 1194:4-1212:14; DX807 (Bressler is "[n]o more
equipped than any ordinary observer to opine on the functionality of a smartphone" and had
26
"never designed a smartphone," did not consider whether alternatives "functioned the same or not"
and failed to determine if any feature affected "cost" or "quality" of article).
5
Apple claimed that the same Apple devices that embody D'087 also embody D'677 (RT
27
1021:16-1023:22), and that the same Samsung devices that infringe D'087 also infringe D'677.
28
RT 1049:6-23, 1056:6-1057:24; 1060:7-1064:11.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-7- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 Fourth, the D'889 patent is also invalid as obvious in light of prior art including the TC1000 and
2 the 1994 Fidler tablet (JX1074; JX1078; DX 805; RT 2595:23-2601:17 (prior art shares "overall
3 rectangular shape with evenly rounded comers," "transparent, flat front cover," "very large
4 display," "flat front surface that goes across the whole front face up to a relatively thin rim,"
5 "relatively narrow profile," "almost identical to the proportions of the D'889," "flat back")), and
6 as functional given Apple's admissions that it does not own the "use of a rectangular shape with
7 rounded comers" or "the use of a large display screen for an electronic device." RT 3609:9-
8 3611:1 0; DX 810. The Court should enter judgment of invalidity or order a new trial.
9 III.
10
TRIAL ON APPLE'S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Trade Dress Protectable
"The traditional interest in trademark protection is stretched very thin in dilution cases
where confusion is absent," as here, and unlike patent protection, which is time-limited, trade
dress law poses special dangers if used to give "permanent protection" to "the design of an article
of manufacture." J.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 53 (1st Cir. 1998) (Boudin,
J., concurring).
6
These concerns have constitutional dimension.
7
Accordingly, trade dress is not protected if doing so would impose "significant non-
reputation-related disadvantages" on competitors. TrajFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays,
Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33-35 (2001); Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d
1062, 1072 (9th Cir. 2006). Protection is limited to "identification of source," and does not
6
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 213 (2000) ("Consumers
21
should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and aesthetic
purposes that product design ordinarily serves."); Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group,
22
611 F.2d 296, 301 (9th Cir. 1979) ("trademark is misused if it serves to limit competition"); Avery
23
Dennison Corp. v. Sumpton, 189 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing breadth of dilution
claims). Even in the infringement context, courts reject claims based on alleged post-sale
24
confusion as to product configuration trade dress. Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Guitars,
LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005).
7
See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989) ("Congress
25
may not create patent monopolies of unlimited duration"); Sears v. Stifle!, 376 U.S. 225, 232-33
26
(1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 237 (1964); J.P. Lund Trading,
163 F.3d at 50 (recognizing constitutional concerns when "attempting to apply the dilution
27
analysis to the design itself of the competing product involved"); Merch. & Evans, Inc. v.
Roosevelt Bldg. Products Co., Inc., 963 F.2d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1992) ("indefinite trademark
28
protection of product innovations would frustrate the purpose of the limited duration of patents").
02198.51855/4974375.1
-8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 extend to "usefulness," id. at 1073, or "features which constitute the actual benefit that the
2 consumer wishes to purchase," Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir.
3 2002).
8
No reasonable jury could fail to find Apple's claimed trade dress functional under
4 Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), for Apple's own evidence confirmed
5 that its trade dress is "essential to the use or purpose of the article" and "affects [its] cost or
6 quality." Au-Tomotive Gold, 457 F.3d at 1072 (quoting Inwood).
9
For example, the claimed
7 trade dress had a clear face covering the front of the iPhone (RT 1199:25-1200:16 ("absolutely
8 functional")); rounded comers (RT 680:9-15 ("help you move things in and out of your pocket"));
9 a large display screen (RT 674:20-675:24 ("a benefit to users")); a black color (RT 679:15-20
10 ("hide internal wiring and components"); familiar icon images (RT 2533:25-2534:15); and a
11 useful size and shape (DX5622.001 ("size and shape/comfort benefits")).
12 Moreover, Apple's trade dress is unprotectable on account of its aesthetic functionality.
13 Apple argued that its trade dress was designed to be aesthetically appealing and that aesthetic
14 beauty is a primary motivator for consumer purchases. RT 484:1-11 (in designing iPhone, Apple
15 sought a "beautiful object"); 602:8-19 (iPhone is "beautiful and that that alone would be enough to
16 excite people and make people want to buy it"); 625:4-626:4 ("reasons for the iPhone success" are
17 "people find the iPhone designs beautiful" and "it's an incredibly easy-to-use device."); 635:23-
18 636:5 ("attractive appearance and design" motivates purchases); 721:3-7 (customers "lust after
19 [iPhone] because it's so gorgeous"). Apple cannot use design patents to protect these same
20 features and then obtain a perpetual monopoly in allegedly desirable designs under trade dress
21 8
The jury instructions did not properly explain these principles, having deleted the language
22
from the model instructions that a feature is functional "[i]f the feature is part of the actual benefit
that consumers wish to purchase when they buy the product," RT 3921:1-10, and having
23
incorrectly stated that a feature can be non-functional even if it "contributes to consumer appeal
and saleability" without explaining that is true, if at all, only if the feature contributing to appeal
24
"is indistinguishable from and tied to the mark's source-identifying nature." Au-Tomotive Gold,
457 F.3d at 1074. See Dkt. 1903 at 84. These and other instructional errors merit a new trial.
9
A product feature "need only have some utilitarian advantage to be considered functional,"
25
not "superior utilitarian advantages." Disc Golf Ass 'n, Inc. v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d
26
1002, 1007 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original). Apple claimed (PX 10; RT 4111:1-12) that
Samsung could have employed alternate designs, but alternative designs are irrelevant-once
27
functionality under Inwood is established, "speculation about other design possibilities" is
immaterial. TrajFix, 532 U.S. at 33; Talking Rain Bev. Co., Inc. v. South Beach Bev. Co., 349
28
F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2003) (same).
02198.51855/4974375.1
-9- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
law. E.g., Elmer v. ICC Fab., Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (trade dress functional
2 where it "was broadly defined to be essentially coextensive with, and in fact broader than, the
3 patent claim"); Duraco Prod., Inc. v. Joy Plastic Enter., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1431, 1453 (3d Cir. 1994).
4 Secondary meaning requirements likewise limit trade dress protectability to cases where
5 "the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather
6 than the product itself." Inwood, 456 U.S. at 851 n.11. No rational jury could find secondary
7 meaning on the record here, for the evidence failed to show that consumers believed the primary
8 significance of the asserted trade dress was to identify it with Apple. Apple's survey established
9 only that a majority of respondents shown blurred images of iPhones said they associate the
10 "overall appearance" of the phone with "Apple" or "iPhone" (RT 1583:10-1584:24), but that is
11 insufficient because a plaintiff "must show that the primary significance of the term in the minds
12 of the consuming public is not the product but the producer." Kellogg Co. v. Nat'! Biscuit Co.,
13 305 U.S. 111, 118-19 (1938). Apple's evidence that it advertised the iPhone as a whole (PX 11-
14 14) is insufficient as well; the differences here between Apple's iPhone product (which includes
15 the Apple logo, trademark, and home button) and its generic claimed trade dress (which does not)
16 undermine the claim that advertising the product as a whole created secondary meaning. First
17 Brands Corp. v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 809 F.2d 1378, 1383 (9th Cir. 1987).
18 For these reasons, the Court should grant judgment as a matter of law that Apple's trade
19 dress is not protectable, or order a new trial.
20 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Actionable and Willful Dilution
21 Nor did the evidence establish crucial elements of trade dress dilution and damages.
22 First, "to meet the 'famousness' element," "a mark [must] be truly prominent and renowned"
23 among the general public. Avery Dennison, 189 F.3d at 875 (quoting J.P. Lund, 163 F.3d at 46)).
24 This must have been so prior to the time of Samsung's sales of accused products. Nissan Motor
25 Co. v. Nissan Camp. Corp., 378 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004).
10
The record contains no
26
27 10
The Court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that, "to be 'famous,' each of Apple's
-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
02198.51855/4974375.1
28
asserted trade dresses must have been truly prominent and renowned at the time ofSamsung's first
(footnote continued)
1 evidence of such fame. Apple offered no survey restricted to the time before Samsung entered
2 the market, and its June 2011 survey shows recognition by less than 64% of likely cell phone
3 purchasers (not the general population). RT 1578:24-1579:4; 1584:17-1585:5; see Nissan, 378
4 F.3d at 1014 (65% awareness insufficient); Textron, 753 F.2d at 1025; 4 McCARTHY ON
5 TRADEMARK at 24:106, 24-310 (2008 ed.) ("75% of the general consuming public of the United
6 States" is required). Much of Apple's advertisement and press coverage evidence (PX 12-14)
7 was dated after Samsung's alleged first use, rendering it irrelevant; it focused on the product as a
8 whole and its appealing features, not the source-identifying features of the claimed trade dress;
9 and in any case, the consumer response to this advertising is already reflected in Apple's survey
1 0 results, which show insufficient fame.
11 Second, the record does not support a finding of likely dilution. Apple offered no
12 evidence that the accused Samsung phones "impair the distinctiveness" of Apple's trade dress. 15
13 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)(B). See RT 1534:14-21 ("no empirical evidence" and "no hard data to show
14 that Samsung's actions have diluted Apple's brand"). And proof of at least 25 third-party
15 smartphones bearing similar trade dress to that claimed by Apple (see Ex. 712 (third-party phones
16 with similar trade dress elements); RT 893:16-25; 895:12-20 (market contains many smartphones
17 that look similar)) undermines any finding of likely dilution. McKeon Prods., Inc. v. Flent
18 Prods. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27123, at *34-35 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2002) (rejecting
19 dilution claim where "retailers typically have at least hundreds of products with blue and yellow
20 and white packaging" so that "[p]laintiffs colored packaging does not stand out in retail stores.").
21 Third, "willfulness" is a required element for any award of trade dress dilution damages.
22 35 U.S.C. 1125(c) (damages available only when a party "willfully intended to trade on the
23 recognition of the famous mark"). Willfulness requires that a party "willfully calculate[s] to
24 exploit the advantage in an established mark," and mere copying does not suffice. Bandag, Inc.
25 v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d 903,920-21 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Apple failed to introduce
26 any evidence, let alone clear and convincing proof, that Samsung intended to trade on the source-
27
commercial sale of its accused products" and "have become very widely recognized by the
28
consuming public as the designator of Apple's goods," Dkt. 1903 at 87.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-11- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 identifying attributes of Apple's trade dress.
11
Apple did not even contend it notified Samsung of
2 any asserted trade dress, much less establish Samsung knew its conduct was infringing. R T
3 1968:2-11 (no mention of trade dress in presentations to Samsung); PX 52; DX 800.
4 For these reasons, the Court should also grant judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on
5 trade dress dilution liability and damages.
6 IV.
7
TRIAL ON APPLE'S UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple's Utility Patents Valid
No reasonable jury, applying correct standards, could find Apple's utility patents valid.
Samsung's expert testified that Fractal Zoom and Nomura, which both scroll or zoom by
distinguishing between one or two or more input points, anticipate or render obvious every
limitation of claim 8 ofthe '915 patent. RT 2897:12-2902:5,2908:1-7,2903:15-2907:25 (Gray
invalidity testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding. There
is also no dispute that Fractal Zoom and Nomura are 102(a) and (b) prior art to the '915 patent.
RT 2285:4-2290:20; 2275:24-2290:20, 2350:15-2357:18, 2362:8-2366:19; 2902:6-24; DX 550
(Bogue, Forlines and Gray testimony establishing prior art dates).
Samsung's expert also testified that TableCloth and LaunchTile, which both have the
claimed snap-back behavior, anticipate or render obvious every limitation of claim 19 of the '381
patent. RT 2854:18-2858:22; 2860:3-2864:11; 2864:24-2870:22; 2872:17-2873:9 (van Dam
invalidity testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding, and it is
undisputed that TableCloth and LaunchTile are 102(a) and (b) prior art to the '381 patent. RT
2293:9-23; 2363:7-13; 2275:24-2282:4; 2290:21-2299:16; 2350:15-2351:8; 2357:19-2364:5;
2247:22-2248:13; 2229:14-2253:16 (Bogue, Forlines, Bederson and van Dam testimony
establishing prior art dates).
Samsung's expert testified that LaunchTile, Agnetta, and Robbins, which all exhibit the
11
The jury instructions incorrectly stated that willfulness could be established by a mere
27
preponderance ofthe evidence, see CollegeNET, Inc. v. XAP Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1066 (D.
Oregon 2007) (clear and convincing evidence required), and failed to provide guidance as to how
28
to determine whether Samsung's conduct was willful. Dkt. 1903 at 93.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-12- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 claimed enlarging and centering behavior, anticipate or render obvious every limitation of claim
2 50 of the '163 patent. RT 2913:2-2917:2; 2917:3-2919:16; 2919:17-2922:6 (Gray invalidity
3 testimony). The record contains no evidence to support any contrary finding, and there is no
4 dispute that these references are 102(a) and (b) prior art. RT 2247:22-2248:13; 2229:14-
5 2253:16; 2919:17-2920:14; JX 1081; 2917:3-22; DX 561; JX 1046 (Bederson and Gray testimony
6 establishing prior art dates). The Court should enter judgment of invalidity or order a new trial.
12
7 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement Of Apple's Utility Patents
8 The Court should also enter judgment of non-infringement as to each accused product.
9 To establish infringement, Apple must show the presence of every limitation in the accused
10 product. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en
11 bane), overruled in part on other grounds, Cardinal Chern. Co. v. Morton Int'l, 508 U.S. 83
12 (1993). When multiple products are accused, this showing must be made as to each product; a
13 patentee "cannot simply 'assume' that all of the [accused] products are like the one [patentee's
14 expert] tested and thereby shift to [the defendant] the burden to show that is not the case." L&W,
15 Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For the '915 and '163 patents,
16 Apple's expert performed a limitation-by-limitation analysis of only one product, the Samsung
17 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (RT 1819:18-1831:7, 1833:21-1840:22), and then introduced videos ofthe
18 other 23 accused devices with no infringement analysis (RT 1829:12-1830:13; 1840:23-1842:6).
19 For the '381 patent, Apple's infringement analysis for the Gallery application was also limited to a
20 single product, the Samsung Galaxy S II (AT&T) (RT 1741:15-1747:23; 1751:19-1753:12); and
21 for the Contacts application the record contains no source code evidence or even demonstrative
22 videos for six accused products (the Continuum, Epic 4G, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II (i9100),
23 Indulge, and Mesmerize) (RT 1753:13-1755:21). This fails to meet Apple's burden of proof.
24 Separately, the record does not support any infringement of the '915 patent because the
25 event object does not cause a scroll or gesture operation as required by claim 8. Dkt. 1158 at 20;
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
-13- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 RT 2910:18-22; 2911:6-2912:1. Apple identified the MotionEvent object in Samsung's devices
2 as the claimed event object (RT 1821:25-1822:17), but it is the WebView object, not the
3 MotionEvent object, that causes the scroll or gesture operation; the MotionEvent object causes
4 nothing. RT 2911:6-2912:1 (Gray non-infringement testimony). Apple admits that the "all-
5 important test" for infringement of the '915 patent is found in the limitation "distinguishing
6 between a single input point. .. that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input
7 points ... that are interpreted as the gesture operation." RT 1826:12-15; 1857:2-24 (Singh
8 testimony). But that limitation is not satisfied: because a device that scrolls with two fingers
9 does not meet this test (RT 2896:5-12, 2912:2-19; 1860:15-1862:10), some Samsung products
10 allow for such scrolling (RT 1862:22-1865:9; 2912:2-19), and the record contains no evidence of
11 any that do not, the jury could not find infringement ofthe '915 patent.
12 A new trial is also necessary due to inconsistencies in the jury's verdict on the '915
13 patent. The jury found that the Ace, Intercept, and Replenish devices do not infringe the '915
14 patent but the remainder ofthe accused devices do. These verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent,
15 for the Ace, Intercept and Replenish exhibit the same behavior as devices found to infringe,
16 including the Droid Charge, Indulge, Epic 4G, Infuse 4G, Transform and Prevail. The same
17 Android version found in the non-infringing Ace (Android 2.2.1) and the Intercept and Replenish
18 (Android 2.2.2) are found in these other devices which the jury found to be infringing. A new
19 trial is therefore warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 49. Los Angeles Nut House v. Holiday
20 Hardware Corp., 825 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1987).
21 No reasonable jury could have found infringement of the '3 81 patent either. The Court
22 previously found the claims of this patent to require the electronic document to always snap back.
23 Dkt. 452 at 58-60. Samsung's products do not do so, using instead a "hold still" feature which
24 Apple's expert admitted does not infringe. RT 1792:16-1793:7; 1796:22-1797:7 (Balakrishnan
25 non-infringement testimony). This feature does not translate the electronic document into a
26 second direction, as required by the last limitation of Claim 19. RT 1 791 : 14-1 799:4.
27 Samsung's products also exhibit a "hard stop" behavior, wherein they do not display an area
28 beyond the edge of the electronic document at all. Apple admits this "hard stop" behavior does
02198.51855/4974375.1 -14- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 not infringe the '3 81 patent. RT 1785:19-1787:3 (Balakrishnan non-infringement
2 testimony). Accordingly, judgment of non-infringement should enter.
3 v.
4
THE RECORD LACKS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL
INFRINGEMENT
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Willfulness requires clear and convincing proof (1) to the jury that Samsung subjectively
knew or recklessly disregarded that particular patents were valid and infringed, and (2) to the
Court of an objectively high likelihood of such infringement. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v.
Gore & Assoc., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Seagate Techs., Inc. v. Gateway,
Inc., 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en bane). Willfulness is assessed "on a claim by
claim basis." Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmnt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
2012). Knowledge of the asserted patents is mandatory but insufficient. i4i Ltd. P 'ship v.
Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
13
In "ordinary circumstances" the inquiry
focuses on the defendant's pre-suit knowledge because patentees "should not be allowed to accrue
enhanced damages based solely on the infringer's post-filing conduct"; the usual remedy for
alleged post-filing willful infringement is a preliminary injunction. Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1374.
14
Here, proof of willfulness, objective as well as subjective, is deficient. The record
contains no evidence that Samsung knew of any Apple patent in issue other than the '3 81 patent;
the '915 and '163 patents, in particular, did not issue until November 30, 2010 and January 4,
2011, mere months before this litigation commenced. JX 1044, 1046. As to the '381, the record
shows only that it was listed amidst 75 other patents in Apple's 23-page August 2010 presentation,
without proof that it was ever discussed, belying any inference that Samsung was on notice of
those particular claims. PX 52 at 12-16; see RT 1958:17-1959:13 (Teksler unable to testify to
discussions). Even if Samsung's defenses as to validity and infringement do not prevail, they are
at least reasonable, which also forecloses a finding of willfulness. See Spine Solutions, Inc. v.
13
Authorities routinely deny willfulness claims when such knowledge is not shown. E.g.,
Sealant Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. TEK Global, 2012 WL 13662, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012); LML
26
Holdings, Inc. v. Pac. Coast Dist., Inc., 2012 WL 1965878, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2012);
27
So/annex, Inc. v. Miasole, 2011 WL 4021558, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2011); IpVenture, Inc. v.
Cellco P 'ship, 2011 WL 207978, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011).
28
14
Apple never sought a preliminary injunction as to the '915, '163, or D'305 patents.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-15- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
2 Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh'g denied (Mar. 22, 2011); Black &
3 Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 260 F. App'x 284,291 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
4 Nor is Apple's evidence of alleged "copying" sufficient, as-far from showing willful
5 infringement--copying is "of no import on the question of whether the claims of an issued patent
6 are infringed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1336 (Fed.
7 Cir. 2009); Goodyear Tire v. Hercules Tire, 162 F.3d 1113, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (no
8 infringement despite intent "to appropriate the general appearance of the Goodyear tire"),
9 abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678; Hupp v. Sirojlex of Am., 122
10 F.3d 1456, 1464-65 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Copying publicly-known information not protected by a
11 valid patent is fair competition, see TrajFix, 532 U.S. at 29; Bonito Boats, 489 U.S. at 159-60, and
12 it "is erroneous" to suppose "that copying is synonymous with willful infringement." Princeton
13 Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Ins., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 254, 258 n.3 (D.N.J. 1997). Moreover, with
14 few exceptions these documents did not even address the patents or rights at issue here. There
15 can be no equation between copying and willful infringement of established patent rights. Wm.
16 Wrigley Jr. Co. v. CadburyAdams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
17 Accordingly, the Court should grant judgment to Samsung on willfulness, or a new trial.
18 VI. THE RECORD LACKS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
OR ACTIVELY INDUCED INFRINGEMENT BY SEC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
Patent infringement "cannot be predicated on acts wholly done in a foreign country."
Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see MEMC Elec.
Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, 420 F.3d 1369, 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
("Mere knowledge that a product sold overseas will ultimately be imported into the United States
is insufficient to establish liability under section 271(a)."). The record lacks sufficient evidence
that SEC engaged in any negotiations, signed any contracts, or offered for sale or sold any
products in the US. The record also lacks sufficient evidence that SEC actively induced any
direct infringement in the U.S. under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). "To establish liability under section
271 (b), a patent holder must prove that once the defendants knew of the patent, they actively and
-16- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
knowingly aided and abetted another's direct infringement." DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471
2 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en bane). "[M]ere knowledge of possible infringement by
3 others does not amount to inducement; specific intent and action to induce infringement must be
4 proven." DSU, 471 F.3d at 1305; Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Elec. Co., 248 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
5 2001) ("a failure to stop infringement" is insufficient).
15
Apple offered no evidence of
6 inducement; the evidence establishes the opposite. RT 948:11-13; 900:12-24 (STA, SEA and
7 SEC have distinct management and employees; STA makes its own business decisions). The
8 Court should grant judgment of non-infringement by SEC, or order a new trial. In any event, a
9 new trial on damages is necessary because, as Apple's expert admits, the vast majority of Apple's
10 claimed damages are based on profits made by SEC. RT 2071:1-2072:1; 2072:21-24; DX180.
11 VII.
12
SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT, NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR
ON DAMAGES
Over Samsung's objection (RT 3853:5-3856:10), the Court used a verdict form providing
13 for a single damages amount for each product without specifying the amounts attributable to
14 particular patents or trade dress or whether the award was derived from Samsung's profits,
15 Apple's lost profits, and/or a reasonable royalty. Dkt. 1931, at 15-16.
16
Where, as here, the
16 basis for the jury's award is unclear, the Court may "work[] the math backwards" to determine the
17 basis for the award. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.
18 2009); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re First
19 Alliance Mortg. Co., 471 F.3d 977, 1002-03 (9th Cir. 2006). Comparison of the verdicts with the
20 amounts presented by Apple's expert Terry Musika in PX25A1 reveals the following:
21

For each ofthe 11 Samsung phones (Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic
22 4G, Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T), Galaxy S II (T-Mobile), Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch), Galaxy S II
23 (Skyrocket), Gem, Indulge, and Infuse 4G) for which the jury found infringement of one or more
24
25
15
Apple agrees that inducement requires proof of '"specific intent to encourage another's
infringement."' Brief of Defendant-Appellee Apple, Inc. at *25, Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple
26
Inc.
1
2011 WL 6939526 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2011) (Nos. 2011-1392, 2011-1393) (quot. omitted).
6
If the Court sets aside the verdict for insufficient proof of liability on any ground urged
27
here, the verdict's failure to separate each damages amount by patent or trade dress will mandate a
new trial on damages. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1310
28
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
02198.51855/4974375.1
-17- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 design patents but no trade dress dilution, the jury awarded exactly 40% of Apple's claimed figure
2 for Samsung's profits. Wagner Decl. a t ~ 12.
3

For each of the five Samsung phones (Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase
4 (i500), Mesmerize, and Vibrant) for which the jury found infringement of one or more design
5 patents and trade dress dilution, the jury awarded exactly the amount of lost profits claimed by
6 Apple plus 40% of Apple's claimed figure for Samsung's profits. Id. a t ~ 13 .
7

For five of the seven Samsung products that were found to infringe only utility
8 patents (Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G ('381 & '915), Replenish ('162 and '381), and
9 Transform ('915)), the jury awarded exactly half of Apple's claimed royalties figure. !d. at ~ 1 4 .
10

For the remaining two Samsung products found to infringe only utility patents, the
11 jury awarded exactly 40% of what Apple claimed as Samsung's profits on the Galaxy Prevail, and
12 $833,076 for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi). Id. a t ~ ~ 15-16.
13

Accordingly, $948,278,061 of the verdict represents Samsung's profits:
14 ($599,859,395 for 11 phones the jury found infringed design patents, $290,551,383 for five
15 phones the jury found infringed design patents and diluted trade dress, and the remaining
16 $57,867,383 for one phone found to infringe only utility patents); $91,132,279 of the verdict
17 represents Apple's lost profits for five Samsung phones found to infringe design patents and dilute
18 trade dress; $9,180,124 ofthe verdict represents Apple's royalties for five Samsung devices found
19 to infringe only utility patents; and $833,076 of the verdict represents an amount awarded for one
20 device found to infringe utility patents. !d. a t ~ ~ 17-20.
21
22
23
A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict
1. The Award Of$948,278,061 For Samsung's Profits
Design Patent Infringement. Apple did not limit its calculations of Samsung's profits to
24
those attributable to use of the patented designs. While 35 U.S.C. 289 allows an award for
patent infringement of an "article of manufacture" up "to the extent of [the infringer's] total
25
26
profit," it does not eliminate the requirement inherent in all patent infringement litigation that
causation must be shown. Carbice Corp. of Am. v. Am. Patents Dev. Corp., 283 U.S. 27, 33
27
28
(1931) (patent infringement is "essentially a tort"); see ResQNet. com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d
02198.51855/4974375.1
-18- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 201 0) ("At all times, the damages inquiry must concentrate on compensation
2 for the economic harm caused by infringement of the claimed invention."). Unless limited to the
3 portion of profits attributable to infringement of the patented design rather than other,
4 noninfringing features of accused devices, infringer's profits violate the causation requirement and
5 impose excessive damages far beyond any compensation or deterrence rationale. Cf
6 Laserdynamics v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,_ F.3d. _, 2012 WL 3758093, at *12 (Fed. Cir. Aug.
7 30, 2012) (limiting damages "in any case involving multi-component products" to "the smallest
8 salable patent-practicing unit" unless "demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented
9 features"); Junker v. HDC Corp., 2008 WL 3385819, at* 5 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2008) (applying
10 same rule to infringer's profits under section 289); Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F.
11 902, 905 (2d Cir. 1915) and Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 81-82 (2d Cir.
12 1916) (applying same rule to predecessor statute to 289 and limiting infringer's profits to those
13 attributable to design of piano case rather than whole piano); see also Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-
14 Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. 2d 279,286-87 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (Rader, J.).
15 The record contains no evidence that the entire sales value of Samsung's products was
16 attributable to their outer casings or GUI, as opposed to the numerous noninfringing technological
17 components that enable the devices to function and drive consumer choice. Apple's own study
18 showed that only 1% of iPhone users said that design and color is the reason they chose a phone
19 (DX592.023), and just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identified visual appeal as why
20 they purchased a phone. PX69.43 (all aspects of physical design comprised only up to 23% of
21 the reasons for consumer selections, and visual appeal amounted to only 22% of that 23%, or just
22 5% of the total). There was thus no evidence that infringement of the design of the outer casings
23 or GUI caused Samsung to receive $600 million in profits.
24 Trade Dress Dilution. "Trademark remedies are guided by tort law principles," and a
25 plaintiff may recover "profits only on sales that are attributable to the infringing conduct." Lindy
26 Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1407-08 (9th Cir. 1993). The record contains no
27 evidence that Samsung profited in an amount over $290 million on sales of five phones from
28 lessening the capacity of Apple's trade dress to identify and distinguish its goods or services. To
02198.51855/4974375.1 -19- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 the contrary, Apple's expert, Professor Winer, admitted he had no empirical evidence to show
2 Samsung's actions have diluted Apple's brand, and he never quantified the amount of any alleged
3 harm from dilution or loss of any kind to Apple as a result of Samsung's actions. RT 1534:14-
4 17; 1534:22-1535:11. Nor did Apple's damages expert Mr. Musika. In addition, as explained
5 above, supra, the evidence showed that design of a smartphone accounts for at most between 1%
6 and 5% of the reason consumers purchase a particular phone. See DX592.023; PX69.43.
7 Failure To Deduct Samsung's Operating Expenses. Mr. Musika calculated Samsung's
8 profits as gross revenue minus cost of goods sold. RT 2054:11-2055:2; PX34B.17-18. He did
9 not deduct any of Samsung's other operating expenses, even though he admitted Samsung
1 0 incurred those expenses. RT 2061: 1-11. Using his method, "the overall gross profit percentage
11 on just the accused products was approximately 35.5 percent." RT 2060:19-21. By contrast,
12 Samsung's expert Mr. Wagner testified to the operating expenses that Samsung incurred in
13 making the accused sales, which resulted in an average profit margin of 12%. RT 3022:7-
14 3025:8, 3028:7-3031:23, 3074:23-3075:5. He also noted that the audited figures for Samsung's
15 Telecommunications segment showed its profit margin to be 15%, and the entire company's
16 profitability to be 10%. RT 3073:5-3074:22. There was no basis for Mr. Musika's failure to
17 deduct Samsung's operating expenses in arriving at his figures for Samsung's profits. See
18 Sunbeam Prod., Inc. v. Wing Shing Prod. (BVI) Ltd., 311 B.R. 378, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
19 (appropriate to deduct fixed costs in determining infringer's profits under Section 289); adidas
20 Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812, at *13 (D. Or. Sept. 12, 2008) (same for
21 operating costs in trademark case).
22 2. The Award of $91,132,279 For Apple's Lost Profits
23 A plaintiff in a patent infringement action must establish both but-for and proximate
24 causation between infringement and lost profits, Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538,
25 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995), showing "likely outcomes with infringement factored out of the
26 economic picture." Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int '!, Inc., 246 F.3d
27 1336, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The record fails to support the award of $91
28 million in lost profits for five phones for several independent reasons.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-20- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 First, Apple's damages expert failed to take price elasticity of demand into consideration,
2 even though it was undisputed that consumers would have had to pay $67 more for an iPhone than
3 a Samsung smartphone, and $240 more for an iPad than a Galaxy Tab.
17
See id. at 1355-56
4 (requiring consideration of consumer reaction to products' "different prices"); Monolithic Power
5 Sys., Inc. v. 02 Micro Int'l Ltd., 476 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1155-56 (N.D. Cal. 2007); cf BIC Leisure
6 Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
7 Second, Apple failed to show that consumer purchases were driven by the desire for
8 Apple's designs and inventions, as opposed to the functionality of Samsung's phones. Mr.
9 Musika referred to two Samsung documents, PX34 and PX194 (RT 2078:4-2083:3), but neither
1 0 discusses any of the Apple patented features or trade dress. With respect to utility patents, Mr.
11 Musika testified that he relied on Dr. Hauser's survey. RT 2077:1-8. But Dr. Hauser testified
12 for less than two minutes on direct (RT 1913:23 (Time: 3:28) toRT 1916:16-17 (Time: 3:30)),
13 failed to offer any meaningful explanation, and admitted that his survey bears no relationship to
14 the real world. See RT 1935:16-1936:9.
15 Third, the evidence failed to show that, absent Samsung's infringement, Samsung
16 customers would have bought iPhones rather than a non-accused Android device from Samsung or
17 another manufacturer. As Apple's own research showed, just 25% of Android purchasers even
18 considered an iPhone. PX572.82; RT 2129:4-2132:6.
19 Fourth, neither Mr. Musika nor any other Apple witness offered any basis to conclude
20 Apple had "either or both" the "manufacturing and marketing capacity" to sell the "2 million
21 incremental units over the two year time period" on which he based his lost profits figures. RT
22
23
24
25
26
17
Mr. Wagner testified the average Apple customer paid $206 for an iPhone, while the average
Samsung customer paid $139 for Samsung smartphones (RT 3049:4-3050:18), and testified the
average price ofthe Galaxy Tab was $240 lower than the iPad. RT 3050: 19-3051:4. Because
27
Mr. Musika admitted he knew there was a difference between the prices of the parties' products
28
(RT 2132:7-2133:5), Mr. Wagner's testimony was uncontroverted.
02198.51855/4974375. I
-21- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
2085:10-2086:3.
18
He also admitted that Apple had no capacity to manufacture additional
2 iPhone 4s for five months during the damages period. RT 2141:13-2142:13.
3 Fifth, Mr. Musika presented the jury with only one lost profits number per accused product
4 (PX25A1.4), assuming that each and every Samsung product infringed all of Apple's patents and
5 diluted all its trade dresses. RT 2114:15-2118:24; 2122:3-2123:6. Because the jury failed to
6 find infringement and dilution for all Apple's asserted rights, and lacked any basis in evidence to
7 adjust Mr. Musika's number on a per-product basis, the record fails to support any causation
8 between the liability findings and lost profits.
19
Moreover, Mr. Musika's lost profits calculations
9 were based on the length of the design around periods for the intellectual property found to be
1 0 infringed. RT 2084:2-19. Yet, with the exception of a one-month design around period for the
11 '381 patent (RT 2123: 12-24), Mr. Musika provided the jury with no basis to determine the length
12 of the design around period for any particular item of intellectual property (let alone the
13 reasonableness of that period), when the periods started or ended, or how changes in his notice
14 date assumptions impacted these variables, including whether the design around period had
15 already ended before the notice period even began. Wechsler v. Macke Int'l Trade, Inc., 486
16 F.3d 1286, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
17 3. The Award Of $9,180,124 In Royalties
18 There was no evidence to support Mr. Musika' s "ultimate conclusion" that a reasonable
19 per-unit royalty for each ofthe utility patents would be $3.10, $2.02,$2.02 (RT 2090:20-2091:2),
20 or that the combined royalty for all design patents and trade dress would be $24 per unit
21 (PX25A1.16; RT 2164:23-25). Although Mr. Musika stated that he performed a Georgia-Pacific
22 analysis and used three valuation methods (RT 2088:20-21, 2089:2-17), he identified no specific
23 evidence supporting his royalty rates. Such unsupported testimony is insufficient to support a
24
18
While Apple introduced just two pages of Mr. Musika's analysis to support this bare
25
conclusion (PX25A1.14-15), Mr. Musika did not explain what these pages showed, how they were
preP,ared, or the assumptions on which they relied. RT 2097:13-17.
26 19
For example, Mr. Musika assumed that Samsung would have no market share from non-
diluting sales in Q2 2011, see PX25Al.8, but the jury found that many Samsung phones on sale
27
that quarter (Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 40, Galaxy Prevail, and Infuse 40) did
28
not violate Apple's trade dress. See Dkt. 1931 at 1.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-22- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
reasonable royalty award. WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Pack., Inc., _ F.3d _, 2012 WL
2 3573845, at *15 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2012) (reasonable royalty award unsupported by expert
3 testimony that was "conclusory, speculative and, frankly, out of line with economic reality"); see
4 also ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 869-872 (similar); Go Med. Indus., Ltd. v. Inmed Corp., 471 F.3d
5 1264, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming JMOL rejecting unsupported trademark royalty).
6 Moreover, while Mr. Musika's royalty analysis assumes each Samsung product infringes
7 all Apple's claimed utility patents (RT 2114:15-2118:24; 2122:16-2123:6), the Nexus S 40 was
8 held not to infringe the '163 patent; the Replenish not to infringe the '915 patent; and the
9 Transform not to infringe the '381 or the '163 patent. Dkt. 1931. By using one-half of Mr.
10 Musika's calculated royalty, the jury improperly applied the same royalty rate to all five products,
11 despite the fact that the jury reached different conclusions about infringement.
12 B. The Damages Rest Upon An Incorrect Notice Date
13
Apple's patent infringement damages are limited to the time period after it gave Samsung
14
actual written notice of the allegedly infringed patents and the specifically accused products. See
15
35 U.S.C. 287(a); Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
l6 2010); SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amsted
17
Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 187 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Actual notice is
18
similarly a prerequisite for recovery of damages or profits for registered trade dress infringement
19
because Apple does not display the trade dress with the required statutory language identifying its
20 registration. See 15 U.S.C. 1111; RT 2007:21-2008:1.
21
Mr. Musika based all of his damage estimates for patent infringement and registered trade
22
dress dilution on a notice date of August 4, 2010, the date of a meeting between SEC and Apple
23
representatives. PX25Al.2; RT 2095:6-21; 2168:18-2169:10. But only the '381 patent was
24
mentioned in the associated presentation. PX52.12-16; RT 1965:22-1968:11. The earliest
25
notice Samsung received of the '915 and D'677 patents and Apple's registered trade dress was
2
6 Apple's filing of the April 15, 2011 complaint. RT 1968:20-1970:2. The earliest notice
27
Samsung received of the '163, D'305, D'889, and D'087 patents was Apple's filing of the June
28 16, 2011 amended complaint. Dkt. 1903 (Final Instruction Nos. 42 & 57). Mr. Musika's
02198.51855/4974375.1
-23- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 reliance on an erroneous notice date inflated the revenue he used to calculate Samsung's profits
2 and Apple's damages by more than $3.3 billion. See JX1500; Wagner Decl. at 25. Because the
3 jury calculated Samsung's profits and Apple's damages based on Mr. Musika's use of an incorrect
4 notice date, the Court should vacate the award and grant a new trial on damages. See Litton Sys.,
5 Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (new trial required "if a jury may
6 have relied on an impermissible basis in reaching its verdict"); see also In re First Alliance, 471
7 F .3d 977, 1001-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (remanding for new trial and consideration of remittitur where
8 "one of the figures used" by jury to determine damages award was improper); Brocklesby v.
9 United States, 767 F.2d 1288, 1294 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that "judgment must be reversed if
10 any of the three theories [underlying it] is legally defective").
20
11 c. At A Minimum, The Jury's Damages Award Should Be Remitted
12 "[T]he proper amount of a remittitur is the maximum amount sustainable by the evidence."
13 Informatica Corp. v. Business Objects Data Integration, Inc., 2007 WL 2344962, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
14 Aug. 16, 2007). Remittitur is appropriate under Rule 59 "(1) where the court can identify an
15 error that caused the jury to include in the verdict a quantifiable amount that should be stricken ...
16 and (2) more generally, where the award is 'intrinsically excessive' in the sense of being greater
17 than the amount a reasonable jury could have awarded, although the surplus cannot be ascribed to
18 a particular, quantifiable error." Cornell Univ., 609 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (citations omitted). Here
19 the Court has available numerous easily quantifiable bases to reduce the award:
20 1. Reduction Of $70,034,295 In Lost Profits
21 Because the lost profits portion of the jury's award on five phones (Fascinate, Galaxy S
22 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant) found to infringe design patents and dilute trade
23 dress rested on insufficient evidence, see supra, the Court should reduce the award on these
24 phones by the amount of $70,034,295, leaving the amount awarded on those phones at most at
25
26
20
The Court's conclusion that a preservation obligation arose in August 4, 2010 (Dkt. 1894
27
at 16) does not establish that Apple also satisfied the more stringent statutory notice requirements
28
for damages on its patent and trade dress claims as of that date.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-24- Case No. 11-cv-0 1846-LHK
1 $311,649,267, which represents 40% of Mr. Musika's number for Samsung's profits on those
2 phones (PX25A1.5). Wagner Decl., ~ 26.
3
4
5
6
2. Reductions of $253,328,000 And $220,952,000 To Reflect Correct Notice
Dates
Because Mr. Musika' s profit calculations incorrectly assume an August 4, 2010 notice date
for each design patent at issue, see supra, the Court should reduce the jury's award of
$599,859,395 in Samsung's profits on the 11 phones found to infringe one or more design patents
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
but not to dilute trade dress by $253,328,000 to $346,531,495, which represents 40% of Mr.
Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits on these phones after adjustment for the correct notice
dates based on the filing of the complaint (forD '677) and the amended complaint (forD '087 and
D '305). Wagner Decl., ~ 27. For the same reason, the Court should reduce the jury's award on
the five phones found to infringe design patents and dilute registered trade dress to correct for the
wrong August 4, 2010 notice date. Assuming the jury's lost profit award is already eliminated,
see supra, this adjustment yields an additional reduction in the amount of $220,952,000 to
$90,697,267 or 40% of Mr. Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits on these phones adjusted
for notice. Wagner Decl., ~ 28.
21
3. Reductions Of $329,204,825 And $86,162,404 Based On The Portion Of
Samsung's Profits Attributable To Infringement or Dilution
18
Design Patent Infringement. Because no more than 5% of Samsung's profits were
19
attributable to the design patents at issue, see supra, any award of Samsung's profits on the 11
20
phones found to infringe one or more of design patents but not to dilute trade dress should be
21
reduced to no more than 5% of Mr. Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits for these products.
22
After adjusting for the correct notice date, see supra, this results in an additional reduction of
23
$329,204,825, leaving an award of$17,326,570 for these 11 products. Wagner Decl. ~ 29 & 31.
24
25 21
Contrary to Mr. Musika's assumption (RT 2095:6-21), the damages period for Apple's
26
unregistered trade dress claim should not have commenced until the April 15, 2011 complaint,
requiring the same reduction of any award whether for registered or unregistered trade dress
27
dilution on these five phones. See Coach Inc. v. Asia Pac. Trading Co., 676 F. Supp. 2d 914,
924-25 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (plaintiff who sues under both 15 U.S.C. 1114 and 1125(a) "must
28
meet 1111's 'actual notice requirement ... "').
02198.51855/4974375.1
-25- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Trade Dress Dilution. Any award of Samsung's profits for the five phones found liable
2 for trade dress dilution likewise should be limited to the amount attributable to the underlying
3 trade dress violation-no more than 5% of Mr. Musika's profit number for these five products.
4 After adjusting for the removal of lost profits, see supra, and correcting for the incorrect notice
5 date, see supra, this results in an additional reduction in the award of $86,162,404, leaving a
6 remaining award of $4,534,863 for these five products. Wagner Decl. a t ~ 30 & 31.
22
7 4. Reduction of $57,867,383 On The Prevail
8 The jury awarded $57,867,383 on the Galaxy Prevail. Because the Prevail was found to
9 infringe only Apple's utility patents and Apple did not seek a reasonable royalty for this product
10 (see PX25A1.4-5), the only permissible remedy the jury could have awarded was Apple's
11 unsupported lost profits. But the maximum lost profits figure Mr. Musika presented for the
12 Prevail was $8,573,370 (PX25A1.4), so the jury's award was necessarily based on Mr. Musika's
13 number for Samsung's profits for the Prevail, $144,668,457 (PX25A1.5). Because infringer's
14 profits are an impermissible remedy for utility patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 284, Aro
15 Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replac. Co., 377 U.S. 476, 506 (1964), and because Mr. Musika's
16 lost profits figures are unsupported, the damages award for this product should be remitted to zero.
17 VIII. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON ITS
OFFENSIVE CASE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A. Judgment of Infringement Should be Entered for the '516 and '941 Patents
No rational jury would not find infringement of claims 15 and 16 of the '516 patent and
claims 10 and 15 of the '941 patent. Since Apple did not challenge Samsung' s evidence of the
PMB 9801 's operation in the accused products (RT 3433:7-25; 3462:17-24), literal infringement
"reduces to a question of claim interpretation" that should be resolved in Samsung's favor.
MyMail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The "Total Transmit Power" Element of Claim 15 of the 516 Patent is Met. For the
'516 patent, the only dispute was whether the "total transmit power" limitation of claim 15 was
22
15 U.S.C. 1117(a) permits the Court to reduce an award of defendant's profits to "such
27
sum as the court shall find to be just according to the circumstances of the case." See adidas Am.,
28
Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2008 WL 4279812, at *12-13 (D. Or., Sept. 12, 2008).
02198.51855/4974375.1
-26- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 met. RT 3422:12-14. The evidence showed that: 1) Apple's products calculate total transmit
2 power by summing the transmit power for all utilized channels (i.e., E-DPDCH, E-DPCCH,
3 DPDCH, and DPCCH, see RT 3420:18-3421:2); and 2) the transmit power for its E-DPCCH
4 channel is scaled down when total transmit power exceeds maximum allowed power (R T 34 21: 18-
5 3422:11 ). Apple asserted that the total transmit power must be calculated by summing only the
6 transmit powers for the E-DPDCH and DPDCH channels. RT 3421:8-17. That is at odds with
7 all of the patent's embodiments. Figure 6, for example, shows that, when total transmit power
8 for the physical channels-which includes E-DPCH, DPDCH, DPCCH, and E-DPCCH--exceeds
9 the maximum allowed power, the transmit power for the E-DPDCH channels is scaled down.
10 JX 1073 at Fig. 6. In each embodiment, total transmit power of all utilized channels is summed
11 when determining whether total transmit power exceeds maximum allowed power and is never
12 limited to only DPDCH and E-DPDCH. As Apple's construction of "total transmit power"
13 improperly excludes preferred embodiments, it must be rejected. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage
14 Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
15 327 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (same). When this limitation is properly construed, the
16 undisputed evidence establishes literal infringement of the '516 patent.
17 The "Entire SDU" Limitations of the '941 Patent are Met. For the '941 patent, the only
18 dispute was whether Apple's products meet the "entire SDU" limitation of claims 10 and 15, a
19 phrase whose meaning is plain from the specification and contrary to Apple's interpretation. The
20 invention comprises a single-bit field, after the Sequence Number (SN) field in the packet header,
21 which is set to '0' when an exact match exists between the sizes of the data part and the Service
22 Data Unit (SDU) and there is no room for padding or concatenation, as shown in Fig. SA ("DATA
23 PART= RLC SDU"). This field is set to '1' when one or more other fields, including a padding
24 field or the start of another SDU (concatenation), may be inserted. That this one-bit field
25 indicates an exact match between the sizes of the data part and the SDU is confirmed throughout
26 the specification and never contradicted. JX1070 at 4:7-10 ("one concrete RLC SDU ... without
27 any segmentation/concatenation/ padding"); 8:27-29; 10:12-13; 6:37-44 (similar examples). Yet
28 Apple argued the "entire SDU" field need not indicate an exact match but could be set to any
02198.51855/4974375.1 -27- CaseNo. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 value whether or not padding/concatenation is required. RT 3447:19-3449:22. This unsound
2 construction should be rejected and the verdict of non-infringement set aside.
3 B. Standards Patents Exhaustion
4 The verdict that Samsung's standards patents were exhausted by Samsung's sales to Intel
5 Corp. is not supported by substantial evidence, for Apple introduced no evidence that Intel made
6 authorized "indirect" sales to Apple of the Intel PMB 9801 chips, let alone that any initial sales in
7 the United States had occurred. See Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elec., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 630-
8 35 (2008); Jazz Photo Corp. v. U.S., 439 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nor can the
9 exhaustion verdict be squared with the jury's non-infringement finding, because exhaustion
10 requires an item to sufficiently embody the patent, Quanta, 553 U.S. at 628.
11 Apple failed to prove an initial sale in the U.S. of the Intel PMB 9801 chips, which are
12 delivered to Apple in China. PX79 (showing chip delivery location in China); RT 3664:4-9.
13 That the expired Intel agreement may have been international in scope "does not affect exhaustion
14 ofthat patentee's rights in the United States." Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394
15 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To the contrary, the Federal Circuit has found an initial U.S.
16 sale only where the goods are actually delivered to a U.S. location.
23
Moreover, the sum total of
17 Apple's evidence on authorization was several lines of video deposition testimony from
18 Samsung's Dr. Ahn concerning an expired Intel agreement that he did not recognize (RT 3547:22-
19 24 (PX218.2)) and testimony from Apple expert Donaldson opining on the meaning to licensing
20 professionals of"sell ... indirectly" (RT 3542:19-3543:24). Apple introduced no other evidence
21 about the agreement and did not ask the Court to construe it or provide relevant guidance, a
22 "fundamental error" that undermines the verdict. Mgmt. Sys. Assocs., Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas
23 Corp., 762 F.2d 1161, 1177-78 (4th Cir. 1985). Finally, Apple offered no evidence that Intel
24 Corp. took affirmative steps to extend rights to Intel Americas before the agreement expired (see
25
23
SEE SA. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (invoices
26
"all identify delivery to U.S. destinations"); Litecubes, LLC v. N Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d
27
1353, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (products delivered directly to U.S.); Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (same); N
28
Am. Philips Corp. v. Am. Vending Sales, Inc., 35 F.3d 1576, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (same).
02198.51855/4974375,1
-28- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
PX81.23 (authorizing Intel to extend rights to subs)) or otherwise had any involvement in the Intel
2 Americas transaction reflected in Apple's invoices. RT 3169:4-3170:16. There was no
3 evidence that Intel Corp. sold the PMB 9801 chips to Apple either directly or indirectly, let alone
4 with authorization. Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 173 F. Supp. 2d 201,222 (D. Del. 2001).
5 c. Judgment Should Be Entered For Samsung On The '460, '893, & '711 Patents
6 The '460 Patent. The evidence shows that Apple's products send email messages, send
7 email messages displaying photos, and scroll through photos exactly as claim 1 of the '460 patent
8 requires. Dkt. 1156 at 16; RT 709:20-711:19, 2383:1-2401:6, 2487:1-2490:12. First, Apple
9 argued that claim 1 requires a specific sequence of steps-an claim construction argument not
10 properly left to the jury-that its devices allegedly cannot perform. RT 3297:8-3300:24; Dkt.
11 1904 at 41; Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
12 But the intrinsic record of the '460 patent confirms that claim 1 does not have this sequence
13 limitation. Dkt. 1826 at 35; JX 1069, fig. 8, tag 802 before 81 0; col. 10:50-11:11; Dkt. 1156 at
14 16. Second, Apple argued that swiping between photos and "use of scroll keys" are not
15 equivalent, RT 3297:1-3; 3301:3-4, yet Apple's own user guides equate swiping and use of scroll
16 keys on Apple's devices and this argument only applies to some but not all accused products. RT
17 2399:9-2400:16; DX 533.119. Third, Apple argued that its apps are somehow so new that they
18 cannot use claim 1's "modes" (RT 3297:4-7; 3304:15-17). This argument, however, is
19 unsupported either by any claim construction of "mode" or by the actual evidence - every Apple
20 expert and Apple's own fact witness admitted that Apple's apps have modes including "camera
21 mode" and "photo browsing mode," and Apple's documents confirm this. RT 3180:19-21,
22 3181:2-8, 3232:25-3233:1; 3244:8-15,3294:11-23, 3305:21-3306:4; 3318:3-3319:18; DX 533.
23 The '893 Patent. Samsung presented indisputable evidence that Apple's products
24 maintain a bookmark on the last viewed image even after the user uses the camera as required by
25 claim 10 of the '893 patent. RT 2403:3-2412:20, 2485:25-2486:25,3186:19-3187:2. Apple's
26 first argument, that Apple uses "apps" and not "modes," is discussed above. The second, that
27 Apple's products sometimes did not infringe and therefore did not meet the "irrespective of a
28 duration" element cannot serve as a basis for non-infringement as a matter of law. Bell
02198.51855/4974375.1
-29- CaseNo.ll-cv-01846-LHK
1 Commc 'ns Research, Inc. v. Vita/ink Commc 'ns Corp., 55 F .3d 615, 622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In
2 any event, this argument again impermissibly raised a matter of claim construction with the jury
3 that Apple failed to raise earlier with the Court.
4 The '711 Patent. Aside from raising the same "apps" and not "modes" argument," Apple's
5 only other argument was that its products do not have "applets." An "applet" is construed by the
6 court. Apple's expert, however, testified repeatedly that the term "applet" includes the limitation
7 of operating system independence. RT 3225:23-3226:7; 3227:12-18. Samsung's expert,
8 correctly applied the court's construction. RT 2433:8-11; DX 645. Under the Court's
9 construction, the record can only support a judgment of infringement.
10 IX.
11
A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
Rule 59 permits the Court to grant new trial to prevent manifest unfairness. Here, the
12 Court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits (Dkt. 1297, 1329) were unprecedented for
13 a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Sam sung from presenting a full and
14 fair case in response to Apple's many claims. Denial of Samsung's "empty chair" motion (Dkt.
15 1692, 1721) compounded the problem, enabling Apple to exploit Samsung's absent witnesses to
16 repeated advantage at trial. RT 3348:14-17; 4080:3-6; 4090:2-4; 4095:7-14; 4232:15-22.
17 Samsung was also treated unequally: Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to
18 testify "we were ripped off' and "Samsung copied" (RT 509:11-510:22; 659:2-664:19; 1957:15-
19 21; 1960:15-1963:1), while Samsung's witnesses were barred from explaining how Samsung's
20 products differ from Apple's (RT 850:12-851:20; 2511:9-2515:5), or even how one Samsung
21 product differs from another (RT 948:14-950:17). Samsung was required to lay foundation for
22 any Apple document (RT 524:15-525:19; 527:3-12), while Apple was not (RT 1525:12-1526:7;
23 1406:11-1410:8; 1844:16-1845:8; 987:21-988:20; 2832:6-12). Apple was permitted to play
24 advertisements (RT 641:6-642:16; 645:14-646:7), but Samsung was not (Dkt 1511). And Apple
25 had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not.
26 RT 1085:6-11; 1188:9-15; 1213:17-1220:5. In the interests of justice, Samsung therefore
27 respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial enabling adequate time and evenhanded
28 treatment of the parties.
02198.51855/4974375.1
-30- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4974375.1
DATED: September 21,2012 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN. LLP
Bv /s/ Susan R. Estrich
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Susan R. Estrich
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA. LLC
-31- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
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
ESTRICH DECL. ISO SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR
50 California Street, 22
nd
Floor
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261)
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5
th
Floor
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
susanestrich@quinnemanuel.com
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC
Plaintiff,
vs.
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a
New York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF SUSAN R. ESTRICH
IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNGS NOTICE
OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW,
NEW TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 50 AND 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
I, Susan R. Estrich, declare as follows:
1. I am a partner in the Los Angeles office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively Samsung). I submit this declaration
in support of Samsungs Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New
Trial, and/or Remittitur. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set
forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I would testify to such facts under oath.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

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
-3-

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in Los Angeles, California on September 21, 2012.
By /s/ Susan R. Estrich
Susan R. Estrich

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT A

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT B

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT C

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT D

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT E

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT F

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT G

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT H

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT I

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT J

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT K

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT L

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT M

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT N

Filed Under Seal

Estrich Declaration

EXHIBIT O

Filed Under Seal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1

WAGNER DECLARATION ISO SAMSUNG'S RENEWED RULE 50, NEW TRIAL & REMITTITUR MOTION
50 California Street, 22
nd
Floor
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5
th
Floor
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

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

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG


Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J.
WAGNER IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNGS
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL
AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 50 AND 59

Date: December 6, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-1-
I, Michael J. Wagner, hereby declare as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. I am currently a Managing Director at LitiNomics, Inc., a financial and economic
consulting firm specializing in the analysis of economic issues that arise in commercial disputes.
2. I am a Certified Public Accountant and attorney licensed in the State of California.
I have been a Partner at Price Waterhouse; a Managing Director at Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett; and
a Senior Advisor at CRA International, a publicly traded management consulting firm. I have a
Bachelor of Science in Engineering, which I received from the University of Santa Clara in 1969.
I have a Masters in Business Administration, which I received from U.C.L.A. in 1971. I have a
Juris Doctor degree, which I received from Loyola University School of Law at Los Angeles in
1975. Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae.
3. I have specialized in the computation of commercial damages over the last 35 years
of my professional career. I have been qualified and testified at trial as an expert on financial
matters, principally commercial damages, 127 times, including Lanham Act cases and patent cases
(30 times in patent cases). I have testified on financial issues in 34 arbitrations. I also have been
deposed 314 times (101 times in patent cases; more than 10 times in trademark or Lanham Act
cases) on financial issues over my career.
4. I have 28 professional publications, the majority of which deals with the
computation of commercial damages (8 deal directly with patent damages). The most significant
publication is the Litigation Services Handbook, which I co-edited through its fourth edition. The
book is a collaborative effort of many of the leading experts in the financial area. I am the
founding editor and continued as an editor for over 20 years. The Handbook has been recognized
as authoritative by the Federal Judicial Center in its Treatise on Scientific Evidence. The
Treatises chapter on Economic Damages cites only five additional reference sources for further
guidance to federal judges. The Litigation Services Handbook is one of the five reference sources.
5. In the above-captioned case, Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., I
previously submitted a Declaration of Michael J. Wagner in Support of Samsungs Opposition to
Apples Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. I have also submitted expert reports, including my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-2-
April 16, 2012 Expert Report of Michael J. Wagner; my April 20, 2012 Corrected Expert Report
of Michael J. Wagner; and my May 11, 2012 Supplemental Expert Report of Michael J. Wagner.
I also testified at trial.
6. I submit this declaration in support of Samsungs Motion pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 50 and 59. If asked at a hearing or trial, I am prepared to testify regarding the
matters I discuss in this declaration.
7. I am being compensated at my customary rate for my work on this case. My
compensation is in no way contingent upon the opinions I arrive at or the result of the litigation.
8. In performing my analysis, I have reviewed the Courts August 21, 2012 Final Jury
Instructions and the August 24, 2012 Amended Verdict Form (the Verdict Form). I have also
reviewed trial transcripts, trial demonstratives and exhibits, as well as publicly available
documents discussed in this declaration.
9. In addition to the review of documents listed above, I have relied on my training as
a Certified Public Accountant and my knowledge and expertise regarding intellectual property
litigation damages.
10. I may supplement this declaration in the event that additional relevant materials are
provided to me, including court filings and declarants testimony.
VERDICT ANALYSIS
11. I have compared the dollar amounts in Question 23 of the Verdict Form with
Apples claimed damages in this case as presented in trial testimony and exhibits, including
Apples trial exhibit PX25A1. I note the following.
12. For each of the 11 Samsung devices for which the jury awarded damages and found
infringement of one or more Apple design patents but no trade dress violation, the jury awarded
exactly 40% of Mr. Musikas claimed figure for Samsungs profits in PX25A1.5. This is shown
in the following table:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-3-
Product Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple
in PX25A1.5
40% of Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
Jury Award
Captivate $202,100,404 $80,840,162 $80,840,162
Continuum $40,997,793 $16,399,117 $16,399,117
Droid Charge $126,682,172 $50,672,869 $50,672,869
Epic 4G $325,452,234 $130,180,894 $130,180,894
Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $101,235,891 $40,494,356 $40,494,356
Galaxy S II (T-
Mobile)
$209,479,270 $83,791,708 $83,791,708
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G
Touch)
$250,817,469 $100,326,988 $100,326,988
Galaxy S II
(Skyrocket)
$80,683,895 $32,273,558 $32,273,558
Gem $10,188,963 $4,075,585 $4,075,585
Indulge $40,027,960 $16,011,184 $16,011,184
Infuse 4G $111,982,436 $44,792,974 $44,792,974
TOTAL $1,499,648,487 $599,859,395 $599,859,395

13. For each of the five Samsung phones for which the jury awarded Apple damages
and found infringement of one or more design patents and trade dress dilution, the jury awarded
exactly the amount of lost profits claimed by Apple plus 40% of Samsungs profits, as calculated
by Mr. Musika in PX25A1.4. This is shown in the following table:
Product Lost Profits
Sought by
Apple in
PX25A1.4
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
40% of
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
Lost Profits
plus 40% of
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
Jury Award
Fascinate 47,703,423 $239,589,391 $95,835,756 $143,539,179 $143,539,179
Galaxy S 4G $13,856,419 $148,720,623 $59,488,249 $73,344,668 $73,344,668
Galaxy S
Showcase
$850,630 $52,878,789 $21,151,516 $22,002,146 $22,002,146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-4-
Product Lost Profits
Sought by
Apple in
PX25A1.4
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
40% of
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
Lost Profits
plus 40% of
Samsung's
Profits Sought
by Apple in
PX25A1.4
Jury Award
(i500)
Mesmerize $9,667,526 $108,640,214 $43,456,086 $53,123,612 $53,123,612
Vibrant $19,054,281 $176,549,189 $70,619,676 $89,673,957 $89,673,957
TOTAL $91,132,279 $726,378,206 $290,551,283 $381,683,562 $381,683,562

14. Seven Samsung devices were found to infringe only utility patents. For five of
these devices, the jury awarded exactly half the royalty calculated by Mr. Musika in PX25A1.5, as
shown in the following table:
Product Royalty Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
50% of Royalty Sought
by Apple in PX25A1.5
Jury Award
Exhibit 4G $2,163,641 $1,081,820 $1,081,820
Galaxy Tab $3,933,382 $1,966,691 $1,966,691
Nexus S 4G $3,656,594 $1,828,297 $1,828,297
Replenish $6,700,512 $3,350,256 $3,350,256
Transform $1,906,120 $953,060 $953,060
TOTAL $18,360,249 $9,180,124 $9,180,124

15. The Galaxy Prevail was found to infringe only utility patents. The jurys award of
$57,867,383 for the Galaxy Prevail is 40% of what Apple claimed for Samsungs profits in
PX25A1.5, as shown in the table below:
Product Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple
in PX25A1.5
40% of Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
Jury Award
Galaxy Prevail $144,668,457 $57,867,383 $57,867,383

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-5-
16. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) was found to infringe only utility patents. The jury
awarded $833,076 in damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi), which is higher than the $604,391
Apple sought for lost profits in PX25A1.4. Mr. Musika did not provide a calculation for a
reasonable royalty for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi).
17. The calculations in paragraphs 12, 13, and 15, above, show that the jury awarded
Samsungs profits of $599,859,395 for 11 phones the jury found infringed one or more Apple
design patents; $290,551,283 for five phones the jury found infringed one or more Apple design
patents and diluted Apples registered iPhone trade dress or unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress;
and $57,867,383 for one phone found to infringe only utility patents. The total portion of the
verdict representing Samsungs profits is thus $948,278,061.
18. The calculations in paragraph 13, above, show that $91,132,279 of the verdict
represents Apples lost profits for the five Samsung phones found to infringe one or more design
patents and dilute trade dress.
19. The calculations in paragraph 14 above show that $9,180,124 of the verdict
represents Apple's royalty for five Samsung devices found to infringe only utility patents, namely
the Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.
20. The remaining award of $833,076 in damages was awarded for the Galaxy Tab
10.1 (WiFi).
NOTICE DATES
21. For all smartphones for which Mr. Musika calculated Samsungs profits, except the
Gem and Indulge, Mr. Musika based those calculations on a notice date of June 2010. Mr.
Musika based his calculations for the Gem and Indulge on a notice date of August 4, 2010.
22. Ive been asked to assume that the earliest notice Samsung received of the 915 and
D677 patents and Apple's registered trade dress was Apples filing of the April 15, 2011
complaint, and that the earliest notice Samsung received of the 163, D305, D889, and D087
patents was Apples filing of the June 16, 2011 amended complaint.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-6-
23. Mr. Musika testified regarding the adjustment of his calculation of Samsungs
profits to a later notice date than he assumed, while still crediting his opinion on Samsungs
profitability. (August 13, 2012 Tr. at 2073:21-2074:19.) Specifically, Mr. Musika testified:
Q. Now, with respect to your calculation of Samsung's profits, if the jury
ultimately decides that damages calculation should start at a later date than
the one you used, have you given them enough information that they could
adjust their calculation?
A. Yes.
Q. And where is that information?
A. The information is in two places. One would be the joint exhibit 1500,
which we talked about a little bit earlier, which really is the sum of all the
22 million units and the $8 billion. So we have you have a chronological,
basically you remember how I talked about that being hard to read
because it had individual columns for each quarter? So if the date moves,
you would simply go in along that schedule and say draw a line and say,
well, okay, infringement is not going to start in June of 2010. Its going to
start at a later date. Draw a line, and all the units that were sold before then
would come out of the calculation. You would multiply that revenue times
the 35.5 percent and subtract that from the $2.2 billion number.
(Id. at 2073:21-2074:19.)
24. I note that JX1500 gives quarterly figures for Samsung's revenue. Both April 15,
2011, and June 16, 2011, fall within the second quarter of 2011.
25. I used Mr. Musikas proposed method to adjust for a later notice date by
subtracting from JX1500 sales up to and including the quarter I have been asked to assume
Samsung first received notice of Apple's design patents and trade dress, namely the second quarter
of 2011. This resulted in a $3.34 billion reduction in the total revenue for the five phones found
to infringe one or more design patents and dilute trade dress, and the 11 phones found to infringe
one or more design patents but not to dilute trade dress. This is illustrated in the following table:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-7-
Product Total Revenues in JX1500 Total Revenues in
JX1500 thru Q211
Captivate $525,000,000 $457,000,000
Continuum $112,000,000 $89,000,000
Droid Charge $395,000,000 $241,000,000
Epic 4G $855,000,000 $758,000,000
Fascinate $619,000,000 $601,000,000
Galaxy S 4G $473,000,000 $242,000,000
Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $240,000,000 $0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $561,000,000 $0
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G
Touch)
$764,000,000 $0
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $289,000,000 $0
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $148,000,000 $64,000,000
Gem $64,000,000 $46,000,000
Indulge $98,000,000 $55,000,000
Infuse 4G $417,000,000 $138,000,000
Mesmerize $296,000,000 $205,000,000
Vibrant $444,000,000 $444,000,000
TOTAL $6,300,000,000 $3,340,000,000

REMITTITUR
26. If Apple is not entitled to the $91,132,279 of the verdict representing Apples lost
profits for the five Samsung phones found to infringe one or more design patents and dilute trade
dress, and instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musikas claimed figure for Samsungs profits for these
phones, the jury award would be reduced by $70,034,295 to $311,649,267. In calculating the
amount of this reduction for factoring out lost profits, I used PX25A1.5, which is Mr. Musika's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-8-
calculation of Samsung's profits in the event the jury did not award lost profits. A summary of
my calculations to arrive at the reduction is shown in the table below:
(a) Product (b) Jury Award (c) Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
(d) 40% of
Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple
in PX25A1.5
Difference
Between (b) and
(d)
Fascinate $143,539,179 $267,735,061 $107,094,024 $36,445,155
Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $155,204,780 $62,081,912 $11,262,756
Galaxy S
Showcase (i500)
$22,002,146 $53,518,267 $21,407,307 $594,839
Mesmerize $53,123,612 $114,099,746 $45,639,898 $7,483,714
Vibrant $89,673,957 $188,565,314 $75,426,126 $14,247,831
TOTAL $381,683,562 $779,123,168 $311,649,267 $70,034,295

27. If Apple is not entitled to damages on the 11 phones found to infringe one or more
design patents but not to dilute trade dress from the June 2010 and August 4, 2010 dates assumed
by Mr. Musika, but instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musikas calculation of Samsung's profits
adjusted for notice based on the filing of the complaint (for the D677 patent) and the amended
complaint (for the D087 and D305 patents), the award on these 11 phones would be reduced by
$253,328,000 to $346,531,395. This is shown in the following table:
Product Jury Award 40% of Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5
Adjusted for Notice
Difference
Captivate $80,840,162 $15,946,162 $64,894,000
Continuum $16,399,117 $3,761,117 $12,638,000
Droid Charge $50,672,869 $16,450,869 $34,222,000
Epic 4G $130,180,894 $22,544,894 $107,636,000
Galaxy S II 2 (AT&T) $40,494,356 $40,494,356 $0
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $83,791,708 $83,791,708 $0
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G $100,326,988 $100,326,988 $0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-9-
Product Jury Award 40% of Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple in PX25A1.5
Adjusted for Notice
Difference
Touch)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $32,273,558 $32,273,558 $0
Gem $4,075,585 ($2,456,415) $6,532,000
Indulge $16,011,184 $8,201,184 $7,810,000
Infuse 4G $44,792,974 $25,196,974 $19,596,000
TOTAL $599,859,395 $346,531,395 $253,328,000

28. If Apple is not entitled to lost profits damages on the five phones found to infringe
one or more design patents and dilute trade dress, and is not entitled to damages from the June
2010 date assumed by Mr. Musika, but instead is awarded 40% of Mr. Musikas calculation of
Samsung's profits adjusted for notice dates based on the filing of the complaint (for the D677
patent and trade dress) and the amended complaint (for the D087 and D305 patents), the award
on these five phones would be further reduced by $220,952,000 to $90,697,267, as shown in the
following table:
Product Jury Award 40% of Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
Adjusted for Notice
Difference
Fascinate $143,539,179 $21,752,024 $121,787,155
Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $27,717,912 $45,626,756
Galaxy S Showcase
(i500)
$22,002,146
$12,319,307 $9,682,839
Mesmerize $53,123,612 $16,529,898 $36,593,714
Vibrant $89,673,957 $12,378,126 $77,295,831
Less lost profits
per para. 26
$70,034,295

TOTAL $311,649,267 $90,697,267 $220,952,000

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-10-
29. If Apple is entitled to 5% of the award on the 11 phones found to infringe one or
more design patents but not dilute trade dress, adjusted for Samsungs notice dates as calculated in
paragraph 27 above, 5% of $346,531,395 is $17,326,570.
30. If Apple is entitled to 5% of the award on five phones found to infringe one or
more design patents and dilute trade dress, removing lost profits and adjusted for Samsungs
notice dates as calculated in paragraph 28 above, 5% of $90,697,267 is $4,534,863.
31. The below table is a summary of all the reductions discussed in paragraphs 26 to 30
above.
Product(s) Amount Before
Reduction
Reason for
Reduction
Amount of
Reduction
Amount
Remaining

11 Phones (Design Patent
Only)
$599,859,395 Correct Notice
Dates
$253,328,000 $346,531,395

11 Phones (After Adjustment
for Correct Notice Dates)
$346,531,395 Profits Attributable
to IP (5%)
$329,204,825 $17,326,570

5 Phones (Design Patent &
Trade Dress)
$381,683,562 No Lost Profits $70,034,295 $311,649,267

for No Lost Profits)
$311,649,267 Correct Notice
Dates
$220,952,000 $90,697,267

for No Lost Profits and
Correct Notice Dates)
$90,697,267 Profits Attributable
to IP (5%)
$86,162,404 $4,534,863

Prevail (Utility Patents Only) $57,867,383 No Basis for
Award of
Samsung's Profits
$57,867,383 $0

32. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the back-up worksheets showing
the calculations undertaken to arrive at each of the reductions discussed above.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4971254.1
-11-
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Santa Clara County, California on September 21, 2012.

By: _______________________________________
Michael J. Wagner


Wagner Declaration

EXHIBIT A

1

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Managing Director
J.D., Loyola University School
of Law at Los Angeles (1975)

M.B.A., University of California
at Los Angeles (1971)

B.S. Engineering,
University of Santa Clara
(1969)

Michael Wagner, a Managing Director with LitiNomics, has testified 127 times at trial, 34 times in
arbitration, and 314 times in deposition. He has testified in Federal courts in 18 different states and
in State court in 10 different States. The most frequent subject matters of his expert testimony are
the calculation of commercial damages or business value. He has also testified a number of times
on the subject of alter ego.

EXPERIENCE
2007-Present Managing Director, LitiNomics
20042007 Senior Advisor, CRA International (successor to InteCap, Inc.)
19992004 Managing Director, InteCap, Inc.
1999 Senior Vice President, PHB Hagler Bailly, Inc. (successor to Putnam, Hayes &
Bartlett, Inc.)
19931999 Managing Director, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. (successor to Dickenson,
OBrien & Associates)
19851992 Partner, Price Waterhouse
Senior Manager, 19831985
Manager, 19791980
Consultant, 19761979
19811983 Principal, Dickenson, OBrien & Associates
Associate, 19801981
19751976 Associate Cost Engineer, Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (CURRENT)
Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants - # 1079895
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 2

**Underlined party was my client.

Certified in Financial Forensics - # 23 (2008 current)
CFF Credential Committee (2008 2011)
AICPA Litigation Services Committee (19931995)
AICPA Business Valuation Standards Task Force (19941995)
AICPA and IBA combined Conference Steering Committee (1995)
AICPA MAS Practice Standards and Administration Subcommittee (19881990)
AICPA Auditing Standards Board Litigation Services Task Force (1989)
AICPA 1990 through 1995 Litigation Services Conference Steering Committees
Co-Editor, CPA Expert (19941996)
Certified Public Accountant, State of California - # 30327
Member, State Bar of California - # 67911
Panel of Experts, Dunn on Damages
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (PAST)
Member, Sedona Conference Patent Damages and Remedies Working Group (2011 2012)
Member, American Bar Association
Member, State Bar of California (inactive status 19911995)
Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants
Litigation Services Committee (19851990), Chairman (19871989)
Government Relations Committee (19891990)
Contingent Fee Task Force (19881990)
Member, Oregon Society of Certified Public Accountants
Litigation Services Committee (19901994)
Certified Public Accountant, States of Hawaii (19801983), Washington (19901994), Oregon
(19901994)
Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
Dispute Resolution Services, Sub-chair of Administration Committee (19871989)
NASD Board of Arbitrators
Hastings College of Advocacy, Faculty Expert
NITA, Faculty Member
Certified Management Consultant
American Arbitration Associations Panel of Arbitrators
Arbitration Services of Portland, Inc.
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 3


Academy of Experts
PUBLICATIONS
Book of Wisdom Is it Fact or Fiction, Dunn on Damages The Economic Damages Report for
Litigators, Issue 3, Summer 2011
"A Primer on Patent Damages", Dunn on Damages - The Economic Damages Report for Litigators
and Experts, Issue 2, Spring 2011.
"The 25% Rule Lives On", IP Law 360, September 8, 2010 (co-authored with John Jarosz and Carla
Mulhern)
Response to One Mans Opinion, comments on A New Look at Expected Cash Flows and Present
Value Discounts, CPA Expert, spring 2004 (co-authored with Michael Crain and Bonnie Goldsmith)
Differences between Economic Damages Analysis and Business Valuation, Chapter 13 in the
Handbook of Business Valuation and Intellectual Property Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 2004 (co-
authored with Michael Dunbar)
Litigation Services Handbook (4
th
Edition 2007, 3
rd
Edition 2001, 2
nd
Edition 1995, 1
st
Edition
1990), John Wiley & Sons, (co-edited with Peter B. Frank and Roman L. Weil).
Chapters Co-Authored
4th Edition:
Chapter 1 The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services
Chapter 8 Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations
Chapter 22 Patent Infringement Damages
Chapter 29 Alter Ego
3
rd
Edition:
Chapter 1 The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services
Chapter 5A Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations (2003 Supplement)
Chapter 38 Alter Ego
2
nd
Edition:
Chapter 1 The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services
Chapter10 Alter Ego
Chapter 34 "Patent Infringement Damages
1
st
Edition:
Chapter 1 The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 4


Chapter 31 Securities Act Violations: Computation of Damages
Economic Damages: Use and Abuse of Business Valuation Concepts, Chapter 14 in The
Handbook of Advanced Business Valuation, McGraw-Hill, 1999 (co-authored with John Phillips).
Tax Effects of Discount Rates in Taxable Damage Awards, CPA Expert, winter 1999 (co-authored
with Greg Hallman).
Experience Enhances Objectivity of Damage Estimates, CPA Expert, winter 1997.
Communicating in Litigation Services: Reports, A Nonauthoritative Guide, AICPA Consulting
Services Practice Aid No. 96-3, 1996 (co-authored with Everett P. Harry III). Partially reprinted in
Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits, Volume 2, (5
th
Edition) by Robert L. Dunn.
Court Expands Lost Profits Damages From Patent Infringement, CPA Expert, summer 1996 (co-
authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).
The Implications of Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for CPA-Expert Witnesses,
The CPA Management Consultant Newsletter of the AICPA Management Consultant Division,
spring 1994 (co-authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).
The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedures That Apply to Expert Witnesses, CPA Litigation
Services Counselor, Volume 1994, Issues 2 & 3. Harcourt Brace (February and March 1994).
What Juries Look for in CPAs, Journal of Accountancy (November 1993).
Litigation Services, AICPA MAS Technical Consulting Practice Aid, No. 7 1986 reprinted and
updated as Providing Litigation Services AICPA Consulting Services Practice AID 93-4 (co-
authored with Peter B. Frank) (1993).
Valuation of Intangible Assets, Financial Valuation: Businesses and Business Interests, Warren
Gorham Lamont, 1993 Supplement (co-authored with Lee B. Shepard).
Opportunities in Litigation Services, Journal of Accountancy, (June 1992) (co-authored with Bruce
L. McFarlane).
Economic Damages in Patent Infringement Cases, Patent Litigation 1991, Vol. II, Practicing Law
Institute, Course Handbook Series No. 321 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).
Using CPAs In Your Law Practice, Seattle-King County Bar Bulletin, February 1991 (co-authored
with Bruce L. McFarlane). Reprinted in The Oregon Certified Public Accountant, September 1991,
as The Role of the CPA in Commercial Litigation.
The Accountants Role in the Process of Damage Measurement, The Practical Accountant (July
1990).
How do you Measure Damages? Lost Income or Lost Cash Flow? Journal of Accountancy
(February 1990).
Expert Problems, ABA Litigation Journal, Volume 15, No. 2 (Winter 1989).
How to Control Your Expert, Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report, Volume X, No. 2
(February 1988).
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 5


Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Quarterly Journal, Volume 15, No. 4 1987 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank).
Breach of Duty by Directors, Officers and Principal Shareholders: Shareholder Derivative Actions,
Chapter 63, Commercial Damages, Matthew Bender (1986).
Computers Revolutionize Damage Claim Analysis, The Recorder (June 7, 1984).
Analyzing Damage ClaimsDiscounted Cash Flow Method, The National Law Journal
(August 29, 1983).
The Litigators Ultimate Weapon, Los Angeles Lawyer (May/June 1983) (co-authored with Peter B.
Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).
Committee Publications
Communicating Understandings in Litigation Services: Engagement Letters, AICPA Consulting
Services Practice Aid 95-2 (1995).
Statement on Standards for Consulting Services No. 1, AICPA (October 1991).
Selected Speeches
The Use of Consumer Surveys in Patent Cases for Damage Apportionment, LES 2012 Winter
Meeting, March 13, 2012, Anaheim, CA
Evolving IP Value: Recent Developments in Damages and Licensing, Top IP Retreat, September
16, 2011, Pebble Beach, CA
"Patent Exhaustion", IP Damages Institute, November 8, 2010, Century City, California
"Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case", The 2010 Midwest
Intellectual Property Institute, September 24, 2010, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dos and Donts of Being and Expert Witness, 24
th
Annual Bankruptcy and Restructuring
Conference, Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors, June 7, 2008, Las Vegas,
Nevada
Enforcing the License Agreement, Royalty Audits, Collections, and Litigation The Intellectual
Property Law Section of the State Bar of California, April 9, 2008, San Francisco, California
Effective Presentations of Financial Information at Trial, 2007 Advanced Litigation Conference,
California Society of CPAs, May 3, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada
Discounting Damages to Present Value: Todays Hottest Issues, panelist, Business Valuation
Resources, July 20, 2005, Telephonic Conference
Assessing and Proving Damages from Infringement, panelist, USC Law School 2004 Intellectual
Property Institute, May 25, 2004, Beverly Hills, California
Economic Damages, AICPA National Business Valuation Conference, November 17, 2003,
Phoenix, Arizona
Discovery of Expert Drafts and Notes, Panel Discussion, Advanced Workshop on Calculating &
Proving Patent Damages, Law Seminars International, November 12, 2003, Seattle, Washington
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 6


Calculating and Presenting Lost Profits: The Bread and Butter of Litigation Services and Mock
Arbitration for Lost Profits, panelist on both presentations, AICPA National Conference on
Advanced Litigation Services, October 1, 2003, Miami, Florida
Discount Rates and Taxation Issues in Damages, 2003 Advanced Business Litigation Institute,
California Society of CPAs, May 9, 2003, La Quinta, California
Current Issues in Patent Damages, The Sedona Conference, November 10, 2000, Sedona,
Arizona
Tax Issues in Lost Profits Damage Calculations and panelist for Expert Shootout, or Shoot the
Expert, 2000 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 17, 2000, Beverly
Hills, California
IP Valuation: A Critical Component in Transactional and Litigation Strategy, Silicon Valley
Intellectual Property Law Association, September 20, 2000, Palo Alto, California
Damages, Damages, Damages: Business Damages In Commercial Litigation, 1999 AICPA
National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 18, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia.
Commercial Damages: A Case Study on Lost Profits, 1998 AICPA National Advanced Litigation
Services Conference, October 14, 1998, Tempe, Arizona.
DamagesWhat You Need to Know as Taught by the Experts, 1998 ABA Section of Litigation
Annual Meeting, April 24, 1998, New York, New York.
Expert Witnessing in a Fraud Case, 1997 AICPA National Conference on Fraud, December 8,
1997, San Antonio, Texas.
Advanced Issues in Determining Discount and Growth Rates, 1997 AICPA National Advanced
Litigation Services Conference, October 16, 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada (with Greg Hallman).
Alter Ego and More Effective Testimony, EPA Third Annual Financial Analyst Workshop, May 7
8, 1997, Denver, Colorado.
More Effective Testimony, 1996 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference,
October 1, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Expert Witness, The 1996 AICPA Practitioners Symposium, June 10, 1996, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Calculating Damages, 1996 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely
Held Businesses, January 26, 1996, Orlando, Florida.
Calculating Damages, 1995 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely
Held Businesses, January 26, 1995, Las Vegas, Nevada.
The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure That Apply to Expert Witnesses, 1994 AICPA
National Advanced Litigation Services. Conference, October 20, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona.
Damages In Employment Litigation, Employment And Labor Law In Oregon, Lorman Education
Services, April 29, 1994, Portland, Oregon.
Damages, Time Value of Money and panel participant on Practical Problems of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure No. 26, 1994 Litigation Advanced Forum, California Society of CPAs, April 25,
1994, Monterey, California.
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 7


Patent Infringement/Intellectual Property, 1993 Litigation Services Conference, California Society
of CPAs, December 1, 1993, Los Angeles; December 2, 1993, San Francisco, California.
Expert Witness Depositions, 1993 Oregon Society of CPAs Litigation Support Services
Miniseries, November 17, 1993, Portland, Oregon.
Panel: The Many Roads to Alternative Dispute Resolution and Basic Concepts in Litigation
Services, Fifth Annual AICPA Conference on The CPAs Role in Litigation Services, July 2223,
1993, La Jolla, California.
Professional Standards and Litigation Process/Role of Expert Witness 1993 Litigation Services
Conference, Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants, May 20, 1993, Bellevue,
Washington.
The Deposition of the Expert Witness, Fourth Annual AICPA Conference on The CPAs Role in
Litigation Services, July 17, 1992 Washington, DC; October 23, 1992, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Litigation Services Standards, 1992 Litigation Services Conference, Washington Society of
Certified Public Accountants, May 9, 1992, Silverdale, Washington.
The Litigation Process Through Discovery, 1991 Litigation Services Conference, California Society
of Certified Public Accountants, November 20, 1991, San Francisco; November 21, 1991, Los
Angeles, California.
Professional Standards and Work Papers, Oregon Society of CPAs, Litigation Support Services
Conference, September 27, 1991, Portland, Oregon.
Economic Analysis of Damages: Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties, IRRs
Conference on Securing and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights for Competitive Advantage,
September 26, 1991, San Francisco, California.
How to be a Better Testifying Expert, the Third Annual AICPA Conference on The CPAs Role in
Litigation Services, July 11, 1991, Denver, Colorado; October 10, 1991, Atlanta, Georgia.
Accounting Standards in Litigation SupportCurrent and Future, Colorado Society of CPAs 1990
Litigation Support Conference, December 3,1990, Denver, Colorado.
Mini TrialsNew Work for Experts and Issues in Forensic Accounting, National Forensic
Centers 7th National Conference, December 8, 1990, Palm Springs, California.
Deposition of the Expert, California Society of CPAs 1990 Litigation Services Conference,
November 19, 1990San Francisco; November 20, 1990, Los Angeles, California.
Examining Damage Experts, PLIs Accountants Liability: Trial Strategies Conference, August 10,
1990, San Francisco, California.
Developing Damages: Mock Trial Demonstration, AICPAs Conference on the CPAs Role in
Litigation Services, July 13, 1990, Dallas, Texas; September 7, 1990, Washington, DC.
Lost Profits, Business Interruptions and The Discovery Process, 1990 Litigation Consulting
Conference, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, April 26, 1990, Los Angeles,
California.
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 8


Standards in Litigation Services Engagements and Expert Witness Strategy Tactics, Arizona
Society of CPAs Conference on the CPA as an Expert, September 25, 1989, Phoenix, Arizona.
Damage Management, AICPAs Conference on the CPAs Role in Litigation Support Services,
May 12, 1989, San Francisco; July 11, 1989, Boston; October 27, 1989, Chicago; December 8,
1989, Palm Beach, Florida.
Litigation ServicesDamage Studies, AICPAs 101st Annual Meeting, October 4, 1988, Los
Angeles, California.
Litigation Update, 1988 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of Certified Public
Accountants, September 26, 1988, San Francisco; September 27, 1988, Los Angeles, California.
The Mini-Trial Approach to Dispute Resolution, Los Angeles County Bar Association and the
American Arbitration Association Conference on New Techniques in Dispute Resolution, February
4, 1988, Los Angeles, California.
Damages Issues During Trial, Association of Business Trial Lawyers 14th Annual Seminar,
October 17, 1987, Rancho Mirage, California.
Litigation Services Committee Update, 1987 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of
Certified Public Accountants, September 22, 1987, Los Angeles, California.
Using a CPA in Litigation, 1987 Annual Meeting of the Florida Bar, June 11, 1987, Orlando,
Florida.
Litigation Services, 12th Annual AICPA Small Business Management Advisory Services
Conference, September 910, 1986, Dallas, Texas.
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 9

EXPERT TESTIMONYCOURT (*Indicates number in deposition section if deposition testimony was given)


No. Lawsuit** Court Type Law Firm/Attorneys Work Performed
127. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Samsung Telecommunications America,
LLC Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (2012)*308
U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, San Jose
Division
Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
126. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation
Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)*309
U.S. District Court, District of
Delaware
125. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corpo-
ration Case No. 2:06-CV15139 (2011)*282
U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan
Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom
Damages Analysis
124 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v.
Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No.
3:09cv58 (2011)*285
District of Virginia
Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis
123. Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and
Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139 SC
(2011)*252
District of California, San Fran-
cisco Division
Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis
122. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No.
2:10cv248 (2011)*293
Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
121 Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac-
tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2011)*281
U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston Di-
vision
Theft of trade secrets,
Breach of contract, Tor-
tious Interference with
Prospective Business Re-
lations
Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis
120. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case
No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)*260
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
Smyser Kaplan & Veselka
Damages Analysis
119. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole
Foods Market California and Whole Foods
Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845
(2011)*290
San Joaquin County Superior
Court, California
Breach of contract, Fraud,
Tortious Interference with
Contract.
Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp,
Pallios, Pacher & Silva
Damages Analysis
118. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical
Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc.
Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)*287
U.S. District Court, Western
District of Arkansas, Texarka-
na Division
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 10



117. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger Cleve-
land Golf Company, Inc. Case No.
07CC12309 (2010)*266
Orange County Superior Court,
California
Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
116. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. Case
No. 2-007-CV-279 (2010)*268
District of Texas, Marshall Di-
vision
115. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v.
Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV-
1384 (JVS) (2009)*262
U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, Southern
Division
Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe
Damages Analysis
114. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP Ameri-
ca, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action No.: 2:07-
cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)*261
District of Texas, Marshall Di-
vision
Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP
Fish & Richardson
Ropes & Grey
Damages Analysis
113. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical
Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC
(2009)*255
cisco Division
Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis
112. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc.,
KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University
Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical Group,
Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case No. SA08-
CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)*257
District of Texas, San Antonio
Division
Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson &
Bear
Irreparable Harm
Damages Analysis
eBay Factors
111. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED
(2009)*254
District of Texas, Tyler Division
Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis
110. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International, Inc.
Case No. 05CC06828 (2008)*241
California
Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Bo-
noni
Alter ego analysis
109. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc.
Civil Action 5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated)
(2008)*246
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 11



108. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case NO. CV
07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with
Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727
(2008 and 2011)*240
District of California
Copyright Infringement
Trade Secret Misappropri-
ation
Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Business Valuation
107. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil Action
No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)*244
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis
106. North American Title Company v. Liberty
Title Company Case No. C 06-00187
(2008)*238
Contra Costa County Court,
California
Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea
Chediak
Jackson Lewis
Seyfarth Shaw
Damages Analysis
105. Global Sign, LLC, et al. v. Robert Merto, et
al. Civil Action No. 05 CC 04088 (2008)
California
Unfair Competition Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis
104. Computer Acceleration Corporation v. Mi-
crosoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV-140
(2007)*235
U.S. District Court Eastern
District of Texas Lufkin Divi-
sion
103. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco
Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority, Inc.,
& Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. Case No.
2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)*230
District of Texas Marshall Divi-
sion
Patent Infringement Russo & Hale Damages Analysis
102. Electromotive, Inc. v. Mercury Marine Case
No. 1:06CV1139 (GBL/TRJ) (2007)
Patent Infringement Kaufman & Canoles Damages Analysis
101 Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incor-
porated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS (RNBx)
(2007) *224
U.S. District Court Central Dis-
trict of California, Southern
Division
Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr
Damages Analysis &
Irreparable Harm
100. In re 3dfx Interactive, Inc. and William A.
Brandt, Jr., Trustee v. nVidia Corporation
and nVidia Investment Company Case No.
02-55795 RLE (2007) *213
U.S. Bankruptcy Court North-
ern District of California San
Jose Division
Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Business Valuation
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 12



99. MAN Aktiengesellschaft, et al. v.
DaimlerChrysler AG, Freightliner LLC, et al.
No. 0412-13050 (2006)
Multnomah Circuit Court,
Oregon
Fraud Ball Janik
Alston & Bird
Solvency analysis, Ordinary
Course of Business,
Reasonably Equivalent Val-
ue
98. In the Matter of the George L. Brichetto and
Elizabeth M. Brichetto Living Trust Dated
October 1, 1987, as Amended. Case No.
328789 (2006)
Stanislaus Superior Court,
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp
Pallios Pacher & Silva
Trust Accounting and Dam-
ages Analysis
97. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury
News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB)
(2006) *217
U.S. District Court Northern
Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray
Cary; Sheppard Mullin
Damages Analysis
96. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung Com-
pany, Tatung Company of America, Inc.,
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and View-
Sonic Corporation. Civil Action No. 05-292
(JJF) (2006) *218
U.S. District Court District of
Delaware
Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis
95. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In Motion,
Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02-04483 SI
and C03-0521 SI (2006) *210
cisco Division
Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
Damages Analysis
94. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B.
Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979
(2005) *211
Sacramento Superior Court,
California
Fraud and Breach of
Fiduciary Relationship
Sedgwick Detert Moran &
Arnold
Damages Analysis
Alter Ego Analysis
93. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan-
ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1
(2005) *206
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit Palm Beach
County, Florida
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Punitive Damages
92. Tarik Omari, et al. v. Kindred Healthcare
Operating, Inc. et al. Case No. BC280010
(2005)
Los Angeles Superior Court,
California
Fraud Law Offices of Victor L.
George
Punitive Damages
91. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos.
591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and
0537454-1 (2003) (2005) (2006) *176
Fresno Superior Court, Cali-
fornia
Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp
Pallios Pacher & Silva
Lange Richert & Patch
Parish & Nelson
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 13



90. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Case No. BC 308355 (2005) *205
California
Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James
Rosen
Damages Analysis & Puni-
tive Damages
89. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American
International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas
Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-
2494CW & 97-0378CW (2005) ) *191
Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran &
Arnold
Damages Analysis
88. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood
Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding Trail-
ers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029 (2004)
*203
Eighteenth Judicial Court,
Sedgewick County, Kansas
Trademark Infringement &
Interference with Contract
Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis
87. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc.
v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File
USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *199
Delaware
Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi
Damages Analysis
v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *198
Delaware
Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi
Damages Analysis
85. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer
Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Comput-
er Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft Corpo-
ration No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB) (2004)
*189
District of California Oakland
Division
Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
84. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v.
Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case
No. 03CC06858 (2004) *196
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair &
Compton
Damages Analysis
83. Protocol Services, Inc. v. Evolve Tele-
Services, et al. Case No. 5:03 CV 0174
(2004)
U.S. District Court Western
District of Michigan Southern
Division
Theft of Trade Secret Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
82. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v.
LKoral and Peter Koral Case No. BC
286577 (2004) *193
Los Angeles County Superior
Court, California
Fraud and Breach of Fidu-
ciary Duty
Browne & Woods
Law Offices of Gary
Freedman
Business Valuation
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 14



81. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson
Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM
(2004) *132
District of Iowa
Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi
Damages Analysis
80. Mallinckrodt, Inc., et al. v. Masimo Corpora-
tion Case No. CV 00-6506 MRP (2004)
U.S. District Court Central Dis-
trict of California
Bear
Damages Analysis
79. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. Carlson
Marketing Group, Inc. Case No.
4:01CV1955CDP (2004) *185
District of Missouri, Eastern
Division
Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Mori-
arty & McNett
Damages Analysis
78. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.
V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil Ac-
tion No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) *179
New Jersey
Bear
Damages Analysis
77. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions,
Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2003)
*173
District of Texas, Dallas Divi-
sion
Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P.
OMelveny & Myers
Damages Analysis
76. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry,
et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2003) *163
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
& Punitive Damages
75. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International
Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2003) *164
District of Washington
Patent Infringement Christenson, OConnor,
Johnson & Kindness
Damages Analysis
74. Lowes Home Centers, Inc. v. General Elec-
tric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028
(2002) *135
District of Georgia Rome Divi-
sion
Environmental Contamina-
tion
Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis
73. City of Hope National Medical Center v.
Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152
(2001) & (2002) *154
California
Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
& Punitive Damages
72. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case
No. 997170 (2001) *157
San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady, Robertson & Folk
Damages Analysis
71. True North Composites LLC v. Trinity
Industries Case No. 99-783 (2001)
Delaware
Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis
70. MET-Rx Foundation for Health Enhance-
ment, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC., et al.
Case No. 771551 (2000) *126
California
Breach of Contract Feldhake, August
& Roquemore
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 15



69. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec Securi-
ty, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000) *125
California
Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
68. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No.
SC 049754 (2000) *124
California
Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dor-
man
Damages Analysis
67. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v.
Medtronic, Inc.
Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ)
(1999) *121
District of California, Oakland
Division
Miller & Ciresi
Damages Analysis
66. Trovan, Ltd., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc.
Case No. 98-0094 (1999) *120
Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis
65. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness
Civil No. C94-1586C (1999) *117
Patent Infringement, Un-
fair Competition
Christensen, OConnor,
Johnson & Kindness
Damages Analysis
64. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v.
Truck Insurance Exchange
Case No. 66 2216 (1999) *114
California
Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
63. Airgas, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc.
Case No. 115 (1999)
Common Pleas, First Judicial
District of Pennsylvania
Breach of Contract Cozen & O'Connor Damages Analysis
62. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone
Container Corporation
Case No. BC 188858 (1999) *113
California
Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe
Damages Analysis
61. Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg, Weiss, et al.
No. 92C7768 (1999)
District of Illinois
Abuse of Process Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
60. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al.
Case No. 387467 (1999) *111
San Mateo Superior Court,
California
Breach of Contract Nelson, Greenberg
& Cohen
Damages Analysis
59. 9850 Meadowglen Properties v. A.G.
Spanos Enterprises, Inc.
Case No. BC 084216 (1998) and (1997)
California
Breach of Contract Freeman & Brown Damages analysis
58. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk
GmbH, et al.
Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998) *106
South Carolina, Charleston
Division
Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada
& Witt
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 16



57. Ayre, et al. V. Attwood Corp., et al.
Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998) *103
Circuit Court, County of Kent,
Michigan
Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch;
Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn
& Washburn
Damages Analysis
56. AMETRON v. Entin, et al.
Case No. BC160521 (1998) *101
California
Usurpation of Corporate
Opportunity
Mahoney, Coppenrath,
Jaffe & Pearson
Damages Analysis
55. Koutney v. Exxon Corporation
Case No. CV 748293 (1997)
Santa Clara Superior Court,
California
Unfair Competition McClintock, Weston,
Benshoof, Rochefort,
Rubalvaca & MacCuish
Damages Analysis
54. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems
Corp.
Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997) *95
Unjust Enrichment, Quan-
tum Meruit
Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
53. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation
Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997) *92
2
nd
Judicial District State of
Idaho
Breach of Contract Sacks Montgomery Damages Analysis
52. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin
Vision, Ltd.
Case No. BC 016305 (1997) *91
California
51. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST
Research, Inc.
Case No. 74 82 37 (1996) *79
California
Contract
Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
50. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Management
Services
No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996) *77
District of Ohio, Eastern Divi-
sion
Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure,
Newton & Irvine
Damages Analysis
49. Cook v. Carousel Mall
Case No. SCV 07595 (1996)
San Bernardino Superior
Court, California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
48. Forti v. General Dynamics
No. KC 016871/017393 (1996) *73
California
Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
47. Wilcox & Devineni v. Wilkes-Barre General
Hospital
Case No. 5418-C-1990 (1996)
Court of Common Pleas, Lu-
cerne County, Pennsylvania
Breach of Contract Nash & Company Damages Analysis
46. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software
Civil No. 95WY621 (1996) *72
U.S. District Court of Colorado Tortious Interference with
Contract
Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 17



45. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation
CV-94-1370 SVW (1995) *66
Class Action Securities
Case
Prongay & Mikolajcyk;
Greenfield & Rifkin
Damages Analysis
44. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries
CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995) *64
Arizona
Newton & Irvin;
Cohen & Cotton
Damages Analysis
43. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enterpris-
es, Inc.
BC 093085 (1995) *61
Los Angeles Superior
Court, California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
42. Portland 76 v. UNOCAL, et al.
Case No. 92-1635 (1995)
U.S. District Court
District of Oregon
Breach of Contract Ball, Janik & Novack Damages Analysis
41. Mortorff v. Scotti Bros. Entertainment
No. BC 022503 (1995)
California
Breach of Contract Law Offices of James P.
Tierney
Damages Analysis
40. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf
No. BC069435 (1994) *59
California
Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel,
Urquhart & Oliver
Damages Analysis
39. Castro v. Paine Webber, Inc.
No. 1:94CV65 and No. 1:94CV256 (1994)
Division of Texas
Class Action
Securities Case
Provost & Umphrey Fairness of Settlement
38. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn
Co.
No. BC-013701 (1994) *58
California
Intellectual Property Law Offices of
James P. Tierney
Damages Analysis
37. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger
& Jensen
Civil No. 900903226CV (1994) *55
Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Patent Attorney Malprac-
tice
Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis
36. In re: Information Resources, Inc.
Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994) *53
Case
Freeborn & Peters;
Katten, Muchin & Zavis
Budgeting
35. Lawrence v. Equipment Denis
(1993)
Circuit Court, Multnomah
County, Oregon
Products Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis
34. Georgia Pacific v. Corrugated Partitions, Inc.
(1993)
California
Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Alter Ego Analysis
33. Grice Industries v. Ingman
(1993)
Circuit Court, Lane County,
Oregon
Patent Attorney Malprac-
tice
Williams & Troutwine Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 18



32. Boly v. Boly
(1992)
County, Oregon
Marital Dissolution Gevurtz, Menashe, Hergert,
Larson & Kurshner
Business Valuation
31. Rekdahl v. Owens Illinois
(1992)
California
Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
30. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries
(1992) *42
King County Superior Court,
Washington
Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis
29. Glock v. Owens Illinois
(1991)
Philadelphia County Court,
Pennsylvania
Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
28. Ixsys v. Stratagene
(1991) *38
San Diego Superior Court,
California
Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
27. WSI v. Port of Portland
(1991)
County, Oregon
Breach of Contract Bogle & Gates Damages Analysis
26. Torppe v. Saint Joseph Medical Center
(1991)
Los Angeles, Superior Court,
California
Medical Malpractice Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis
25. Keike v. Owens Illinois (1991) Circuit Court, Hawaii Asbestos Greeley, Walker & Kowen Punitive Damages
24. Gresham v. Warren Tool
(1991)
County, Oregon
Product Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis
23. Ingram v. Owens Illinois
(1990) *36
U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages
22. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC
(1990) *33
Washington
Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis
21. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC)
(1990) *30
California
Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation
20. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp.
(1990) *27
U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom
Damages Analysis
19. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation
Seeds
(1989) *26
U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 19



18. In re: Desert High Foods, Inc.
(1989)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, East-
ern District of California
Bankruptcy Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro
& Quittner
Business Valuation
17. ASD, Ltd. v. Carolina Lanes, Inc.
(1989)
California
Unlawful Detainer Law Offices of Frank
Whitehead
Revenue Analysis
16. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp.
(1989) *25
California
Breach of Implied Warran-
ties, Fraud
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sus-
man
Damages Analysis
15. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines
(1989) *23
District of Florida
Wrongful Death Steven Walker;
Jenner & Block
Damages Analysis
14. Lippman v. Levy
(1989) *22
California
Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation
13. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries
(1989) *20
District of Texas
Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis
12. Challenge/Cook Brothers v. LCB Holdings
(1989)
Federal District Court, Central
Breach of Contract Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation
11. Gursey v. Landon
(1988)
California
Accounting Malpractice Haight, Brown & Bonesteel Professional Standards
10. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) *17 Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence &
Damages Analysis
9. George W. Gaulding, Jr. v. River Downs
Investments Co.
(1988)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central
Bankruptcy, Breach of
Fiduciary Duty
Lobel, Winthrop & Broker Investigatory Accounting
8. Egilsson v. Polarknit
(1987)
Federal District Court, Central
Antitrust Shea & Gould Damages Analysis
7. Newman v. Stutman, Treister & Glatt
(1986)
California
Legal Malpractice Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
6. Stewart v. Stewart
1986)
California
Fraud to Set Aside
Marital Dissolution
Property Settlement
Hunt, Colaw & Roe, Inc. Business Valuation
5. Prowizor v. City of Los Angeles
(1986)
Los Angeles City Administra-
tive Hearing, California
Wrongful Termination Lowe & Marr Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 20



4. Asphalt Specialties, Inc. v. State of Califor-
nia
(1986)
Riverside Superior Court, Cali-
fornia
Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California
Department of Transporta-
tion
Damages Analysis
3. Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Atlantic
Mutual Insurance Co.
1985)
Federal District Court, North-
ern District of California
Breach of Insurance Con-
tract
Irell & Manella Analysis of Reasonableness
of Attorney Fees
2. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian
(1983 and 1988) *3
San Francisco Superior Court,
California
Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
1. Bernstein v. L.A. New Hospital
(1983)
California
Breach of Contract Gold, Herscher, Marks
& Pepper
Damages Analysis

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 21

EXPERT TESTIMONYDEPOSITION (**If Protective Order in place)


No. Lawsuit Court Type Law Firm/Attorneys Work Performed
314. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Mirowski
Family Ventures, LLC Civil Action 1:11-cv-
00736 (2012)**
District of Indiana
Satisfaction of Royalty Ob-
ligation
Finnegan Henderson Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner
Damages Analysis
313. Mee Industries, Inc. v.Wasserman Comden
& Casselman, L.L.P., I Donald Weissman,
David & McElyea, P.A., John McElyea and
D. Paul McCaskill Case No. 2011-CA-
004008-O (2012)
Ninth Judicial District, Orange
County, Florida
Legal Malpractice Hill Ward Henderson Damages Analysis
312. TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony
Corporation; Sony Computer Entertainment
Inc.,; Sony Computer Entertainment Ameri-
ca, Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; and
Sony Electronics Co., Ltd Case No. C 10-
00475 PJH (2012)**
Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
311. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics
North America Corporation and Philips
Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH Civil
Action No. 09-080 (JJF) (2012)**
Delaware
Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
310. Gen-Probe, Incorporated v. Becton, Dickin-
son and Company Case Action No. 09 CV
2319 and 10 CV 0602 BEN (NLS) (2012)**
Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis
Commercial Success
309. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation
Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)**
Delaware
LLC Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (2012)**
District of California, San Jo-
se Division
Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm
Damages Analysis
307. Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc. (f/k/a
NeXT Computer v. Motorola, Inc., and
Motorola Mobility, Inc. Case No. 1:11-CV-
08540 (2012)**
306. iHance, Inc. v. Eloqua Limited and Eloqua
Corporation Case no. 2:11 CV 257
(MSD/TEM) (2012)**
Patent Infringement Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 22



305. CooperVision Inc. v. CIBA Vision A.G.
Docket No. 50-122-T-00363-11 (2012)**
American Arbitration Associa-
tion International Centre for
Dispute Resolution
Breach of Patent License Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
304. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical
Corporation, Fugro-Geoteam, Inc., Fugro-
Geoteam AS, Fugro Norway Marine Ser-
vices AS, Fugro, Inc., Fugro (USA), Inc.,
and Fugro Geoservices, Inc. Civil Action
No. 4:09-cv-1827 (2012)**
District of Texas, Houston
Division
Patent Infringement Royston Raynor Damages Analysis
303. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants,
Inc. v. Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Toshiba,
Lenovo, and Acer Civil Action No. 09-353-
JJF, 09-704-JJF, and 10-282-LPS (2012)**
Delaware
Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer
PLLC
Damages Analysis
302. Technology & Intellectual Property Strate-
gies Group PC v. Basil P. Fthenakis and
Cambridge CM, Inc. Case No. CV 11-
02373 CRB (2012)**
District of California, San
Francisco Division
Copyright, Trademark,
Conversion, Labor Code
Violations & Breach of Con-
tract
Law Office of William Milks Damages Analysis
301. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyoma Part-
ners, LLC, Peter Pau d/b/a Sand Hill Prop-
erty Company, Peter Pau, Sand Hill Prop-
erty Management Company, Susanna Pau,
and Capella-Mowry, LLC Case No. CV-10-
0325 SI (2011)**
Breach of Contract and
Unfair Competition
Fox Rothschild LLP Alter Ego and Damages
Analysis
300. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v.
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. Civil
Action No. 3:11-cv-00819-J-32-JRK
(2011)**
U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Jackson-
ville Division
299. Datel Holdings, Ltd. And Datel Design &
Development, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Case No. CV-09-5535 EDL (2011)**
Francisco Division
Theft of Trade Secret, Cop-
yright, Trademark
Howard Rice Nemerovski,
Canady, Falk & Rabkin
Damages Analysis
298. Whirlpool Corporation and Maytag Corpo-
ration v. Sensata Technologies, Inc. and
Texas Instruments, Inc. Case No. 09 L
1022 (2011)
Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois
Product Liability Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 23



297. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)** American Arbitration Associa-
tion- New York
Breach of Patent Transfer
Agreement
Schnader Harrison Segal and
Lewis LLP
Damages Analysis
LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (2011 and
2012)**
se Division
Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm &
Damages Analysis
295. HTC Corporation et al. v. IPCom GmbH &
Co., KG 1:08:cv-01897-RMC (2011)**
Columbia
Patent Infringement Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Damages Analysis
294. Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility,
Inc. 1:10-CV-24063 Moreno (2011)**
District of Florida
Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis
293. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No.
2:10cv248 (2011)**
Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
Commercial Success
292. Starcrest Products of California v. Millenni-
um Corporate Solutions and Lexington In-
surance Company Case No. RIC 434493
(2011)**
Riverside County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Contract Law Office of David Gerber Damages Analysis
291. Tamrarack Scientific Co., Inc. v. Ultratech,
Inc. Case No. RIC450454 (2011)**
Riverside County Superior
Court, California
Malicious prosecution Thompson & Knight
Hale & Associates
Damages Analysis
290. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole
Foods Market California and Whole Foods
Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845
(2011)
San Joaquin County Superior
Court, California
Breach of contract, Fraud,
Contract.
Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Palli-
os, Pacher & Silva
Damages Analysis
289. Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP Civil Action
No. 3:08-CV-119 (2011)**
District of Texas
Theft of Trade Secrets
288. Tecsec, Inc. v. International Business
Machines Corp. Case No. 1:10-cv-115-
LMB/TCB (2010}**
Patent Infringement Hunton & Williams Damages Analysis
287. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical
Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc.
Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)**
District of Arkansas, Texarka-
na Division
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 24



286. Lectec Corporation v. Chattem, Inc. and
Prince of Peace Enterprises, Inc. Case No.
5:08-cv-00130-DF (2010)**
District of Texas, Texarkana
Divison
Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer Damages Analysis
285. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v.
Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No.
3:09cv58 (2010)**
Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis
284. Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion,
Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, and In-
fineon Technologies North America Corp.
Case No. CV 08-5129 JCS (2010)**
Patent Infringement Farella Braun & Martel Commercial Success
283. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung
Electronics Co., et al. Civil Action No. CV-
08-0986-SI (2010)**
Francisco Division
Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
282. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics
Corporation Civil Action No. 2:06-15139
(ADT)(MKM) (2010 and 2011)**
District of Michigan
Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom
Damages Analysis
Commercial Success
281. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac-
tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2010)**
Division
Theft of trade secrets,
Breach of contract, Tortious
Interference with Prospec-
tive Business Relations
280. Thomas Weisel Partners LLC & Thomas
Weisel International Private Limited v. BNP
Paribas, BNP Paribas Securities (Asia)
Limited, and Praveen Chakravarty Case
No. 3:07-cv-06198 MHP (2010)**
Francisco Division
Theft of Trade Secrets,
Intentional Interference with
Contract, Breach of Fiduci-
ary Duty
Howard Rice Nemerovski,
Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Kyocera Communica-
tions, Inc., and Kyocera Wireless Corpora-
tion Civil Action No. 06-404-JJF-LPS
(2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 25



278. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semi-
conductor International, Inc., Fairchild
Semiconductor Corporation, and Systems
General Corporation Civil Action No. 08-09-
JFF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
Patent Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Research In Motion, LTD., Research
In Motion Corp., and General Imaging Co.
Civil Action No. 08-371-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
276. Rosetta Stone Ltd. V. Google, Inc. Civil
Action No. 1:09CV736 GBL/JFA (2010)**
Trademark Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Inc. v Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm
Corporation, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., Fuji
Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., Fujifilm U.S.A.,
Inc., and Fujifilm America Inc. No. 08-373-
JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (now known as Panasonic Corpora-
tion), Matsushita Corporation of America
(now known as Panasonic Corporation of
North America), Victor Company of Japan,
Ltd. And JVC Company of America No. 04-
1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company Civil Ac-
tion No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.
Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 26



Inc. v. HTC Corporation, H.T.C. (B.V.I.)
Corp., and HTC America, Inc. Civil Action
No. 06-404-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Delaware
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
270. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Marvell Asia
PTE., LTD., and Marvel International, LTD
v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation Civil Action No.
6:07-CV-204 (LED) (2010)**
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Townsend and Townsend and
Crew
Damages Analysis
269. Codonics, Inc. v. DatCard Systems, Inc.
Case No. 1:08CV1885 (2010)**
District of Ohio
False advertising, False
Patent Marking
Law offices of Michael W. Kin-
ney
Damages Analysis
268. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.
Case No. 2-007-CV-279 (2009)**
District of Texas, Marshall
Division
267. Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications,
Inc. & VTech Telecommunications, Ltd.
Case No. 5:07-CV-00171-DF-CMC
(2009)**
Division
Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis
266. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger
Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. Case No.
07CC12309 (2009)**
Orange County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
265. MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. BTG
International, Inc. Case No. 108CV109292
(2009)**
California
Breach of Contract Korda Johnson & Wall Damages Analysis
264. Aircraft Technical Publishers v. Avantext,
Inc. Case No. C 07-4154 SBA (2009)**
Division
263. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. True Fitness
Technology, Inc. Case No. 5:08-CV-00026
(2009)**
Division
Patent Infringement Workman Nydegger Damages Analysis
262. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v.
Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV-
1384 (JVS) (2009)**
Division
Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 27



261. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP
America, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action
No.: 2:07-cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)**
District of Texas, Marshall
Division
Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP Damages Analysis
260. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling,
Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case
No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)**
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
Smyser Kaplan & Veselka
Damages Analysis
259. The Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors v. Asarco, LLC Case No. 05-
21207 (2009)**
United States Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of
Texas
Alter Ego Baker Botts Alter Ego Analysis
258. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters
of Charity Health System v. Hector C. Ra-
mos, M.D., Hector C. Ramos, M.D., Inc.,
Richard R. Lopez, Jr., M.D., and Richard R.
Lopez, Jr. M.D. Inc. Case No. 1220037027
(2009)
JAMS Fraud, Negligence, Breach
of Fiduciary Duty
Jones Day Damages Analysis
257. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc.,
KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University
Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical
Group, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case
No. SA08-CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)**
District of Texas, San Antonio
Division
Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Irreparable Harm
256. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems,
Inc. Civil Action No. 6-07CV-048 (2009)**
District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
sion
Patent Infringement The Roth Firm Damages Analysis
255. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical
Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC
(2009)**
Francisco Division
Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis
254. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED (2009)**
District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
sion
253. Finmeccanica S.p.A. and Ansaldo Ricerche
S.p.A. v. General Motors Case No. 07-
08222 SJO (PJWx) and No. 07-07537 SJO
(PJWx) (2009)**
District of California, Western
Division
Trade Secret Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 28



252.

Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and
Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139
SC (2008)
Francisco Division
Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis
251. Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. American Stores
Company, LLC, New Albertsons, Inc., Al-
bertsons LLC, and Save Mart Supermar-
kets. Civil Action No. C06-2173 JSW
(2008)**
Francisco Division
Trademark Infringement Craigie, McCarthy & Clow
Pirkey Barber LLP
Damages Analysis
250. Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute
of Technology v. Compaq Computer Corp.
and Seagate Technology LLC Case No. 00
Civ. 5141 GBD (2008)**
District of New York
Patent Infringement Cadwalader, Wickersham and
Taft
Damages Analysis
249. Intel Corporation and Dell, Inc. v.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation Civil Action No.
6:06CV550 (2008)**
District of Texas
Crew
Damages Analysis
248. Ainsworth Engineered (USA) LLC et al v.
Advanced Manufacturing Corporation et al
Case No. 1:07 CV 00909 CAB (2008)**
District of Ohio
Product Liability Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis
247. Vanguard Products Group v. Merchandis-
ing Technologies, Inc. Case No. 07-1405-
BR (2008)**
Oregon
Patent Infringement Stoll Berne Damages Analysis
246. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc.
and Herbalife International, Inc. Civil Action
5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated) (2008)**
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis
245. Oracle Corporation v. epicRealm Licensing,
L.P. Civil Action No. 06-cv-414 SLR
(2008)**
Delaware
Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
244. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil
Action No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)**
District of Texas
Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis
243. Brent Williams, As Plan Trustee for Touch
America Holdings, Inc. v. Robert P. Gan-
non, et al. Cause No. DV-2-201 (2008)**
Montana Second Judicial
District Court, Silver Bow
County
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Winston & Strawn Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 29



242. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories,
Inc., and Abbott Pharmaceuticals PR Ltd.
V. Sandoz, Inc. Civil Action No. 05 C 5373
(2008)**
Patent Infringement Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
241. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International,
Inc. Case No. 05CC06828 (2008)
Court, California
Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Bononi Alter ego analysis
240. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case No. CV
07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with
Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727
(2008, 2010, and 2011)**
Copyright Infringement
Trade Secret Misappropria-
tion, RICO
Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
239. Comcast Cable Communication
Corporation, LLC v. Finisar Corporation
Case No. C-06-04206-WHA (2008)**
Francisco Division
Patent Infringement Morgan & Finnegan Damages Analysis
238. North American Title Company v. Liberty
Title Company Case No. C 06-00187
(2008)**
Contra Costa County Court,
California
Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea Chediak
Jackson Lewis
Seyfarth Shaw
Damages Analysis
237. Eastman Kodak Company v. St. Clair
Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc., et al.
Case No. 1-05-CV-039164 (2008)**
Santa Clara County Court,
California
Slander of Title Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
236. Diana Gabriel, et al. v. Verizon
Communications Inc., et al. Case No. 04
CC 00591 (2007)
Court, California
Breach of Contract Paul Hastings Janofsky &
Walker
Damages Analysis
235. Computer Acceleration Corporation v.
Microsoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV-
140 (2007)**
District of Texas Lufkin Divi-
sion
234. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Factory
Mutual Insurance Company Case No. 04-
CV-02791 (2007)**
U.S. District Court Southern
Business Interruption Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
233. Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft
Corporation Case No. 2:06-cv-00703-JCC
(2007)**
District of Washington at
Seattle
Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 30



232. Polycom, Inc. and Polycom Israel, Ltd. v.
Codian Ltd. And Codian, Inc. Case No. 2-
05CV-520 DF (2007)**
District of Texas Marshall
Division
231. ISP.NET LLC d/b/a IQuest Internet v.
Qwest Communications International, Inc.
Case No. IP01-0480 C B/S (2007)**
District of Indiana Indianapolis
Division
Trademark Infringement Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver Damages Analysis
230. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco
Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority,
Inc., & Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc. Case
No. 2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)**
Division
229. Timeline, Inc. v. Proclarity Corporation and
Microsoft Corporation Case No. CV05-
1013JLR (2007)**
District of Washington at Se-
attle
Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Damages Analysis
228. David Gill, Post Confirmation Trustee for
the Estate of Lyon & Lyon v. Orrick, Her-
rington & Sutcliffe, LLP, et al. Case No. LA-
03-10365-VZ (2007)**
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California
Los Angeles Division
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howard Rice Nemerovski,
Damages Analysis
227. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Sales
Corporation, Mirowski Family Ventures,
LLC, and Anna Mirowski v. St. Jude Medi-
cal, Inc. and Pacesetter, Inc. Civil No. 1:96-
CV-1718-DFH/TAB (2007)**
District of Indiana, Indianapo-
lis Division
Patent Infringement Finnigan Henderson Farabow
Barrett & Dunner LLP
Damages Analysis
226. Creative Concepts Software, Inc. and ITEK
Services, Inc. v. MobileTech Solutions, Inc.
Case No. SA CV 05-00670 DOC (MLGx)
(2007)**
U.S. District Court Central
Division
Breach of contract The Feldhake Law Firm Damages Analysis
225. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.
v. Chi MEI Optoelectronics Corp., Interna-
tional Display Technology Co., Ltd., Inter-
national Display Technology USA, Inc.,
Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC and
CTX Technology Corp. C04-4675 RS
(2007)**
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 31



224. Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm
Incorporated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS
(RNBx (2007)**
Division
Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr
Damages Analysis
v. Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp.; Samsung
Techwin Co., Ltd.; Samsung
Optoelectronics America, Inc.; Matsunichi
Hi-Tech Ltd.; and Matsunichi Hi-Tech
(USA), Inc. Case No. CV 04-4783 TJH
(2006)**
222. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom
Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1662 B (BLM)
(2006)**
Dorr
Damages Analysis
221. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom
Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1958 (2006)**
Dorr
Damages Analysis
220. The Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., Case No. 02-1420 RSM
(2006)**
U.S. District Court of Western
Trademark Infringement Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar-
maro
Damages Analysis
219. Moss, et al. v. Veneco et al. Case No.
297083 (2006)
California
Mass Tort Gallagher & Gallagher; Steptoe
& Johnson
Alter Ego
218. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung
Company, Tatung Company of America,
Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and
ViewSonic Corporation. Civil Action No.
05-292 (JJF) (2006)**
Delaware
Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis
217. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury
News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB)
(2006)
Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary Damages Analysis
216. Dey, L.P. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Eon Labs, Inc. Case Nos. SACV 04-
00079 CJC (FMOx) and SACV 04-00243
CJC (FMOx) (2006)**
District of California Southern
District
Patent Infringement Hennigan Bennett & Dorman Commercial Success
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 32



215. McKesson Information Solutions LLC v.
The Trizetto Group, Inc. Civil Action No. 04-
1258 (2005)**
District of Delaware
Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom
Damages Analysis
214. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.
v. Advanced Bionics Corporation Civil Ac-
tion No. 4:04cv131 (Brown) (2005)**
District of Texas Sherman
Division
Patent Infringement Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis
213 Trustee in Bankruptcy for 3dfx v. NVIDIA
Corp. Case No. 02-55795 JRG (2005) **
U.S. Bankruptcy Court North-
ern District of California San
Jose Division
Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Fields &
Younger
Business Valuation
212 John R. Jamison v. Olin Corporation-
Winchester Division; U.S. Repeating Arms
Co., Inc,; Browning; Browning Arms Co.;
and G.I. Joes Case No. 3-03-01036-KI
(2005)**
Oregon
Patent Infringement Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting &
Shlachter
Damages Analysis
211. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B.
Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979
(2005)
California
Fraud and Breach of
Fiduciary Relationship
Sedgwick Detert Moran &
Arnold
Damages Analysis
Alter Ego Analysis
210. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In
Motion, Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02-
04483 SI and C03-0521 SI (2005)**
Francisco Division
Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman
Damages Analysis
209. Network Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc
Corporation Case No. C 03-05665 MHP
(2005)**
Francisco Division
Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis
208. Teri J. McDermott, CMI, et al. v. Advanstar
Communications, Inc. Case No. 1:98 CV
515 (2005)
sion
Copyright Infringement Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis
207. Storage Technology Corporation v.
Quantum Corporation Civil Action No. 03-
M-0672 PAC (2005)**
Colorado
Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis
206. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan-
ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1
(2005)
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit Palm Beach
County, Florida
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Business Valuation
Punitive Damages Anal-
ysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 33



205. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Case No. BC 308355 (2005)
California
Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James Rosen Damages Analysis
204. Intergraph Hardware Technologies
Company v. Hewlett Packard Civil Action
No. 2-02CV-312 TJW (2004)**
Division
203. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood
Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding
Trailers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029
(2004)**
Eighteenth Judicial Court,
Sedgewick County, Kansas
Trademark Infringement &
Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis &
Alter Ego Analysis
202. LiveWorld, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc., MatchNet
PLC, et al. Case No. 1-01-CV799864
(2004)**
Santa Clara County Superior
Court, California
Fraudulent Transfer Bergeson, LLP Alter Ego Analysis
201. Comdisco, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc.,
MatchNet, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 800 611
(2004)**
Santa Clara County Superior
Court, California
Fraudulent Transfer Winston & Strawn Alter Ego Analysis
200. Everything For Love, Inc. v. Tender Loving
Things, Inc., D/B/A The Happy Company
Case No. CIV-02-2605-P:HX-EHC (2004)**
Arizona
Patent Infringement Law Offices of A. Peter Rausch Damages Analysis
v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File
USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **
Arizona
& Ciresi
Damages Analysis
v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **
Arizona
197. Kathy Papale v. Pacific Bell Directory
Company, Pacific Telesis, SBC
Communications, et al. Case No.
2002055171 (2004)
Alameda County Superior
Court, California
Sex and Age Discrimination Pillsbury Winthrop Damages Analysis
196. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v.
Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case
No. 03CC06858 (2004)
Court, California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair &
Compton
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 34



195. Marjorie Bright and Edward Bright v. The
Bright Family Foundation, et al. Case No.
274513 (2004)**
Stanislaus County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios
Pacher & Silva
Damages Analysis
194. Misha Consulting Group, Inc. d/b/a
eBusiness Design v. Source Medical
Solutions, Inc. Case No. CO2 04908 JW
(HRL) (2004)
District of California San Jose
Division
Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Damages Analysis
193. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v.
LKoral and Peter Koral Case No. BC
286577 (2004)
Los Angeles County Superior
Court, California
Fraud and Breach of Fidu-
ciary Duty
Browne & Woods
Law Offices of Gary Freedman
Business Valuation
192. Neoris de Mxico, S.A. de C.V., v. Ariba,
Inc. Case No. C 02 1670 JSW (2004)**
District of California San
Francisco Division
Damages Analysis
191. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American
International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas
Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-
2494CW & 97-0378CW (2004)
Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Ar-
nold
Damages Analysis
190. TV Interactive Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
Case No. 02 C 02385 (SBA) (2004)**
Division
189. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer
Entertainment America, Inc., Sony
Computer Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft
Corporation No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB)
(2004) **
Division
188. Kelly-Moore Paint Company v. Union
Carbide Corporation No. 19785-BH02
(2004) **
District Court of Brazoria
County Texas 23rd Judicial
District
Products Liability Weil Gotshal & Manges Business Valuation
187. Kaiser Aerospace Electronics v. Teledyne
Industries, et al. Case No. 95-05288 CA 15
(2003) and (2005)**
11th Circuit Court Miami-
Dade County Florida
Breach of Contract Weil Gotshal & Manges Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 35



186. The Profit Recovery Group, Inc. v. Neil
Loder & Associates, et al. Case No CV 01-
6200 AN (2003)**
Division
Trademark & Theft of Trade
Secret
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
185. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v.
Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. Case No.
4:01CV1955CDP (2003)**
District of Missouri, Eastern
Division
Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty &
McNett
Damages Analysis
184. Hauselmann v. Hauselmann Case No.
307662 (2003)
Stanislaus County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Contract Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios
Pacher & Silva
Business Valuation
183. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Fidelity National
Information Solutions, Inc. & Vista Infor-
mation Solutions, Inc. Case No.
02CC02336 (2003)
Court, California
Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson &
Rauth
Damages Analysis
182. Winn Incorporated & Ben Huang v. Eaton
Corporation. Case No: CV03-1568-SJO
(2003)**
Western Division
Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
Damages Analysis
V. Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and AU
Optronics Corp. Case No. C 02-02800
WHA (2003)**
San Francisco Division
180. Cambrian Consultants, Inc. et al. v. Stuart
Lubitz & Hogan & Hartson LLP Case No.
BC 271707 (2003)
California
Patent Attorney Malpractice Alschuler Grossman Stein &
Kahan
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Damages Analysis
179. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc.
V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil
Action No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) **
New Jersey
178. Deltakor Investments, Inc. v. Carl Karcher,
et al. Case No. 01-CC13626 (2003)
Court, California
Rauth
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 36



177. Fonovisa, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No.
02 CV 8614 JSR (2003)**; Fonomusic, Inc.
v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8617
JSR (2003)**; HMS Distributors, Inc. et al.
JSR (2003)**; Musical Productions, Inc. et
al. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8618
JSR (2003)**
Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges
Damages Analysis
176. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos.
591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and
0537454-1 (2003) (2005)
Fresno Superior Court, Cali-
fornia
Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios
Pacher & Silva
Lange Richert & Patch
Parish & Nelson
Damages Analysis
175. BCE Emergis, Inc. v. Ariba, Inc. Civil Action
No. C01-21221 PVT (2003) **
se Division
Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski
Canady Falk & Rabkin
Damages Analysis
174. Bob Dylan, Billie Joel, James Taylor, et al.
(JSR) (2003) **
Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges
Damages Analysis
173. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions,
Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2002)**
District of Texas, Dallas Divi-
sion
Breach of Contract Baker & Botts
OMelveny & Myers
Damages Analysis
172. Robert Carver and Diana Carver v.
Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. Civil Action No.
C00-1194L (2002)**
Patent Infringement Christenson, OConnor, John-
son & Kindness
Damages Analysis
171. Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. et al. v.
Ford Motor Company Civil Action No. 99
CV 741 (JCL) 2002
New Jersey
Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Girard
Damages Analysis
170. Feltheimer v. Sony Corporation of America,
et al. Case No. BC-244836 (2002)
California
169. Booneville Convalescent Center, Inc. v.
Cloverleaf Healthcare Services, Inc., et al.
Cause No. 32D01-0204-CC-38 (2002)
Superior Court of Hendricks,
County, Indiana
Breach of Contract Leeuw & Doyle Alter Ego and Damages
Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 37



168. Superior National Insurance Group v.
Foundation Health Corporation, et al. Case
No. 02 CV 5155 (2002) (2003)
Division
Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher
& Flom
Business Valuation and
Damages Analysis
167. United States of America ex rel. William
Gilliam v. General Dynamics Corporation
Case No. 2:01-3023-18 (2002)
Division
Qui Tam Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
166. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Elan
Transdermal Technologies, Inc. Case No.
01-1120-CIV-MOORE (2002)**
District of Florida, Miami Divi-
sion
165. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University,
College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case
No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)**
tion
Rauth
Damages Analysis
164. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International
Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2002)**
son & Kindness
Damages Analysis
163. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry,
et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2002 and
2003)
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
162. Cyberspace Headquarters, LLC v.
MacMillan USA, Inc, Case No. 00 CV 9764
CBM (JWJx) (2001)**
Lanham Act Mahoney Coppenrath Jaffe &
Pearson
Damages Analysis
161. Tri Valley Growers v. Oracle Corporation
(2001)
San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis
160. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262
00 (2001)
tion
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts
Townsend and Townsend and
Crew
Damages Analysis
Due Diligence
159. Idea Man v. Silver & Freedman, Case No.
BC235669 (2001)
California
Legal Malpractice Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
158. Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation,
CIV 97-N-3023-NE (2001)**
District of Alabama
Crew
Damages Analysis
157. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case
No. 997170 (2001)
San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 38



156. Berclain America Latina, S.A., et al. v.
Baan Company, et al. Case No. 403080
(2001)**
California
Intentional Interference with
Contract
Townsend and Townsend and
Crew
Damages Analysis
155. Modesto City Schools, Stockton Unified
School District. V. Riso Kagaku Corporation
CIV S-99-2214 FCD/GGH (2001)**
Antitrust Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Girard
Damages Analysis
154. City of Hope National Medical Center v.
Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152
(2001) (2002)**
California
153. Zomba v. MP3.com Case Nos. 00 CIV
6831 and 6833 (2001)**
Copyright Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
152. Marconi Communications, Inc. v. Vidar-
SMS Co. Civil No. CV-1293-L (2001)**
U.D. District Court Northern
District of Texas
Theft of Trade Secret
Breach of Indemnity
Agreement
Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
151. In re: BankAmerica Corp. Securities
Litigation MDL No. 1264 (2001)**
District of Missouri
Litigation
Green Schaaf & Jacobson Damages Analysis
150. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation
Case No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001)
tion
Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
149. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v.
Dynamic Details, Inc. and GSI Lumonics,
Inc. Case No. SACV00-272 AH (2001)
District of California Southern
Division
148. Farallon Capital Partners, L.P. v. Gleacher
& Co. Inc. Case No. BC 215260 (2001)
California
Misrepresentation Hennigan Bennet & Dorman Alter Ego Analysis
147. Flying J Inc. et al. v. Comdata Network, Inc.
and Trendar Corporation Civil No.
1:96CV0066K (2001)**
Utah Northern Division
Antitrust Bendinger Crockett Peterson &
Casey
Stokes Bartholomew Evans &
Petree
Damages Analysis
146. Process Specialties, Inc. v. Sematech, Inc.
Case No.: CIV-S-00-414 (2001 and 2002)**
Antitrust Herum, Crabtree, Brown,
Dwyer, Zolezzi & Terpstra
Damages Analysis
145. Re/Max of California & Hawaii v. Robert
Lesh, et al. No. BC186234 (2001)
California
Breach of Contract Lewis, DAmato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard
Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 39



144. True Fitness Technology, Inc. v. Precor
Incorporated Case No. 4:99 CV1306-DJS
(2001)**
District of Missouri
son & Kindness
Damages Analysis
143. TeeVee Toons, Inc., et al v. MP3.com, Inc.
Case No. 00 CIV. 3951 (JSR) (2000)**
Copyright Infringement Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
142. Marketel v. priceline.com, Inc. Case No. C-
99-0161 CAL (2000)**
Theft of Trade Secret Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
Damages Analysis
141. Venture Industries Corporation, et al. v.
Masco Tech, et al. No. 99-07219-CK
(2000)
Circuit Court For The County
of Kent, Michigan
140. Perry v. Miller Wagner & Co. Case No. CV
98-11591 (2000)
Superior Court, State of Ari-
zona, County of Maricopa
Professional Malpractice Mower, Koeller, Nebeker,
Carlson & Haluck
Standard of Care and
Damages Analysis
139. Lussier Subaru, et al. v. Subaru of New
England, Inc., et al Case No. C-99-109-B
(2000) **
New Hampshire
Class Action Wiggin & Nourie
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Girard
Damages Analysis
138. Optical Solutions, Inc. v. Michael S. Hawes
and Associates Case No. 99AS05264
(2000)
California
Professional Malpractice Law Offices of Richard H. Hart Damages Analysis
137. St Lukes Hospital v. California Pacific Med-
ical Center No. 300518 (2000)**
San Francisco Superior
Court, California
Unfair Competition Antitrust Townsend and Townsend and
Crew
Damages Analysis
136. Pactiv Corporation v. S.C. Johnson, Inc.
Case No. 98C-2679 (2000)**
135. Lowes Home Centers, Inc. v. General
Electric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028
(2000) & (2001) **
District of Georgia Rome Di-
vision
Environmental Contamina-
tion
Williams &Connolly Damages Analysis
134. MicroGuild, Inc. v. Netscape
Communications Corporation No.
CV774054 (2000) **
California
Fraud Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
133. Rush Hour Music, L.L.C. v. Magix
Entertainment Corp. Case No. 2:99cv1003
(2000) **
District of Virginia Norfolk
Division
Patent Infringement Fellers, Snider, Blankenship,
Bailey & Tippens
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 40



132. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson
Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM
(2000) **
District of Iowa
Miller & Ciresi
Damages Analysis
131. Guzik Technical Enterprises v. KMY
Instruments, Inc. Case No. CV762875
(2000) **
California
Theft of Trade Secret Gray, Cary, Ware & Friedenrich Damages Analysis
130. Merchandise Mart Owners, LLC v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance, Co. Case No.
98 CH 3566 (2000) **
Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois
129. Winkler Forming, Inc., PMC, Inc. v. Lewis
Anten Case No. BC 194 364 (2000)
California
Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, DAmato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard
Damages Analysis
128. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata,
Inc. (2000)
CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor, John-
son & Kindness
Damages Analysis
127. Topanga and Victory Partners, L.P., et al.
v. Jones, et al. Case No. LC 038853 (2000)
California
Breach of Contract Hamburg, Hanover, Edward &
Martin
Alter Ego Analysis
126. MET-Rx Foundation for Health
Enhancement, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC.,
et al. Case No. 771551 (2000)
Court, California
Breach of Contract Feldhake, August
& Roquemore
Damages Analysis
125. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec
Security, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000)
California
Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
124. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No.
SC 049754 (2000)
California
Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman Damages Analysis
123. Placerita Oil Company, Inc. v. Berry Oil
Trading & Transportation Co., et al. Case
No. PC 017079 Z (1999) **
California
Breach of Contract Norman, Cormany,
Hair & Compton
Damages Analysis
122. GATX/Air log Company, and GATX Capital
v. Evergreen, Ellsinore, et al. Civil Action
No. C 96-2494 WHO (1999) (2000) **
Breach of Contract Murphy, Sheehan,
Julian & Rogers
Alter Ego Analysis
121. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v.
Medtronic, Inc.
Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ)
(1999)
Division
Miller & Ciresi
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 41



120. Trovan, Ltd, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
Case No. 98-0094 (1999)
Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis
119. Norfolk Southern Railroad v. Flexivan &
Dole Case No. 99 Civ. 055 WHP HBP
(1999)
Breach of Contract OMelveny & Myers Damages Analysis
118. Bitner, et al., v. Bayshore, et al. Case No.
771246 (1999)
Court, California
Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary
Duty
Law Offices of Jay Seltzer Damages Analysis
117. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness
Civil No. C94-1586C (1999)
Patent Infringement, Unfair
Competition
Christensen, OConnor, John-
son, Kindness
Damages Analysis
116. Salant v. Spensley, Horn, Jubas & Lubitz
Case No. SC033055 (1999)
California
Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, DAmato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard
Damages Analysis
115. Susman v. GTE Information Services, Inc.
Case No. 97-06677 (1999) **
44th Judicial District, Dallas
County, Texas
Breach of Contract Baker & Botts Business Valuation
114. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v.
Truck Insurance Exchange
Case No. 66 2216 (1999)
Court, California
Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
113. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone
Container Corporation
Case No. BC 188858 (1999)
California
Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe
Damages Analysis
112. Imatec, Ltd, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Civil Action No. 98 CV 1058(JGK) (1999) **
Patent Infringement Fenwick & West Damages Analysis
111. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al.
Case No. 387467 (1999)
California
& Cohen
Damages Analysis
110. ProCom Marketing v. Prestolite Wire Corp.
Case No. C-96-20978 JF PVT (1998) **
U.S District Court, Northern
Theft of Trade Secret Morrison & Forester Damages Analysis
109. Irvine Ranch Water District v. Merrill Lynch
& Co.
Case No. 96-8932 (1998)
Intentional Misrepresenta-
tion
108. Zemco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Navistar Intl
Transportation Corp.
Case No. 1:97CV0260 (1998)
District of Indiana
Breach of Contract Leeuw, Popper, Bee man &
Doyle;
Swift & Finlay son
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 42



107. Orlaford Limited, et al. v. BBC International,
et al.
Civil Action No. 97-C-0540-S (1998)
U.S. District Court
Western District of Wisconsin
Patent Infringement Foley & Lardner Damages Analysis
106. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk
GmbH, et al.
Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998)
Division
Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada
& Witt
Damages Analysis
105. Livadas v. Graham & James
Case No. BC 145386 (1998)
California
Legal Malpractice Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Damages Analysis
104. Summa Four, Inc. v. Claircom
Communications Group, Inc. d.b.a. AT&T
Wireless Services
Case No. 95-E-293 and 95-C-973 (1998) **
Superior Court Northern Dis-
trict of Hillsborough County,
New Hampshire
Breach of Contract Hale & Dorr Damages Analysis
103. Ayre, et al. v. Attwood Corp., et al.
Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998)
Circuit Court, County of Kent,
Michigan
Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch;
Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn &
Washburn
Damages Analysis
102. AQC Holdings, L.P. v. Dynamic Circuits,
Inc.
CV760815 (1998) **
California
Breach of Contract Freeborn & Peters Damages Analysis
101. AMETRON v. Entin, et al.
Case No. BC160521 (1998)
California
Usurpation of Corporate
Opportunity
Mahoney, Coppenrath, Jaffe &
Pearson
Damages Analysis
100. Mastercard Intl, et al. v. Meridian
Enterprises Corp.
Case No. CA-94-4105 (DRD) 1997 **
New Jersey
Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty &
McNett
Damages Analysis
99. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard
Company
Case No. 395CV01764 (1997) **
Connecticut
Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis
98. McCaw v. McCaw
Case No. 95-3-07235-0 SEA (1997) **
Washington
Marital Dissolution Perkins, Coie; Danielson, Harri-
gan & Tollefson; Kinzel, Allan,
Skone & Searing; Law Offices
of Gordon Wilcox
Investigatory Accounting
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 43



97. Foodmaker, Inc. v. The Vons Companies,
Inc.
Case No. BC085705 (1997) **
California
Defamation Thorsnes, Bartolotta, McGuire &
Padilla
Damages Analysis
96. JRS Products v. Network Office Systems
Case No. 95 AS 04411 (1997)
Sacramento County Superior
Court, California
Libel Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis
95. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems
Corp.
Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997)
Unjust Enrichment, Quan-
tum Meruit
94. Rubin v. Southwest Leasing Corp.
Case No. SC0322254 (1997)
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Browne & Woods; Baker, Sil-
berberg & Keenen
Damages Analysis
93. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao
Case No. GC 012436 (1996)
Los Angeles Superior Court
(Baseball Arbitration)
Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert &
Matz
Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997)
2
nd
Judicial District State of
Idaho
91. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin
Vision, Ltd.
Case No. BC 016305 (1997)
California
90. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer
Mannheim
No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996)
tion
Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel,
Falconer, Zulauf & Hall
Damages Analysis
89. Cook Inc. v. Palmaz
Case No. IP 94-1459C (TIG) (1996)
Indiana
Breach of Contract Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &
Feld
Damages Analysis
88. Cinnamon, et al. v. Reaz Shera, et al.
No. 95AS01471 (1996)
Sacramento County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Contract Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis
87. United Rock Products Corp. v. City of Ir-
windale
(1996)
Arbitration before the Honor-
able Robert Wenke
Inverse Condemnation Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar-
maro
Damages Analysis
86. Ferreira v. Virco Manufacturing Corp.
No. L003894 (1996)
Solano County Superior
Court, California
Product Defect Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 44



85. In re: America Honda Motor Co.,
Dealerships Relations Litigation
MDL Case No. 1069 (1996) **
Maryland
RICO Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Gerard
Fairness of Settlement
84. Brooktree Corporation v. S3 Incorporated
Civil Action No. 95-2388R (ATB) (1996) **
Patent Infringement Howrey & Simon;
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
Damages Analysis
83. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa-
tion
Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
82. In re: Radica Games Limited
CV-S-94-00653-DAE (LRL) (1996)
Nevada
Case
Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis
81. Martin v. Sprint
Case No. (IV-S-93-1731) (1996)
Breach of Contract Law Offices of Lisa Wright Damages Analysis
80. Thermodyne v. McDonalds Corp.
Case No. 1:95 CV 0232 (1996)
Theft of Trade Secret Swift & Finlayson;
Leeuw & Doyle
Damages Analysis
79. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST
Research, Inc.
Case No. 74 82 37 (1996)
Court, California
Contract
Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
78. Ah Young Industrial Co. v. Brunswick Corp.
Case No. 2340 CA (1996)
Breach of Contract Thelen, Marrin,
Johnson & Bridges
Damages Analysis
77. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Manage-
ment Services
No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996)
sion
Newton & Irvine
Damages Analysis
76. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries, Inc.
Case No. 89-1920 (1996)
Arizona
Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton &
Irvine; Cohen & Cotton
Damages Analysis
75. Wadsworth Golf Construction Co. v. Castle
Oak Investment Corp.
Case No. 18250 (1996)
Amador County Superior
Court, California
Breach of Contract Mark Wleklinski, Ann Rankin Alter Ego Analysis
74. Conte v. Kelly
Case No. LC 018879 (1996)
California
Legal Malpractice Lewis, DAmato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard
Damages Analysis
73. Forti v. General Dynamics
No. KC 016871/017393 (1996)
California
Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 45



72. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software
Civil No. 95WY621 (1996)
U.S. District Court of Colora-
do
Contract
Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
71. Strand Home Video v. Affiliated Regional
Communications
SC028 190 (1995)
California
Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis
70. Schlessinger v. Safeco Insurance Co. of
America
Case No. SC027965 (1995)
California
Bad Faith Schlessinger & Wheeler Damages Analysis
69. J.H. Design v. The Walt Disney Company
No. BC090 485 (1995) **
California
Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert &
Matz
Damages Analysis
68. Hewlett-Packard Company v. GenRad, Inc.
No. 94-10675 RCL (1995) **
Massachusetts
Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis
67. Licensing Funding Partners v. Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, et al.
BC 059176 (1995)
California
Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith,
Blecher & Collins
Damages Analysis
66. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation
CV-94-1370 SVW (1995)
Case
Prongay & Mikolajcyk; Green-
field & Rifkin
Damages Analysis
65. AJIR, et al. v. Exxon Corp.
No. C-93 20830 RMW PVT (1995)
PMPA McClintock, Weston, Benshoof,
Rochefort, Rubalcava & Mac-
Cuish
Damages Analysis
64. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries
CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995)
Arizona
Newton & Irvin;
Cohen & Cotton
Damages Analysis
63. Fordiani v. Siino, et al.
No. C93-05885 (1995)
Contra Costa Superior Court,
California
Misrepresentation King, Shapiro,
Mittelman & Buchman
Damages Analysis
62. Gonsalves v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel and
SVAR Industries
No. C92-3561 MHP (1995)
Antitrust Thelen, Marrin,
Johnson & Bridges
Damages Analysis
61. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enter-
prises, Inc.
BC 093085 (1995)
Los Angeles Superior
Court, California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca,
Carlson & Rauth
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 46



60. Adams v. Calif. State Automobile Assoc.
No. 916163 (1994)
Court, California
Various Business Torts Thelen, Marrin,
Johnson & Bridges
Cost Allocation and Rea-
sonableness of Commis-
sions
59. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf
No. BC069435 (1994) *58
California
Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel,
Urquhart & Oliver
Damages Analysis
58. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn
Co.
No. BC-013701 (1994)
California
Intellectual Property Law Offices of
James P. Tierney
Damages Analysis
57. Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Richard-Allen
Medical Industries
No. C2940501 (1994) **
District of Ohio
Patent Infringement Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis
56. Knickerbocker v. Scudder Reality Advisors
Inc. Case No. 200169 (1994)
Riverside Superior Court,
California
Breach of Contract Giles & Burkhalter Damages Analysis
55. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger
& Jensen
Civil No. 900903226CV (1994)
Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake
City, Utah
Patent Attorney Malpractice Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis
54. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed
Company, et al.
Civil No. 92-4894-JMI (1994) **
Lanham Act Nordman, Cormany,
Hair & Compton
Damages Analysis
53. In re: Information Resources, Inc.
Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994)
Case
Freeborn & Peters;
Katten, Muchin & Zavis
Budgeting
52. Guy v. United Healthcare Corp.
Case No. C2-92-397 (1993)
District of Ohio
Breach of Contract Robert J. Feldhake Damages Analysis
51. The Boulders on the River v. First Interstate
Bank of California
Civil No. 90-19MA (1993)
U.S. District Court, Oregon Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears Lubersky Damages Analysis
50. American Savings Bank v. MGM-Pathe
Communications Corp.
(1993)
California
Breach of Guarantee Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Alter Ego Analysis
49. Liebert Corp. v. North American Phillips
Corp.
(1993)
Orange County
Superior Court, California
Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 47



48. Precor v. Weider
Civil No. C91-1743Z (1993)
Patent Infringement Christensen, O'Connor, John-
son & Kindness
Damages Analysis
47. Astec v. North American Phillips Corp.
(1993)
California
Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis
46. Gill v. American Savings Bank
(1992)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Cen-
tral District of California
Bankruptcy Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy
Bankruptcy Analysis
45. Haro v. The Hahn Company
(1992)
California
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
44. Tube Forgings of America v. Weldbend
(1992)
U.S. District Court, Oregon Lanham Act Mayer, Brown & Platt Damages Analysis
43. State of California v. Bio-Rad
(1992)
Alameda Superior Court, Cali-
fornia
Eminent Domain James Whittaker Damages Analysis
42. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries
(1992)
Washington
Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis
41. Stafford v. Miller, Wagner & Co.
(1991)
State Court,
Phoenix, Arizona
Accounting Malpractice Greengard & Finley Professional Standards
40. Firnschild v. Wyandotte Hospital
(1991)
State Court,
Detroit, Michigan
Breach of Contract Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas,
Wagner & Kenney
Damages Analysis
39. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
(1991)
JAMS, Los Angeles, Califor-
nia
Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay,
Baker & Hill
Damages Analysis
38. Ixsys v. Stratagene
(1991)
San Diego Superior Court,
California
Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
37. Falcon Cable Media v. Booth American Co.
(1990)
Contract
Thelen, Marrin,
Johnson & Bridges
Damages Analysis
36. Ingram v. Owens Illinois
(1990)
U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages
35. Sucperity Corp. of California v. Shih
(1990)
Breach of Contract Fred & Lewin Investigatory Accounting
34. Moreland v. Planet Insurance Company
(1990)
Santa Barbara
Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Business Valuation
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 48



33. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC
(1990)
Washington
Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis
32. El Torito v. La Mirada Redevelopment
Agency (1990)
Orange County
Condemnation Bidna & Keys Business Valuation
31. Moss v. Shepp
(1990)
California
Legal Malpractice Musick, Peeler & Garrett Damages Analysis
30. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC)
(1990)
Court, California
Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation
29. Lines v. Bank of America
(1990)
Johnson & Bridges
Damages Analysis
28. Major Projects, Inc. v. Hismeh
(1990)
Riverside Superior Court,
California
Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis
27. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp.
(1990)
U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom
Damages Analysis
26. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation
Seeds (1989)
U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis
25. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp.
(1989)
California
ties, Fraud
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Damages Analysis
24. Lim v. Lehman
(1989)
California
Breach of Contract Wolf & Leo Damages Analysis
23. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines
(1989)
District of Florida
Wrongful Death Steven Walker; Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
22. Lippman v. Levy
(1989)
California
Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation
21. In re: Technical Equities Federal Securities
Litigation
(1989)
Case
Buchalter, Nemer,
Fields & Younger
Damages Analysis
20. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries
(1989)
District of Texas
Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 49



19. Pacific Dataware Inc. v. Novell
(1989)
U.S. District Court,
Utah
Antitrust Kirton, McConkie & Poleman Damages Analysis
18. Cole v. Benvenuti
(1989)
California
Breach of Contract Lovitt & Hannan Damages Analysis
17. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence
& Damages Analysis
16. Sunwest Bank v. Alec Sharp
(1988)
Breach of Contract Lewis, DAmato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard
Damages Analysis
15. Standard Wire & Cable v. Ameritrust
(1988)
Lender Liability Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy
Damages Analysis
14. Small v. Rogers
(1988)
California
Breach of Contract and
Fiduciary Duty
Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation
13. Cleanmaster v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
(1988)
California
Business Interruption Crouch & Fern Damages Analysis
12. Benvenuti v. Evans
(1988)
California
Fraud, Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Girard
Real Estate Valuation
11. In re: Technical Equities
(1988)
California
Case
Buchalter, Nemer,
Fields & Younger
Damages Analysis
10. Avila v. Goeden
(1988)
Fraud, Breach of Contract Rogers & Wells Damages Analysis
9. Skeen v. Wynn's International
(1987)
California
Fraud, Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Business Valuation
8. Dumke v. Buffalo Chips, Inc.
(1987)
San Francisco
Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
& Girard
Damages Analysis
7. General Dynamics v. AT&T
(1986)
Antitrust Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
6. Zelmans v. Tarzana Medical Partners
(1985)
California
Breach of Contract Fischer, Krane,
& Jacobson
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 50



5. Ambassador Foods, Inc. v. State of
California
(1985)
California
Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California Dept. of
Transportation
Damages Analysis
4. Grizzard v. Western Kraft
(1985)
California
ties
Stern & Miller Damages Analysis
3. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian
(1983 and 1988)
Court, California
Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
2. Morse Products v. AT&T
(1983)
Antitrust Blecher, Collins & Weinstein Damages Analysis
1. Atherton Industries v. Sweda International
(1982)
San Francisco
ties of Fitness and Mer-
chantability
Cutler & Cutler Damages Analysis

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 51

EXPERT TESTIMONYALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUMS
(*Indicates Number in Deposition Section if deposition testimony is given


34. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)*297 American Arbitration Associa-
tion New York
Breach of Patent Transfer
Agreement
Schnader Harrison Segal
and Lewis LLP
Damages Analysis
33. Key Brand Entertainment, Inc. v. Dancap
Productions, Inc. Ref. No. 1220038984
(2011) *281
JAMS Breach of Contract Jeffer Magels Butler &
Marmaro
Damages Analysis
32. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP American, Inc. CA No.
4:09-CV-1511 (KPE) (2010)**
Division
Breach of Contract, Theft
of Trade Secrets
Laminack, Pirtle & Martines
Matthews, Lawson & Bow-
ick
Damages Analysis
31. Gold Canyon Mining and Construction, LLC
v. American Asphalt and Grading Company
(2010)**
The Honorable Eli Chernow Breach of Warranty Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
30. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters
of Charity Health System, Inc. v. Victor C.
Ramos, M.D., Inc. and Richard R. Lopez,
Jr. M.D., Inc. JAMS Matter No. 1220037027
(2009)**
JAMS Breach of Contract,
Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Fraud
Jones Day Damages Analysis
29. Redacted v. Redacted Case No. 74 180 Y
00729 06 DEAR (2007)**
tion
Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski,
Fairness of Partner Com-
pensation
28. SilentAir Corporation v. Maytag
Corporation, et al. Case No. 77133
0022205NADE (2006)
tion
Breach of Contract Holland & Knight LLP Damages Analysis
27. George Yardley Company, Inc. v. Johnson
Controls, Inc. Case No. 72 11001086 02
(2005)
tion
Antitrust Stradling, Yocca, Carlson &
Rauth
Damages Analysis
26. Anthony M. Trolio v. RemedyTemp, Inc.
Case No. 72-114-305-02 MACR (2004)
tion
Breach of Contract Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith
Damages Analysis
25. 911Notify.com v. Verizon Delaware, Inc.
Case No: 71Y1810072202 (2003)
tion
Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
24. SPX Corporation v. Franklin Electric
Corporation Case No. 51 Y 198 00469 01
(2002)
tion
Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Business Valuation
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 52



23. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University,
College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case
No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)* 165
tion
Rauth
Damages Analysis
22. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys-
tems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262 00
(2002)*160
tion
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts
Townsend and Townsend
and Crew
Damages Analysis
Due Diligence
Case No. 99-2177 (PJW) (2002)
JAMS, San Francisco, Califor-
nia
20. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation Case
No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001) *150
tion
19. Fourthchannel, inc. v. Pivotal Corporation
No. 50 T 133 00200 (2001)
American arbitration Associa-
tion
Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Bordon Ladner Gervais
Damages Analysis
18. Glass & Associates v. Factory Mutual
Insurance Company Civil No. 99-6105-HO
(2000)
Oregon
Breach of Contract Ball Janik Damages Analysis
17. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata, Inc.
(2000)*127
CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor,
Johnson & Kindness
Damages Analysis
16. RAM Consulting, Inc. v. Adams Golf
No. 74-Y181-0602-98 (1999)
tion
Damages Analysis
15. Synnex Information Technologies v. Tandy
Corp., et al.
C97-3757 WHO (1999)
District of California, Referral
& Cohen
Damages Analysis
14. The Ischemia Research & Educational
Foundation v. UCB, S.A.
No. 74 T181 0440 97 (1998)
tion
Damages Analysis
13. Green Hills Software, Inc. v. Integrated
Systems, Inc.
No. 72 117 01213 97 (1998)
tion
Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
12. Prestige Card, Inc. v. Bank One, et al.
(1998)
tion
Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears
Lubersky
Damages Analysis
MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 53



11. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao
Case No. GC 012436 (1996) *93
Los Angeles Superior Court
(Baseball Arbitration)
Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer,
Wolpert & Matz
10. Polo Ralph Lauren L.P. v. The Magnin
Company, Inc. (1997)
tion
Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis
9. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa-
tion
Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
8. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer
Mannheim
No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996) *88
tion
Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel,
Falconer,
Zulauf & Hall
Damages Analysis
7. Kenady v. Cooper, White & Cooper
No. 940973151 (1995)
JAMS, San Francisco, Califor-
nia
Breach of Contract Quinn, Kully and Morrow Damages Analysis
6. Dahle v. Integrated Resource Equity Corp.
(1991)
NASD Arbitration, Portland,
Oregon
Securities Violations Garvey, Schubert & Barer Damages Analysis
5. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
(1991) *39
JAMS, Los Angeles, California Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay,
Baker & Hill
Damages Analysis
4. Kernohan v. Prudential Bache
(1989)
tion
Breach of Fiduciary duty Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe
Damages Analysis
3. Scherick v. Taft Entertainment Co.
(1989)
tion
Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer
& Susman
Damages Analysis
2. Nuvision Eyecare v. Southern California
Glazers (1987)
tion
Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis
1. Pittsburgh/Des Moines Corp. v. Garden
Grove Community Church
(1984)
tion
Breach of Construction
Contract

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 54

EXPERT TESTIMONYWRITTEN TESTIMONY ONLY


8. In re Textile Rental Services Litigation Case
No CV-05-19 (2006)
Circuit Court of Barbour Coun-
ty (Clayton Division), Alabama
Class Action Fraud and
Breach of Contract
14 different law firms Fairness of Settlement
7. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. v. Waste
Management of California, Inc.
No. CV760322 (1997)
JAMS/ENDISPUTE Breach of Contract Crosby, Heafey,
Roach & May
Business Valuation
6. IMACC Corporation v. Dorothy Myers
Warburton, et al.
Case No. C 93 114 CW (1996)
Environmental Cleanup Morrison & Foerster
Lane Powell Spears
Lubersky
Larson & Burnham
Alter Ego Analysis
5. Williams v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel & SYAR
Case No. C92-3561 (1995)
Johnson & Bridges
Damages Analysis
4. State Farm, et al. v. Garmendi
Case No. 918689 (1995)
California
Declaratory Relief Heller, Ehrman,
White & McAuliffe
Reasonableness of Fees
3. In re: Phar-Mor Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 93-631 (1995)
District of Pennsylvania
Securities Litigation Zelle & Larson Damages Analysis
2. Reggie White, et al. v. N.F.L.
Civil No. 4-92-906 (1993)
Minnesota, 4th Division
Antitrust Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
1. McCarthy v. Pollet
(1983)
State Court, Hawaii Fraud Goodsill, Anderson,
Quinn & Stifell
FD


Wagner Declaration

EXHIBIT B

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1
Summary of Reductions
Product(s)
Amount Before
Reduction Reason For Reduction
Amount of
Reduction
Amount
Remaining
[a]
11 Phones (Design Patent Only) $599,859,395 Correct Notice Dates $253,328,000 $346,531,395
[b]
11 Phones (After Adjustment for
Correct Notice Dates)
$346,531,395 Profits Attributable to IP
(5%)
$329,204,825 $17,326,570
[c]
5 Phones (Design Patent & Trade
Dress)
$381,683,562 No Lost Profits $70,034,295 $311,649,267
[d]
5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost
Profits)
$311,649,267 Correct Notice Dates $220,952,000 $90,697,267
[e]
5 Phones (After Adjustment for No Lost
Profits and Correct Notice Dates)
$90,697,267 Profits Attributable to IP
(5%)
$86,162,404 $4,534,863
[f]
Prevail $57,867,383 No Basis for Award of
Samsung's Profits
$57,867,383 $0
Sources:
[a] Schedule 1B.
[b] [Amount Remaining] = 5% * [Amount Before Reduction]
[c] Schedule 1A.
[d] Schedule 1B.
[e] [Amount Remaining] = 5% * [Amount Before Reduction]
[f] Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931).
Exhibit B, Schedule 1
LitiNomics, Inc.
Page 1 of 3
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1A
Adjustment For No Lost Profits
Products Jury Award
Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple
in PX25A1.5
Jury
Adjustment
Factor
40% of
Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in
PX25A1.5
Amount of
Reduction
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f]
Fascinate $143,539,179 $267,735,061 40% $107,094,024 $36,445,155
Galaxy S 4G $73,344,668 $155,204,780 40% $62,081,912 $11,262,756
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $22,002,146 $53,518,267 40% $21,407,307 $594,839
Mesmerize $53,123,612 $114,099,746 40% $45,639,898 $7,483,714
Vibrant $89,673,957 $188,565,314 40% $75,426,126 $14,247,831
Total $381,683,562 $779,123,168 $311,649,267 $70,034,295
Notes:
[a] 5 products liable for trade dress dilution and design patent infringement.
[b] Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931).
[c] Trial Exhibit PX25A1.
[d] Adjustment factor used by jury to arrive at verdict. See Declaration for replication of jury damages award.
[e] = [c] * [d].
[f] = [b] - [e].
Exhibit B, Schedule 1A
LitiNomics, Inc.
Page 2 of 3
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. Schedule 1B
Adjustment For Correct Notice Dates
Products Jury Award
Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in
PX25A1.5
Revenue Prior
to Notice
Mr.
Musika's
Profit Rate
Profit Prior to
Notice Date
(Per Mr.
Musika)
Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple in
PX25A1.5 Adjusted
for Notice
Jury
Adjustment
Factor
40% of Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
Adjusted for Notice
Amount of
Reduction
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i] [j]
Captivate $80,840,162 $202,100,404 $457,000,000 35.5% $162,235,000 $39,865,404 40% $15,946,162 $64,894,000
Continuum $16,399,117 $40,997,793 $89,000,000 35.5% $31,595,000 $9,402,793 40% $3,761,117 $12,638,000
Droid Charge $50,672,869 $126,682,172 $241,000,000 35.5% $85,555,000 $41,127,172 40% $16,450,869 $34,222,000
Epic 4G $130,180,894 $325,452,234 $758,000,000 35.5% $269,090,000 $56,362,234 40% $22,544,894 $107,636,000
Galaxy S II (AT&T) $40,494,356 $101,235,891 $0 35.5% $0 $101,235,891 40% $40,494,356 ($0)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) $83,791,708 $209,479,270 $0 35.5% $0 $209,479,270 40% $83,791,708 $0
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) $100,326,988 $250,817,469 $0 35.5% $0 $250,817,469 40% $100,326,988 $0
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) $32,273,558 $80,683,895 $0 35.5% $0 $80,683,895 40% $32,273,558 $0
Gem $4,075,585 $10,188,963 $46,000,000 35.5% $16,330,000 ($6,141,037) 40% ($2,456,415) $6,532,000
Indulge $16,011,184 $40,027,960 $55,000,000 35.5% $19,525,000 $20,502,960 40% $8,201,184 $7,810,000
Infuse 4G $44,792,974 $111,982,436 $138,000,000 35.5% $48,990,000 $62,992,436 40% $25,196,974 $19,596,000
Total for 11 Phones (Design
Patent Only)
$599,859,395 $1,499,648,487 $1,784,000,000 $633,320,000 $866,328,487 $346,531,395 $253,328,000
Products
Jury Award
(After
Adjustment
for No Lost
Profits)
Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in
PX25A1.5
Revenue Prior
to Notice
Mr.
Musika's
Profit Rate
Profit Prior to
Notice Date
(Per Mr.
Musika)
Samsung's Profits
Sought by Apple in
PX25A1.5 Adjusted
for Notice
Jury
Adjustment
Factor
40% of Samsung's
Profits Sought by
Apple in PX25A1.5
Adjusted for Notice
Amount of
Reduction
[a] [b] [c] [d] [e] [f] [g] [h] [i] [j]
Fascinate $107,094,024 $267,735,061 $601,000,000 35.5% $213,355,000 $54,380,061 40% $21,752,024 $85,342,000
Galaxy S 4G $62,081,912 $155,204,780 $242,000,000 35.5% $85,910,000 $69,294,780 40% $27,717,912 $34,364,000
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) $21,407,307 $53,518,267 $64,000,000 35.5% $22,720,000 $30,798,267 40% $12,319,307 $9,088,000
Mesmerize $45,639,898 $114,099,746 $205,000,000 35.5% $72,775,000 $41,324,746 40% $16,529,898 $29,110,000
Vibrant $75,426,126 $188,565,314 $444,000,000 35.5% $157,620,000 $30,945,314 40% $12,378,126 $63,048,000
Total for 5 Phones (Design
Patent & Trade Dress)
$311,649,267 $779,123,168 $1,556,000,000 $552,380,000 $226,743,168 $90,697,267 $220,952,000
Notes:
[a] 16 products for which jury awarded Samsung's profits. Galaxy Prevail not included.
[b] For the 11 phones (design patent only): Amended Verdict Form (Dkt. No. 1931). For the 5 phones (design patent & trade dress): Schedule 1A.
[c] Trial Exhibit PX25A1.
[d] Trial Exhibit JX 1500. Includes revenues for the entire quarter in which the notice date falls.
[e] Profit rate testified to by Mr. Musika. See August 13, 2012 Tr. at 2073:21-2074:19.
[f] = [d] * [e].
[g] = [c] - [f].
[h]
[i] = [g] * [h].
[j] = [b] - [i].
Adjustment factor used by jury to arrive at verdict. See Declaration for replication of jury
Exhibit B, Schedule 1B
LitiNomics, Inc.
Page 3 of 3

02198.51855/4974139.1
-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR JMOL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW


02198.51855/4974139.1
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR JMOL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE COURT, having considered Samsungs Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
Law, and/or for New Trial and/or Remittitur, HEREBY ORDERS that judgment in favor of
Samsung pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) is GRANTED as to all of Apples
remaining affirmative claims in this action , and judgment in favor of Samsung is GRANTED as
to Samsungs affirmative claims against Apple for patent infringement as to the 516, 941, 460,
893, and 711 patents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2012

Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge


1990 - Samsung Mot For JNOV

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1990 - Samsung Mot For JNOV

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi