Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-442/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S 

MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE 

DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 

TRIAL

Re: Dkt. No. 3352

Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s, Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc.’s, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”) 

Motion to Introduce at the Damages Retrial Evidence Created After the July 2012 Trial 

(“Motion”). ECF No. 3352. Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed an Opposition to the Motion, 

ECF No. 3375, and Samsung filed a Reply. ECF No. 3379. The Court finds this matter 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b). Having 

considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court 

DENIES Samsung’s Motion. 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 12
2

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. BACKGROUND

A brief history is helpful to understand the unusual procedural context in which Samsung’s 

Motion is made. Apple and Samsung sell competing smartphones and tablets. On April 15, 2011, 

Apple filed suit against Samsung, asserting, in relevant part, utility patent, design patent, and trade 

dress claims. See ECF No. 1. In July and August 2012, a jury found that 26 Samsung products 

infringed or diluted one or more of Apple’s asserted intellectual property rights. ECF No. 1931. 

Following a multitude of post-trial orders, the Court held a partial damages retrial in November 

2013. See ECF No. 2822. These trials will be referred to as the “original 2012 trial” and the 

“2013 damages retrial,” respectively.

On March 6, 2014, following the original 2012 trial and the 2013 damages retrial, 

Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit. ECF No. 3018. On May 18, 2015, the 

Federal Circuit affirmed the validity and infringement judgments with respect to Apple’s design 

and utility patents, and “the damages awarded for the design and utility patent infringements 

appealed by Samsung.” ECF No. 3271 at 4. However, the Federal Circuit reversed “the jury’s 

findings that the asserted trade dresses are protectable” and vacated the damages awards against 

the Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution. Id. The Federal Circuit 

remanded “for immediate entry of final judgment on all damages awards not predicated on 

Apple’s trade dress claims and for any further proceedings necessitated by our decision to vacate 

the jury’s verdicts on the unregistered and registered trade dress claims.” Id. at 33.

Although the Federal Circuit largely affirmed the judgment from the original 2012 trial and 

2013 damages retrial, its vacatur of the jury’s verdicts on trade dress claims required retrial of 

damages for five Samsung products. Upon receipt of the Federal Circuit’s mandate on September 

1, 2015, ECF No. 3273, the Court issued a Case Management Order setting retrial for Spring 2016

(the “2016 damages retrial”). ECF No. 3272 at 3 (“September 1, 2015 Order”). The Court ruled 

that trial would proceed on the existing evidentiary record and thus generally barred the parties 

from conducting supplemental discovery or attempting to present exhibits or witnesses that were 

not timely disclosed and admissible at the previous trials. Id. at 1–2.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 12
3

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On January 20, 2016, Samsung filed the instant Motion, which seeks relief from the 

Court’s September 1, 2015 Order. ECF No. 3352. Specifically, Samsung seeks leave to introduce 

at the 2016 damages retrial three types of new evidence: (1) two e-mail chains from 2013 between 

Phil Schiller, an Apple marketing executive, and Apple’s advertising agency, which Samsung 

contends undercut Apple’s claims for lost profits and reasonable royalties by showing that 

Samsung phones succeeded for reasons other than patent infringement; (2) two Apple 

presentations from 2013, which Samsung similarly contends undercut Apple’s arguments as to 

why consumers purchased Samsung phones; and (3) the testimony of an expert or unnamed fact 

witness “regarding the actual timeframe required to implement a design-around to Apple’s U.S. 

Patent No. 7,844,915 (‘the ’915 patent’).” Motion at 1–2. 

Samsung contends that Apple will not be prejudiced by introduction of the Apple

documents noted above, which have already been introduced into evidence in a different case 

between the same parties: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK

(N.D. Cal.) (“the 630 case”). Motion at 6. Likewise, Samsung contends that Apple will not be 

prejudiced by Samsung’s proposed new design-around timing evidence because Apple has already 

deposed Samsung’s expert in connection with earlier injunction proceedings. Motion at 7. 

On February 3, 2016, Apple filed an Opposition to Samsung’s Motion, in which it argues 

that Samsung’s Motion would effectively reopen discovery, introduce new witnesses and 

documents, and unduly complicate the 2016 damages retrial, all of which the Court’s September 1, 

2015 Order sought to prevent. ECF. No. 3375 (“Opp.”) at 1. Apple further contends that 

Samsung’s new evidence is irrelevant and would prejudice Apple by requiring changes to “the 

parties’ pretrial preparations, witness selections, and trial time allocations,” especially given that 

the Court has “allocated the parties only six hours each to present evidence” on the narrow issues 

to be decided on remand. Id. at 3–4, 6. Finally, Apple contends that Samsung’s introduction of 

non-public exhibits from the 630 case would violate the cross-use provisions of the protective 

order entered in that case. Id. at 3. On February 10, 2016, Samsung filed a Reply. ECF No. 3379.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 12
4

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

Samsung acknowledges that the Court’s September 1, 2015 Order bars the introduction of 

new evidence at this late stage in this case, but seeks an exception and argues that Apple would 

not be prejudiced by the introduction of Samsung’s proposed evidence. Motion, at 1 (citing ECF 

No. 3272 at 2; ECF No. 2369 at 2); Reply at 1. The Court accordingly begins by discussing its 

September 1, 2015 Order, and then turns to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 

A. The Court’s September 1, 2015 Order

1. The Need for a Coherent Record at Trial and On Appeal

As noted above, the Federal Circuit remanded this case on September 1, 2015. ECF No. 

3273. That remand required limited damages proceedings on a small number of products. 

Specifically, the Federal Circuit’s opinion held that Apple’s asserted trade dresses were not 

protectable. ECF No. 3271 at 14, 17. The opinion did not, however, require this Court to revisit 

any liability issues regarding Apple’s utility or design patents. See ECF 3271 at 33. Nor did it 

reverse any of the Court’s evidentiary rulings or require discovery to be reopened. In short,

nothing changed as a result of the Federal Circuit’s decision other than the elimination of Apple’s 

trade dress claims and thus trade dress damages. The result of the remand was thus that awarded 

damages need to be retried only for the five products that were found to dilute Apple’s trade 

dresses and to infringe Apple’s patents in the original 2012 trial. See ECF No. 3271 at 33; 

September 1, 2015 Order, at 2; ECF 1931 at 11–12. Thus, while Apple’s trade dress claims have 

been eliminated and only five products remain at issue, the parties are otherwise in the same 

position regarding damages that they would have been in at the original 2012 trial.

Given that fact, fairness and efficiency require that the retried claims in this case be judged

on an evidentiary record comparable to the record before the 2012 and 2013 juries. Indeed, the 

need for a coherent record between the 2016 damages retrial and earlier trials is particularly 

apparent here, where the Federal Circuit has already relied on the existing record in reviewing the 

judgment from the original 2012 trial and 2013 damages retrial. To permit the remaining claims 

in the same case to be fairly evaluated, the Court has ordered that the evidence to be presented at 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 12
5

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the upcoming 2016 damages retrial should hew as closely as possible to that previously presented. 

Specifically, to maintain a coherent record, the Court ordered that it “will not allow 

supplemental fact discovery,” “permit the parties to expand the scope of the damages retrial,” or 

“allow the parties to rely on new sales data, new products, new methodologies or new theories.” 

September 1, 2015 Order, at 1–2. Moreover, to ensure consistency among the trials, the Court 

ordered that its “prior rulings on the parties’ Daubert motions, motions in limine, discovery 

disputes, and evidentiary objections will remain in effect as law of the case. The parties may not 

relitigate these issues.” Id. at 2. 

The September 1, 2015 Order thus contains the same evidentiary cut-off that the Court 

imposed in advance of the 2013 damages retrial. See ECF No. 2316 at 2–3. Notably, the Federal 

Circuit affirmed the damages judgment from the 2013 damages retrial. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983, 1004–05 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

2. Samsung’s Request for an Exception to the September 1, 2015 Order

Against this background, the Court concludes that permitting Samsung to selectively 

introduce new evidence at this late date would undermine the Court’s attempt to maintain a 

coherent record for appeal. In addition, Samsung’s request for an exception from the September 1, 

2015 Order is unwarranted—and unduly prejudicial to Apple—for several additional reasons.

First, the instant Motion is flatly inconsistent with Samsung’s previous efforts to benefit 

from the Court’s evidentiary cut-off at Apple’s expense. Samsung has been an enthusiastic 

proponent for exclusion of evidence based on the Court’s rules prohibiting new evidence

throughout this case. For example, Samsung’s recent Motion to Strike expressly sought to enforce 

the September 1, 2015 Order against new Mor-Flo damages calculations in Apple’s expert report. 

ECF No. 3335 at 3. Samsung argued that the material was new and so “should be stricken, as it 

violates the clear instructions set out by the Court.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court granted 

Samsung’s request. See ECF No. 3880 at 7. Samsung also moved—again successfully—to strike

Apple’s new comparison of Samsung’s incremental profit margin to its gross profit margin. Id. at 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 12
6

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

8. These are not isolated instances. In advance of the 2013 damages retrial, for example,

Samsung similarly moved to exclude many new opinions, calculations, or documents of Julie 

Davis, Apple’s damages expert, on the basis of the Court’s evidentiary cut-off. For example, the 

Court granted Samsung’s motions to strike Davis’s new opinion about Apple’s capacity to meet 

demand, see ECF No. 2552 at 4; Davis’s new descriptions of the patents in suit, id.; Davis’s new 

product-by-product incremental profit calculations, see ECF No. 2575 at 5; and Davis’s reliance 

on new documents. Id. at 9. Samsung likewise successfully moved on an emergency basis to

strike Apple’s new lost profits theory on the eve of the 2013 damages retrial because it violated 

the Court’s rules against new evidence and theories. See ECF No. 2719 at 7. Clearly, Apple 

would be unfairly prejudiced if its new evidence is excluded (as Samsung has consistently sought 

to do) while Samsung’s new evidence is allowed on the eve of trial.

Second, even if the Court were inclined to permit Samsung to introduce new evidence, 

Samsung’s Motion is too little, too late. Although the Court ordered a retrial on September 1, 

2015, Samsung did not state that it would seek an exception to the Court’s long-standing rule in

the parties’ September 11, 2015 Joint Case Management Statement, see ECF No. 3280, nor in the

September 18, 2015 Case Management Conference that followed. See ECF No. 2391. Samsung 

likewise did not state that it would seek an exception in the parties’ December 3, 2015 Joint Case 

Management Statement, see ECF No. 3322, or at the December 10, 2015 Case Management 

Conference. See ECF No. 3331. Samsung’s Motion was not filed until January 20, 2016, barely 

two months before trial is set to begin on March 28, 2016. Expert disclosures for the 2016 

damages retrial, however, were due on November 6, 2015. ECF No. 3289 at 2. Samsung did not 

serve the expert disclosure it now seeks to introduce. Fact witness disclosure was due on January 

22, 2016. Id. at 3. Samsung did not identify (and still has not identified) the new fact witness it

now would have testify. Despite its failure to make these disclosures, Samsung proposes that 

Apple will not be prejudiced because it can take new discovery if Samsung’s Motion is granted. 

For example, Samsung states that it “will promptly present either [its expert] or a fact witness for a 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 12
7

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

short deposition” if necessary. Reply at 2 n.1. That is not a substitute for timely disclosure. 

Forcing Apple to take new discovery less than a month before trial is unfairly prejudicial, given 

that it would result not from some unavoidable cause but rather from Samsung’s untimely Motion.

 Third, efficient management of this case and judicious use of the Court’s limited 

resources requires that the parties honor the Court’s orders closing the evidentiary record. The 

Court resolved an enormous number of discovery and substantive disputes in connection with the 

original 2012 trial, resulting in more than 1,500 docket entries before the first day of trial in July 

2012. Since that time, more than 1,500 additional docket entries have been made in the course of 

the 2013 damages retrial and in preparation for the 2016 damages retrial. In light of the 

extraordinary amount of resources the parties and the Court have already spent developing the 

existing evidentiary record—a record upon which the Federal Circuit has already relied—there is

little benefit in expending more resources by reopening discovery less than a month before the 

2016 damages retrial begins.

In sum, in view of the need for a coherent record on appeal, as well as fairness to Apple 

and efficient use of the Court’s limited resources, enforcement of the Court’s September 1, 2015 

Order is appropriate. The Court therefore DENIES Samsung’s Motion to introduce new evidence.

B. Federal Rule of Evidence 403

In addition to the court’s inherent discretion to manage the course of trial proceedings, the 

Federal Rules of Evidence “confer broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on any 

of the grounds specified in Rule 403.” United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1349 (9th Cir. 

1977). Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if 

its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair 

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly 

presenting cumulative evidence.” Although denial of Samsung’s untimely motion is warranted for 

the reasons stated above, exclusion of Samsung’s proposed new evidence is also independently 

warranted under Rule 403 because, in each case, the probative value of the proffered evidence is 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 12
8

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice to Apple, jury confusion, and 

wasting time.

1. Apple E-mail Chains

Samsung seeks to introduce two e-mail chains between Phil Schiller, Senior Vice President 

of Worldwide Product Marketing at Apple, and Apple’s advertising agency. Motion at 1, 3–4. 

These e-mail chains were previously admitted at trial in the 630 case as DX408A and DX409 and 

were created in January or February 2013. See ECF No. 3352-3 (“630-DX408A”); ECF No. 

3352-4 (“630-DX409”). Samsung argues that 630-DX408A and 630-DX409 illustrate concerns 

by Apple’s executive and advertising agency “that Samsung’s success was a result of business 

decisions and a savvy marketing campaign, . . . and not due to any alleged infringement.” Motion 

at 2. Apple objects on the ground that these exhibits “have no bearing on the damages issues at 

the remand trial.” Opp. at 3.

Given its claim for lost profits, Apple overstates the irrelevance of 630-DX408A and 630-

DX409. Nevertheless, the limited probative value of the e-mail chains contained in 630-DX408A 

and 630-DX409 is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice to Apple if they are 

admitted. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. First, the relationship of these e-mail chains to the products in 

this case is weak. None of the five Samsung products at issue in the retrial is mentioned in the 

substantive e-mail discussion contained in either 630-DX408A or 630-DX409. Exhibit 630-

DX409, in fact, mentions no Samsung smartphone by model name at all. The only place specific 

Samsung products are mentioned in 630-DX408A is in a news article appended to the end of the 

e-mail—not in the discussion between Apple’s executive and its marketing agency. That article, 

moreover, does not reference four of the five products currently at issue, and contains only a brief 

and ambiguous reference to a “Galaxy S” smartphone without providing a basis to determine 

whether it is the Galaxy S Showcase at issue in the retrial.

Second, the relationship of these exhibits to the damages period at issue in this case is 

weak. The damages period for the 2016 damages retrial is August 4, 2010 to June 30, 2012. 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 12
9

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Moreover, the lost profits period for the 2016 damages retrial is April 15, 2011 to May 29, 2011. 

Thus, both exhibits were created well after the relevant damages periods. Moreover, exhibit 630-

DX409 contains no indication that the e-mail discussion it contains relates to a timeframe within 

the damages period, as opposed to early 2013. Similarly, while the news article appended to 630-

DX408A contains some references to events in 2011, see ECF No. 3352-3 at 408A.006, it is 

unclear whether the discussion in the e-mail relates to 2011 or 2013. The probative value of these 

exhibits is thus limited, given that the discussion in the exhibits is neither clearly tied to the 

products currently at issue nor clearly related to the time period at issue.

In contrast, the danger of unfair prejudice to Apple is clear. There is undoubtedly evidence

post-dating the evidentiary cut-off that Apple would use, if permitted, to bolster its case or to rebut 

Samsung’s positions. See, e.g., ECF No. 3335 at 2–3 (Samsung motion to strike new opinion on

effect of non-infringing alternatives on Apple’s damages). Apple cannot do so, however, because 

as stated above, the Court’s September 1, 2015 Order, which Samsung has successfully enforced 

against Apple, bars the use of new evidence and exhibits in order to present a coherent record for 

appeal and to make efficient use of the Court’s and parties’ limited resources. 

2. Apple Presentations

Samsung also seeks to introduce two Apple presentations. The first, entitled “iPhone 

Review” and dated March 2013, was introduced at trial in the 630 case as exhibit DX411. ECF 

No. 3353-3 at 411.002 (“630-DX411”). The second, entitled “FY ’14 Planning Offisite” and 

dated April 2013, was introduced at trial in the 630 case as exhibit DX413. ECF No. 3353-6 at 

413.001 (“630-DX413”). Both exhibits were partially sealed.

1

 Samsung contends that 630-

DX411 and 630-DX413 are relevant for two main reasons. First, to show that consumers wanted 

features that Samsung but not Apple offered in 2011, see Motion at 4; and second, to show the 

reasons for Apple’s slowing growth rate from 2009 to 2013. See id. at 5. Apple objects that “[t]he 

 

1 Apple contends that introduction of non-public exhibits from the 630 case would violate the 

cross-use provisions of the protective order in the 630 case. Opp. at 3. Because the Court denies 

Samsung’s Motion on other grounds, the Court need not address Apple’s argument.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 9 of 12
10

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

two Apple presentations dating from March and April 2013 that Samsung seeks to introduce are 

similarly irrelevant to the issues at the remand damages trial.” Opp. at 4.

The Court agrees that these voluminous exhibits are largely irrelevant, and that the few 

portions of those exhibits that are relevant have limited probative value. As with 630-DX408A 

and 630-DX409, neither of the two presentations focuses on any of the products at issue in the 

2016 damages retrial. Indeed, Samsung identifies only a single passing reference on one page (of 

the more than 200 pages in the exhibits) specifically referring to a Samsung product at issue in the 

instant case. See Motion at 2; Reply at 4 (Galaxy 4G is included in one chart). Likewise, both 

presentations post-date the damages period at issue in the damages retrial, and both presentations 

devote substantial portions of their discussion to irrelevant foreign markets. 

The limited probative value of these exhibits is substantially outweighed by a danger of 

jury confusion, as well as by a danger of unfair prejudice to Apple. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. As to 

the former, the global nature of the Apple presentations Samsung seeks to introduce leads to a 

substantial risk of jury confusion. For example, while Samsung focuses on charts showing 

Apple’s growth rates in both presentations, see Motion at 5, those charts show global growth rate 

data not limited to the U.S. See, e.g., 630-DX411 at 411.04; 630-DX413 at 413.008. Even if 

introduction of growth rates tied to irrelevant foreign markets does not lead to confusion, trial time 

will be wasted explaining the nature of Samsung’s voluminous new exhibits and crossexamination on that basis. As to concerns of fairness, as explained above, permitting Samsung to 

make selective use of evidence beyond the existing record runs the risk of unfair prejudice to 

Apple, which cannot similarly introduce new evidence—whether to bolster its case, or to rebut 

Samsung’s proposed use of Apple’s 2013 presentations—at this late date. 

3. Testimony Concerning Actual Time to Design Around ’915 Patent

Finally, Samsung seeks to introduce new testimony of either a technical expert, Stephen 

Gray, or an unnamed Samsung fact witness “who was not on the original July 2012 witness list” to 

testify that “Samsung actually implemented [a] design-around for the ’915 patent in about four 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 10 of 12
11

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

weeks, far less time than the hypothetical six-month timeframe that underlies Apple’s damages 

expert’s calculations.” Motion at 2–3. Samsung further contends that this testimony was not 

available until after the original 2012 trial verdict, but is relevant to rebut both Apple’s lost profits

and reasonable royalty analysis. Motion at 5.

The probative value of Samsung’s proposed new testimony is substantially outweighed by 

the danger of jury confusion and the likelihood of wasted time. While the parties’ damages 

experts have previously relied on hypothetical design around times, Samsung’s new testimony 

concerning the time to implement an actual design around for the ’915 patent would introduce a 

new and complex dispute before the jury at the 2016 damages retrial. Specifically, Apple disputes

that Samsung’s non-infringing alternative is, in fact, non-infringing. See, e.g., Opp. at 4; ECF No. 

2206-2, ¶ 32 (declaration of Apple technical expert, Karan Singh, opining that “Samsung devices 

with the modified code still literally infringe” the ’915 patent). If Samsung is permitted to 

introduce new testimony that an actual design-around took only four weeks to implement, Apple 

presumably would similarly seek to introduce evidence that the particular design-around does not, 

in fact, avoid infringement. Even if Apple only cross-examines Samsung’s proposed technical 

expert or fact witness (rather than introducing rebuttal testimony of its own on this issue), the jury 

is nevertheless left with the prospect of a mini-trial on infringement. Especially in the context of a 

narrow damages-only retrial, such satellite litigation presents a substantial danger of unduly 

complicating the issues, wasting time, and causing jury confusion.

Moreover, permitting Samsung’s new testimony would unfairly prejudice Apple. As noted 

above, Samsung states that it “will promptly present either [its expert witness] or a fact witness for 

a short deposition” if its Motion is granted. Reply at 2 n.1. Samsung still has not disclosed its fact 

witness. In any case, as noted previously, these disclosures were not timely provided, meaning 

that Apple would at a minimum be forced to divert resources from pre-trial preparation to take 

additional discovery shortly before trial, as well as alter its trial preparation to account for a new

issue. Given Samsung’s recent and successful argument that it would be prejudiced by Apple’s 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 11 of 12
12

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT THE DAMAGES RETRIAL EVIDENCE 

CREATED AFTER THE JULY 2012 TRIAL

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

introduction of new expert analysis, Samsung’s contention that Apple would not similarly be 

prejudiced rings hollow. Compare ECF No. 3335 at 2–3 (Samsung motion to strike), with ECF 

No. 3380 at 7 (order granting same).

In addition, the probative value of Samsung’s proposed new testimony is tempered by the 

fact that it is not the only evidence concerning design-around time available to Samsung. 

Samsung’s damages expert, Michael Wagner, testified both in the original 2012 trial and the 2013 

damages retrial that his damages opinion was in part based on information from Samsung that a 

hypothetical design-around for the ’915 patent would take approximately four weeks to 

implement. See ECF No. 1842 at 3055–56 (Wagner’s 2012 testimony); ECF No. 2842 at 1028–29 

(Wagner’s 2013 testimony). Thus, even in the absence of Samsung’s new testimony, Samsung 

may dispute Apple’s damages calculations with Wagner’s previously admitted testimony.

4. Conclusion as to Rule 403

In sum, the risk of jury confusion, the likelihood of time wasted on satellite litigation, and 

unfair prejudice to Apple substantially outweigh the limited probative value of the new exhibits 

and testimony Samsung’s Motion seeks to introduce. Accordingly, having balanced the factors set 

forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court exercises its discretion to enforce the discovery 

deadlines contained in its September 1, 2015 Order. Samsung may not introduce new testimony 

concerning actual time to design around the ’915 patent or new exhibits 630-DX408A, 630-

DX409, 630-DX411, or 630-DX413 at the 2016 damages retrial.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung’s Motion to introduce new evidence at the 2016 

damages retrial is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3430 Filed 02/29/16 Page 12 of 12