Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-441/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 RE: QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

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 RE: QUESTIONS FOR ORAL 

ARGUMENT AT THE PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE

At the Pretrial Conference on March 3, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., the parties should be prepared 

to address the following questions at oral argument:

Samsung’s Motion In Limine #1

Questions for Samsung:

 Exactly what sales does Samsung seek to exclude from the total revenue and profits that 

Apple can reference during the trial? Is Samsung asking the Court to draw that line with 

the April 15, 2011 design patent notice date, or is it asking for that line to be drawn in 

some other way?

 Given that a variant of Exhibit JX1500 with total infringing revenue for each month for the 

accused phones has been admitted in both prior trials, why should the Court grant this 

Motion?

Questions for Apple:

 Regardless of whether Samsung previously failed to object to Apple’s use of a total 

infringing revenue number, what proper purpose does Apple have in using a total 

infringing revenue number?

 Does Apple agree that for Samsung sales before the first design patent notice date (i.e., 

before April 15, 2011) Apple seeks only a per-unit reasonable royalty?

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3427 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

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

 If Apple is seeking only a per-unit reasonable royalty prior to April 15, 2011, how are 

Samsung’s revenues or profits relevant to Davis’s damages calculations for the period 

before April 15, 2011? Does Samsung’s revenue or profit factor into those specific 

calculations? How?

 Suppose the Court admits an exhibit like JX1500 into evidence with total profits and 

revenues for each product, so all the data is presented in the same way for each phone and 

month. There is a distinction between admitting that data into evidence and permitting 

Apple or its expert to make an argument that an inflated amount is somehow relevant to 

the infringer’s profits analysis. Why should Apple be allowed to refer to Samsung’s total 

profits number in opening statement, closing argument, or demonstratives?

 How is Samsung’s Motion any different than the Court’s prior exclusion of PDX100.30, 

.31, and .34 before the 2013 retrial?

Samsung’s Motion In Limine #2

Questions for Samsung:

 In the 2013 retrial, Apple asked Davis only one question about the market share evidence 

on redirect examination. That question was: “Looking at the red line portion of the graph, 

are some of the sales that drove the increase in Samsung’s market share shown in the graph 

sales of phones that were found to infringe in the first trial, in addition to the 13 infringing 

phones at issue here?” to which the answer was “Yes.” 2013 Trial Tr. at 790:15-20. Why 

would a similar, single question in the 2016 retrial be unfairly prejudicial?

 The Court ruled, in 2012, that the market share chart in Exhibit 11.2-PT has probative 

value, and that in the context of the 2012 trial, it was admissible under Rule 403 even 

though the chart includes products that were not at issue in the 2012 trial. ECF No. 1895 

at 1. Samsung is making the same argument now as it made in 2012, namely, that the chart 

is inadmissible under Rule 403 because it includes products not at issue. What makes the 

403 balancing different now from 2012?

 Is there any market share evidence or data other than the chart depicted as Exhibit 11.2-PT 

to the November 2015 Davis Report that Samsung seeks to exclude?

 How does the proportion of sales in Exhibit 11.2-PT that correspond to products at issue in 

the 2016 retrial compare to the proportion of sales in Exhibit 11.2-PT that correspond to 

products that were at issue in the 2013 retrial?

 What is different about the 2016 retrial that leads Samsung to argue that now this chart 

should be excluded under Rule 403 when it did not make that argument at the 2013 retrial?

Questions for Apple:

 The products at issue in the 2016 retrial make up a smaller portion of the sales depicted in 

Exhibit 11.2-PT than the products that were at issue in the 2012 trial do. Does the 

decreased proportion of relevant sales affect how probative this chart is? If the chart is less 

probative now than it was in 2012, why does the Rule 403 balancing still favor admitting 

the chart into evidence?

 Does the fact that Apple has already been paid damages corresponding to all of the 

infringing products in Exhibit 11.2-PT except for the 5 products in the 2016 retrial create a 

risk of jury confusion or prejudice to Samsung?

 If Exhibit 11.2-PT is relevant only because of the portion of Samsung’s market share 

increase that is driven by the 5 products at issue in the 2016 retrial, does Apple have 

testimony or evidence to explain what that portion is? If so, does the market share chart 

provide any additional relevant evidence on top of that testimony or evidence explaining 

the portion of Samsung’s market share increase driven by the 5 retrial products?

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3427 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

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

Samsung’s Motion In Limine #3

Questions for Samsung:

 Please clarify what exactly it is that Samsung wants to preclude Davis from saying at trial.

 Samsung’s Motion cites Davis’s December 2015 deposition, but the Motion does not 

indicate when at the 2013 retrial Davis offered a legal opinion as to what “directly 

attributable” means. If Samsung contends Davis offered this legal opinion during direct 

examination in the 2013 damages retrial, please direct the Court to the transcript page and 

line numbers and explain.

 Did Samsung challenge the “directly attributable” jury instruction on appeal?

 Samsung is arguing that Davis will testify on a question of law. Would Samsung agree 

that whether any particular Samsung expense is directly attributable to the infringing 

products is not a legal question?

 The jury instructions establish the legal standard. What prevents Davis from offering her 

opinion on the factual question of whether particular expenses do or do not meet that 

standard?

 How is Davis offering an opinion on whether particular costs are directly attributable to 

infringing products any different from Davis or Wagner offering an expert opinion on the 

total amount of damages?

Questions for Apple:

 If Davis has no independent understanding of the term “directly attributable” beyond the 

jury instruction, how can she offer an expert opinion on what costs fall within that 

standard?

 Is Apple planning to ask Davis what “directly attributable” means at trial? Does Apple 

expect Davis to refer to the Court’s jury instruction in explaining her understanding of the 

term “directly attributable?” 

 If “directly attributable” is a legal term and not an accounting term, how can Davis answer 

that question without giving a legal opinion?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3427 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 3