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

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 3

1 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) WILLIAM F. LEE [email protected] [email protected] 2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING [email protected] HALE AND DORR LLP 3 RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) 60 State Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02109 4 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) Telephone: (617) 526-6000 [email protected] Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) Telephone: (415) 268-7000 [email protected] 7 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 8 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 15 Plaintiff, APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 16 FILE UNDER SEAL APPLE’S MOTION v. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 18 Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 19 York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 20 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants.

24 25 26 27 28

APPLE’S ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3361324

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 3

1 In accordance with Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) submits this 2 motion for an order to seal its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Exhibit A to the Declaration of 3 Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Jacobs Declaration”). 4 Exhibit A to the Jacobs Declaration contains information that is confidential and 5 competitively sensitive as set out in the Declaration of Ruth Borenstein in Support of Apple’s 6 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (“Borenstein Declaration”), filed herewith. As detailed 7 in the Borenstein Declaration, Exhibit A contains extensive competitively sensitive and 8 confidential information regarding the negotiated billing rates of Apple’s counsel in this action, 9 Morrison & Foerster LLP. (Borenstein Decl. ¶ 2.) The billing rates of Morrison & Foerster 10 timekeepers are confidential, and are not generally revealed to the public. (Id.) Exhibit A 11 contains the rates for 91 timekeepers. The breadth of the information revealed in Exhibit A could 12 provide insight into Morrison & Foerster’s firm-wide billing structure and reflects Morrison & 13 Foerster’s confidential financial relationship (including negotiated discounts) with Apple. 14 Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees refers to one specific timekeeper rate that is not publicly 15 known. This information is competitively sensitive and confidential and could be used by 16 Morrison & Foerster’s competitors to its disadvantage, as disclosure of the information would 17 reveal the firm’s billing structure and confidential pricing strategy, as well as its negotiated 18 financial relationship with Apple. (Id.) 19 Numerous courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that, “In trademark/dress matters, attorney 20 billing rates which are not publicly known and are ‘competitively sensitive,’ warrant sealing.” 21 E&J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc., No. CV-00411, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94581, at *2 22 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2012) (citing China Int’l Travel Servs. (USA) v. China & Asia Travel Serv., 23 No. 08-cv-01293, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106622, at *29 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) (noting that 24 counterclaim plaintiff would “request its attorneys’ fees by way of a declaration, submitted for 25 filing under seal, . . . because the attorneys’ hourly rates are competitively sensitive and not 26 publicly known.”); Mine O’Mine, Inc. v. Calmese, No. 10-CV-00043, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27 53077, at *10 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2012) (sealing negotiated billing rates)); Gen’l Elec. Co. v. 28 Wilkins, No. 10-CV-00674, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97647, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2012)

APPLE’S ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 1 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3361324

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 3

1 (same); Herb Reed Enters., Inc. v. Monroe Powell’s Platters, LLC, No. 11-cv-02010, 2013 U.S. 2 Dist. LEXIS 96948, at *2 (D. Nev. July 11, 2013) (same). The E&J Gallo court also found that a 3 law firm’s confidential billing rate, “if [it] became known, would likely impact the law firm’s 4 competitiveness.” E & J Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc., No. 10-cv-00411, 2012 U.S. Dist. 5 LEXIS 64525, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2012).1 The relief requested in this motion is necessary 6 and is narrowly tailored to protect only the billing rates of counsel. 7 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Apple files herewith Exhibit A to the Jacobs 8 Declaration entirely under seal; a public redacted version of its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees; and, 9 under seal, an unredacted version of its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees indicating with highlighting 10 the specific number Apple requests to seal. 11

12 Dated: December 5, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

14 By: /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans 15 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 APPLE INC.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 This Court recently denied a request to seal attorney billing records that included hourly rates. See Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-CV-01455, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103038, at *4-6 (N.D. 26 Cal. July 22, 2013). That case is distinguishable, however, as the moving party argued only that the records were covered by attorney-client privilege. Id. at *4-6. There was no argument that 27 the rates were confidential and competitively sensitive. To the contrary, the Court noted that the hourly rates were reflected in the very declarations that attached the billing records at issue, and 28 that the moving party was not seeking to seal those declarations. Id. at *5.

APPLE’S ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 2 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3361324

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-1 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 3

1 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) WILLIAM F. LEE [email protected] [email protected] 2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING [email protected] HALE AND DORR LLP 3 RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) 60 State Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02109 4 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) Telephone: (617) 526-6000 [email protected] Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) Telephone: (415) 268-7000 [email protected] 7 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 8 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF RUTH N. 16 BORENSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S v. 17 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a UNDER SEAL 18 Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 19 York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 20 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants.

24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISO MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3361361

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-1 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 3

1 I, RUTH N. BORENSTEIN, do hereby declare as follows:

2 1. I am a partner at Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record for Apple Inc. in the 3 above-captioned action. I submit this declaration in support of Apple’s Administrative Motion to 4 File Under Seal Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. I have personal knowledge of the matters 5 set forth below. If called as a witness I could and would competently testify as follows. 6 2. Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Exhibit A to the Declaration of 7 Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Jacobs Declaration”) 8 contain confidential and competitively sensitive information regarding Morrison & Foerster’s 9 negotiated billing rates. Specifically, Exhibit A contains the rates for 91 timekeepers. The billing 10 rates of Morrison & Foerster timekeepers are confidential, and are not generally revealed to the 11 public. The breadth of the information revealed in Exhibit A could provide insight into 12 Morrison & Foerster’s firm-wide billing structure and reflects Morrison & Foerster’s confidential 13 financial relationship (including negotiated discounts) with Apple. Apple’s Motion for 14 Attorneys’ Fees refers to one timekeeper’s rate that is not publicly known. This information is 15 competitively sensitive and confidential and could be used by Morrison & Foerster’s competitors 16 to its disadvantage. Publishing this data would reveal the firm’s confidential pricing strategy and 17 its negotiated financial relationship with Apple and would cause harm to Morrison & Foerster and 18 its relationship with Apple. 19 3. Exhibit A to the Jacobs Declaration should remain under seal in full, for the 20 reasons articulated above. Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees should remain under seal in part, 21 as shown in Apple’s proposed redactions. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th 23 day of December 2013 at San Francisco, California. 24

25 ______/s/ Ruth N. Borenstein______Ruth N. Borenstein 26

27 28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISO MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3361361

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-1 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 3

1 ATTESTATION 2 I, Rachel Krevans, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Ruth Borenstein has 4 concurred in this filing.

5 Dated: December 5, 2013 /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans 6

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF RUTH BORENSTEIN ISO MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 2 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3361361

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-2 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 2

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 13 v. FILE UNDER SEAL 14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG 15 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG 16 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 17 Defendants. 18

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3361369

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-2 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 2

1 Apple filed a motion to seal its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Exhibit A to the 2 Declaration of Michael Jacobs in Support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Jacobs 3 Declaration”) 4 The Court finds that Apple’s sealing request is narrowly tailored and justified and that 5 there is good cause to seal the requested documents. Therefore, the above documents may be 6 filed under seal: 7

8 Document Sealable Portion 9 Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Reference to specific timekeeper rate at page 8.

10 Exhibit A to Jacobs Declaration Sealed in full. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: ______16 HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3361369

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 19

12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION 15

16 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 17 Plaintiff, APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 18 v.

19 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Date: January 30, 2014 20 AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and Time: 1:30 p.m. SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 21 AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh company, 22 Defendants. 23

26 REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 27

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 19

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as 4 counsel may be heard before the Honorable Lucy Koh in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled 5 Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Apple will move, and hereby 6 does move, for an award of $15,736,992 in attorneys’ fees against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 7 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. 8 This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and 9 authorities; supporting declarations filed herewith and exhibits attached thereto; and such other 10 written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under 11 submission by the Court. The parties’ counsel met and conferred regarding Apple’s request, as 12 set out in the accompanying Declaration of Nathan Sabri, but Samsung has not stipulated to 13 Apple’s request. 14 Dated: December 5, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 15 16 By: /s/ Rachel Krevans 17 RACHEL KREVANS

18 Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) i sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 19

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ...... i

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... iii

5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...... 1

6 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

7 II. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD APPLE THE FEES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SAMSUNG’S WILLFUL TRADE DRESS DILUTION ...... 2 8 A. Apple Is The Prevailing Party ...... 2 9 B. This Case Is Exceptional Under The Lanham Act ...... 2 10 1. The jury verdict establishes willfulness ...... 3 11 2. The record establishes that Samsung engaged in a willful, 12 deliberate, and calculated effort to gain market share by copying the iPhone, including the iPhone trade dress ...... 3 13 C. The Court Should Award Apple’s Requested Fees Of $15,736,992 ...... 6 14 1. A fee award is warranted ...... 6 15 2. Apple’s requested fees are reasonable ...... 7 16 a. Apple incurred over $60 million in fees for 17 prosecuting its claims through the two trials, after discounts and reductions ...... 7 18 b. Apple seeks only one-third of the fees billed through 19 March 1, 2013, for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 for work on Apple’s claims against 20 Samsung ...... 8

21 III. CONCLUSION ...... 13 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) ii sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page4 of 19

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)

3 CASES

4 Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 5 No. CV 03-0597-PHX-MHM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131813 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009) ...... 13 6 Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus., 7 352 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2003) ...... 6

8 Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2013) ...... 11, 12 9 Gates v. Deukmejian, 10 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) ...... 10 11 Gracie v. Gracie, 12 217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2000) ...... passim

13 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Pieta, No. CV 04-9626, 14 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96694 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) ...... 8 15 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 16 461 U.S. 424 (1983) ...... 8 17 Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2007) ...... 2, 7 18 Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 19 636 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 2011) ...... 3, 4

20 Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 21 No. CV 04-9049, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85998 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011) ...... 13 22 Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 23 726 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...... 13

24 Nat’l Prods. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC, 449 Fed. Appx. 638 (9th Cir. 2011) ...... 3 25 Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Baccarat Clothing Co., 26 692 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982) ...... 7 27 San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 28 568 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.2009) ...... 2

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) iii sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page5 of 19

1 Societe Civile Succession Richard Guino v. Beseder Inc., No. CV 03-13-10, 2 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83782 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2007) ...... 12 3 Spalding Labs., Inc. v. Ariz. Biological Control, Inc., 4 No. CV 06-1157, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56100 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2008)...... 12 5 Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., 6 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...... 13

7 TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011) ...... 2 8 9 STATUTES 10 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ...... 2 11 § 1117(a) ...... passim

12 35 U.S.C. § 285 ...... 13

13 OTHER AUTHORITIES 14 Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15 Rule 50 ...... 1 Rule 52 ...... 1 16 Rule 54 ...... 1 Rule 59 ...... 1 17 Rule 60 ...... 1

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) iv sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page6 of 19

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Apple brings this motion and the accompanying bill of costs now, because the parties 3 were unable to reach agreement on an extension of time for Apple’s Rule 54 filings, and thus 4 Apple must comply with Rule 54’s deadlines. Recognizing that the Court will be presented with 5 the parties’ Rule 50, 52, 59, and 60 motions in this same time period, Apple will count this 6 motion as part of the 40-page limit the Court set for those motions.

7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 Under any measure, this was an exceptional case. The evidence that Samsung deliberately 9 copied every aspect of Apple’s revolutionary iPhone product was overwhelming. Apple 10 prevailed on one or more claims of trade dress dilution or patent infringement against 26 of 28 11 accused products. A jury found that Samsung willfully diluted Apple’s protected trade dresses 12 and willfully infringed five of the seven asserted patents. The original trial and partial damages 13 retrial juries awarded Apple $930 million for Samsung’s violation of Apple’s IP rights. Apple 14 also scored a complete victory in its defense of Samsung’s claims. Given the high stakes in this 15 head-to-head battle of what are now the two leading competitors in the U.S. smartphone market, 16 the case garnered international press attention. 17 Samsung’s willful, deliberate, and calculated copying of Apple’s iPhone makes this an 18 “exceptional case” under Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act. The record conclusively 19 establishes that, once the iPhone became a spectacular success and Samsung’s smartphones 20 became far less desirable, Samsung made a calculated decision to capture market share by 21 copying the look and features of the iPhone. After a thorough study of the iPhone, Samsung gave 22 126 “Directions for Improvement” to make Samsung’s inferior phone in development look and 23 operate like the iPhone. (PX44.) Samsung carried out those directions without making any effort 24 to identify and avoid violating Apple’s IP rights. Samsung’s efforts to compete against Apple by 25 misappropriating Apple’s own IP had their intended effect—Samsung’s sales of its infringing and 26 diluting phones has increased its market share dramatically. Given Samsung’s blatant disregard 27 of Apple’s IP rights, Apple should not be forced to bear the full expense of prosecuting its claims. 28 This motion addresses Apple’s request for attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. Apple

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 1 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page7 of 19

1 seeks $15,736,992, which is less than one-third of the fees billed through March 1, 2013—the

2 date of the last order on motions arising from the first trial. Apportioning only one-third of the 3 fees incurred to Apple’s intertwined trade dress and design patent claims is conservative, as these 4 claims were the focus of most of the parties’ attention throughout the case. In fact, both parties 5 spent twice as much time on design/trade dress witnesses as utility patent witnesses at trial.

6 II. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD APPLE THE FEES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SAMSUNG’S WILLFUL TRADE DRESS DILUTION 7 8 Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act addresses remedies for willful trade dress dilution in 9 violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(c), as well as for other Lanham Act violations, including 10 infringement of registered and unregistered trademarks or trade dress, and false advertising. 11 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The statute permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing 12 party in “exceptional cases.” Id. As shown below, Apple is the prevailing party, this case is 13 exceptional, and Apple should be awarded the reasonable attorneys’ fees it requests.

14 A. Apple Is The Prevailing Party 15 The jury’s verdict and damage award clearly make Apple the prevailing party in this case 16 as a whole and in its Lanham Act claims in particular. (Dkt. No. 1931 at 11-12 (verdict of willful 17 dilution of Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress).) A 18 party need not prevail on all of its claims to be the prevailing party. See, e.g., San Diego Police 19 Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 741 (9th Cir. 2009).

20 B. This Case Is Exceptional Under The Lanham Act 21 Although § 1117(a) does not define “exceptional,” the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held 22 that exceptional cases include those involving “fraudulent, deliberate or willful” conduct. 23 Horphag Research Ltd. v. Garcia, 475 F.3d 1029, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming fee award 24 under § 1117(a) in trade dress dilution case); Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 25 2000) (“generally a trademark case is exceptional for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees 26 when the infringement can be characterized as malicious, fraudulent, deliberate, or willful”) 27 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 28 832 (9th Cir. 2011) (court erred by denying exceptional case status based solely on relief awarded

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 2 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page8 of 19

1 to prevailing plaintiff; court instead must “weigh the unlawfulness of defendants’ conduct”).

2 Applying that standard, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed exceptional case findings under 3 § 1117(a) based on jury verdicts of willfulness. See, e.g., Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068 (affirming 4 exceptional case determination based on willful infringement verdict); Nat’l Prods. v. Gamber- 5 Johnson LLC, 449 Fed. Appx. 638, 639 (9th Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (affirming 6 “exceptional case[s]” finding based on jury’s finding of deliberate infringement). 7 The Ninth Circuit also has looked more broadly to address a defendant’s wrongful 8 conduct, including “deliberate and calculated” attempts to take advantage of a plaintiff’s IP rights. 9 Horphag, 475 F.3d at 1039 (affirming exceptional case finding in trademark dilution case where 10 defendant “made deliberate and calculated attempts to confuse” its product with plaintiff’s); see 11 Lahoti v. Vericheck, Inc., 636 F.3d 501, 510-11 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming exceptionality under 12 § 1117(a) in light of pattern and practice of “disregard for . . . trademark rights,” “bad faith” and 13 “abusive litigation practices”). 14 Here exceptionality is established both by the jury’s finding of willful dilution and 15 Samsung’s deliberate and calculated strategy of copying Apple’s iPhone.

16 1. The jury verdict establishes willfulness 17 The jury found that Samsung’s dilution of Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and 18 unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress was willful. (Dkt. No. 1931 at 14.) This Court has ruled that 19 the jury’s finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record, citing evidence “that 20 Samsung viewed the iPhone as revolutionary (PX36.20), and that Samsung attempted to create 21 similar products (PX44).” (Dkt. No. 2220 at 14.)

22 2. The record establishes that Samsung engaged in a willful, deliberate, and calculated effort to gain market share by copying the iPhone, 23 including the iPhone trade dress 24 When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, Samsung initially continued to make phones 25 as it always had. (PX3A.1-2.) But Samsung later changed its tune, after it became convinced that 26 the iPhone was phenomenally successful while Samsung’s sales lagged behind. As detailed 27 below, Samsung fought back with a deliberate strategy of copying every aspect of the iPhone— 28 including the whole look of the iPhone, which is the trade dress—without making any effort to

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 3 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page9 of 19

1 avoid Apple’s protected IP.

2 Soon after Apple released the iPhone, Samsung’s LSI division—which manufactured 3 components for Apple—analyzed the iPhone. Their report ranked the iPhone first in a list of 4 “four key factors that we expect will shape handsets in the coming five years.” (PX34.13.) It 5 also concluded that the iPhone’s “[b]eautiful design” and “[e]asy and intuitive UI” were among 6 the key iPhone “[s]uccess [f]actors” and that copying them would be “easy.” (PX34.38.) In 7 2008, Samsung hired consultants to assess the iPhone’s impact. The consultants reported that 8 “pundits” and “iPhone users” alike considered the iPhone “a revolution.” (PX36.) 9 Samsung’s phone sales fell dramatically as iPhone sales soared. (Dkt. No. 1839 at 10 2044:17-18 (Musika testimony that “Samsung was losing market share during the period prior to 11 2010”).) By February 2010, carriers were pressuring Samsung to “make something like the 12 iPhone.” (PX40.2.) Samsung executives concluded that Samsung was suffering a “crisis of 13 design” and that the difference between the iPhone and the products Samsung had in development 14 was “the difference between heaven and earth.” (PX40.5.) 15 Samsung responded by preparing a 138-page “Relative Evaluation Report,” which 16 contained 126 “Direction[s] for Improvement” to make Samsung’s phone like the iPhone. 17 (PX44.) The Relative Evaluation Report compared virtually every aspect of the iPhone with the 18 Samsung phone then in development, each time finding Samsung’s phone wanting and each time 19 directing that Samsung’s phone be changed to resemble the iPhone. Samsung acted in complete 20 disregard of Apple’s IP—there is not a shred of evidence in the record to suggest that Samsung 21 made any effort to determine whether the various iPhone features were protected, much less to 22 avoid violating Apple’s IP rights. Instead, Samsung forged ahead and followed the Report’s 23 directives to make Samsung’s phone like the iPhone in 126 ways. All of those copying directives 24 should be considered—not only those directly related to the IP in suit—as exceptional case 25 findings and fee awards under § 1117(a) look to the totality of a defendant’s conduct. See, e.g., 26 Lahoti, 636 F.3d at 510-11 (addressing pattern and practice of “disregard for . . . trademark 27 rights,” “bad faith” and “abusive litigation practices”). 28 Samsung’s intensive effort produced the Galaxy S i9000, which the press called “very

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 4 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page10 of 19

1 iPhone 3GS-like.” (PX6.) Consistent with the Relative Evaluation Report’s copying directives,

2 the Galaxy S i9000 copied the iPhone industrial design (PX3 (comparing Samsung smartphones 3 before iPhone to Samsung smartphones after iPhone)) and copied the iPhone home screen, down 4 to the shading on the icons (PX44.131 (comparing iPhone icons with “[L]ight used . . . gives a 5 luxurious feel” to GT-i9000 icons in development and concluding “[I]nsert effects of light for a 6 softer, more luxurious icon implementation”); PX35 (“iPhones icons to are colorful and vibrant, 7 however they are in contained square which appear more organized and consistent.”). The 8 Galaxy S i9000 also copied numerous iPhone features, including interface features claimed in the 9 patents-in-suit (PX36 (“Lists bounce, icons flitter – the iPhone has a sense of whimsy”); PX38 10 (“Adopt Double-Tap as a supplementary zooming method . . . . The UX of iphone can be used as 11 a design benchmark.”); PX44.58 (comparing iPhone “Double Tap” to S1 in development, 12 “Double Tap zoom in/out function needs to be supplemented”); PX46.66 (comparing iPhone 13 “bounce” to Behold3 in development, “Provide a fun visual effect when dragging a web page”); 14 PX57.19 (lack of “Fun, Wow Effect” is “Critical” and concluding “[B]ounce effect is scheduled 15 to be reviewed”); PX186.1 (“there is no latex effect of having the screen follow along and then 16 returning when you are moving past the edge. (Refer to the iPad)”); PX195.1 (“With regards to 17 bounce, we used the Mass Spring Damper model which was modeled after the actual physical 18 effect and obtained the bounce effect that is similar to the iPad[.]”).) 19 In August 2010, immediately after Samsung introduced its Galaxy S i9000 and Vibrant 20 smartphones, Apple met with Samsung and explicitly told Samsung to stop copying Apple’s 21 iPhone “patents and designs.” (PX52 (Apple August 2010 presentation); PX201 at 31:15-16; 22 31:18-20; 33:21-24; 37:21-38:05 (testimony of Jun Won Lee that Apple raised Samsung’s 23 infringement of “Apple phone’s patents and design”).) Apple pointed out the similarities between 24 the iPhone design (protected by the trade dress and the D’677, D’087, and D’305 patents) and the 25 Galaxy S i9000’s design. (PX52.17-19; Dkt. No. 1695 at 1958–1962 (testimony of Boris Teksler 26 regarding Apple’s presentation to Samsung in August 2010 which included discussion of 27 similarities of iPhone and Galaxy S i9000).) Yet Samsung continued to introduce phones that 28 copied the iPhone, including the Galaxy S Vibrant, the Galaxy S Fascinate, the Galaxy S

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 5 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page11 of 19

1 Mesmerize, the Galaxy S Showcase, and the Galaxy S 4G. This last product was introduced in

2 February 2011, six months after the August 2010 meeting, and was sold until at least June 2012. 3 The jury found it diluted Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPhone 3G trade 4 dress and infringed every one of Apple’s patents-in-suit. This phone alone sold over 1.45 million 5 units and generated over $473 million in revenues for Samsung in the U.S. (JX1500). 6 With these and other diluting and infringing products, Samsung flooded the market with 7 over 21 million copied smartphones during the two years prior to June 30, 2012. Samsung’s 8 strategy of copying the iPhone to boost its smartphone sales succeeded: Between June 2010, 9 when the first Galaxy S phone was introduced, and June 30, 2012, Samsung’s U.S. market share 10 jumped six-fold from 5% to above 30%. (Dkt. No. 1982-2 ¶ 30.) As Julie Davis testified, 90% of 11 the dramatic increase in Samsung’s U.S. smartphone market share in the third quarter of 2010 12 was due to sales of infringing phones. (Dkt. No. 2840 at 719:9-721:3 (discussing PDX100.8).) 13 Samsung’s market share gain eroded Apple’s position as the market leader. Samsung’s 14 successful strategy has been to “blunt” and “undercut” Apple using the Galaxy products to take 15 the leading position in the U.S. smartphone market. (PX62.11-15.) In February 2012, Samsung 16 concluded that as a result of its own rapid growth in market share, the U.S. smartphone market 17 was “becoming a two horse race between Apple & Samsung.” (PX60.8.)

18 C. The Court Should Award Apple’s Requested Fees Of $15,736,992 19 1. A fees award is warranted 20 A district court has discretion as to whether to award fees in an exceptional case. 21 Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Indus., 352 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing 22 decision to award fees under § 1117(a) for abuse of discretion). The same factors that render a 23 case exceptional also support an award of fees. See, e.g., id. at 1219 (no abuse of discretion in 24 awarding fees when court considered “willful, deliberate infringement” of a mark “similar to that 25 of its competitor”). Indeed, where a jury has returned a willfulness finding, arguments against an 26 award of fees are “difficult to advance successfully.” Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068. That is because 27 the award of fees to the prevailing party “flows quite naturally from the jury’s finding of willful 28 infringement and the legal standard for ‘exceptional cases’ under § 1117.” Id.

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 6 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page12 of 19

1 The Court should award Apple fees in this exceptional case. Awarding fees to Apple

2 “flows quite naturally” from the jury’s willfulness verdict as well as Samsung’s extensive record 3 of willful, deliberate, and calculated decisions to copy the iPhone, in blatant disregard for Apple’s 4 IP, discussed above. Courts routinely award fees, and the Ninth Circuit affirms fee awards under 5 § 1117(a), based on evidence that a defendant’s conduct was willful, deliberate, or calculated. 6 See, e.g., Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068 (affirming district court’s decision to award fees based on 7 willful infringement); Horphag, 475 F.3d at 1039 (affirming award of fees for trademark dilution 8 where defendant “made deliberate and calculated attempts to confuse” its product with 9 plaintiff’s); Nat’l Prods., 449 Fed. Appx. at 639 (affirming fees award when sufficient evidence 10 supported jury’s finding of deliberate infringement); see also Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Baccarat 11 Clothing Co., 692 F.2d 1272, 1276 (9th Cir. 1982) (reversing denial of fees where defendants 12 were “not innocent infringers,” but “premeditatedly sought” out infringing behavior, and noting 13 that exceptional case fees “[were] specifically directed towards eliminating such blatant 14 activity”).

15 2. Apple’s requested fees are reasonable 16 a. Apple incurred over $60 million in fees for prosecuting its claims through the two trials, after discounts and reductions 17 18 Apple and its counsel from Morrison & Foerster LLP (“M&F”), who prosecuted its claims 19 against Samsung, have taken numerous steps to ensure that the fees addressed in this motion are

20 reasonable, as detailed in the accompanying declarations of Michael Jacobs and Rachel Krevans.1

21 Among other things, M&F attorneys carefully review each invoice before sending it to Apple to 22 confirm that it reflects time appropriately charged to Apple and complies with the combination of 23 M&F’s and Apple’s rigorous billing requirements for this case. (Jacobs Decl. ¶ 259.) Apple’s in- 24 house attorneys managed this case to a very disciplined budget. (Id. ¶ 258.) For purposes of this 25 motion, Apple included only the fees it incurred for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 26

27 1 This motion discusses only fees that Apple incurred in prosecuting its claims; no fees from Apple’s successful defense against Samsung’s claims are included. 28

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 7 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page13 of 19

1 in this case, thereby eliminating fees from timekeepers who provided meaningful work but did 2 not play a substantial ongoing role in the case. (Id. ¶ 60.) Apple made further reductions in the 3 amounts of fees in connection with this motion to be conservative. (Id. ¶ 250.) As a result of all 4 of these efforts and reductions, the hours underlying the fees at issue are reasonable. 5 The billing rates for the fees at issue also are reasonable, and reflect substantial discounts. 6 No M&F attorney billing to this matter charged over per hour, and the rest were well below 7 that number. (Id. Ex. A.) The rates are within the ranges of the American Intellectual Property 8 Law Association Economic Survey and are generally less than the rates that Samsung has paid for 9 lawyers at Quinn Emanuel with comparable experience. (Id. ¶¶ 251-55 & Ex. A.) 10 Applying these parameters, Apple has paid or expects to pay M&F approximately $60 11 million for its work on this case through the damages retrial. (Krevans Decl. ¶ 6.) Apple also has 12 paid or expects to pay approximately $2 million to Wilmer Hale for its fees in the damages retrial, 13 again counting only timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 to the case. (Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 2, 14 4.) In total, using these parameters, Apple has incurred over $60 million in fees for prosecuting 15 its claims against Samsung.

16 b. Apple seeks only one-third of the fees billed through March 1, 2013, for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 for work 17 on Apple’s claims against Samsung 18 Section 1117(a) permits recovery of fees for successful Lanham Act claims or those 19 “inextricably intertwined” with such claims. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1069. Claims that are “based on 20 similar factual bases and legal theories are related for the purposes of determining a fee award.” 21 Gucci Am., Inc. v. Pieta, No. CV 04-9626, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96694, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 22 17, 2006). Work that “involve[s] a common core of facts” “cannot be viewed as a series of 23 discrete claims.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). 24 Apple’s trade dress and design patent claims are inextricably intertwined and involve a 25 common core of facts. Apple’s unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress has the following elements:

26  a rectangular product with four evenly rounded corners; 27  a flat clear surface covering the front of the product; 28  the appearance of a metallic bezel around the flat clear surface; APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 8 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page14 of 19 Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page15 of 19

1 D’087 and D’677 patents, testified about Apple’s design process and investment in design, which

2 is highly relevant to Apple’s trade dress claims. Thus, the work Apple’s counsel performed 3 relating to designs was relevant to Apple’s trade dress claims, although it also related to other 4 design IP. Apple may, therefore, recover for all its fees related to iPhone trade dress and design. 5 In a case of this magnitude, with various claims with differing degrees of overlap, courts 6 may apportion fees based on a high-level consideration of the percentage of the case involving the 7 Lanham Act claims or those inextricably bound to them. See McCarthy on Trademarks § 30:103 8 (“When there is an overlap in the attorneys’ work expended between the ‘exceptional’ Lanham 9 Act claims and nonattorney’s fee recoverable claims, it is appropriate for the court to reduce a 10 total attorney’s fee amount by a percentage which represents work on the non-Lanham Act 11 claims.”). This is especially true when courts consider “voluminous fee application[s].” Gates v. 12 Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992). In those cases, the court need not perform an 13 “hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request.” Id. Instead, “across-the-board percentage cuts” may 14 be used to reduce unrecoverable fees. See id. Determining an “exact percentage” of the fees 15 attributable to Lanham Act claims is unnecessary so long as there is “some attempt,” even if 16 “imprecise[],” to account for the unrecoverable fees. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1069 (emphasis added). 17 Apple has conservatively allocated as recoverable under the Lanham Act only one-third of 18 fees billed through March 1, 2013, for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 for work on 19 Apple’s claims against Samsung. Broadly, Apple’s offensive case was split across three 20 substantive areas: phone design (which included patents on the iPhone design as well as iPhone 21 trade dress rights), tablet design, and utility patents. (Krevans Decl. ¶ 8.) But throughout the 22 case, the parties’ litigation of Apple’s claims against Samsung focused a disproportionate amount 23 of time on the design issues. (Id. ¶¶ 9-11.) Apple’s Amended Complaint devoted a substantial 24 amount of attention to Samsung’s copying of Apple’s designs, including numerous side-by-side 25 design comparisons and discussion of Samsung’s copying. (Dkt. No. 75.) Samsung’s 22-page 26 trial brief devoted over nine pages to Apple’s designs; by contrast, it spent just two-and-a-half 27 pages on utility patents. (Dkt. No. 1322 at 3-15.) Both parties served many more expert reports 28 relating to design/trade dress issues than to utility patents—nine design/trade dress experts

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 10 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page16 of 19

1 compared to six utility patent experts for Apple; and eight design/trade dress and five utility

2 patent experts for Samsung. (Krevans Decl. ¶ 10.) Apple’s trial brief devoted the vast majority 3 of its fourteen-page discussion of Samsung’s violation of Apple’s intellectual property rights to 4 Apple’s designs/trade dress, with only two pages on utility patents. (Dkt. No. 1323 at 3-15.) 5 Consistent with this focus, at trial, Apple presented seven witnesses who were entirely or 6 predominantly relevant to design issues (including trade dress), and three specific to its utility 7 patents. (Krevans Decl. ¶ 11.) In addition to Mr. Bressler, Ms. Kare, and Mr. Stringer, who as 8 noted above, discussed both trade dress and design patent issues, some of these witnesses 9 addressed issues related solely or primarily to trade dress. Dr. Russell Winer testified “on the 10 distinctiveness and fame of the Apple trade dress elements, and . . . the infringement and dilution 11 [of] the Apple brands.” (Dkt. No. 1612 at 1497:17-22.) Hal Poret testified about consumer 12 surveys he designed and conducted “to determine whether or not the iPhone and the iPad trade 13 dress have acquired secondary meaning.” (Id. at 1577:17-20.) Kent van Liere also testified about 14 two trade dress-related surveys, one that measured “the extent to which consumers associate the 15 look and the design of Samsung Galaxy phones with iPhone” and one that measured consumer 16 confusion regarding tablets. (Dkt. No. 1695 at 1691:13-22.) And a significant portion of the 17 testimony of Phil Schiller, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing, was devoted 18 to the marketing, advertising, and fame of Apple’s brand and designs, as well as the harm to 19 Apple from Samsung’s dilution of the Apple brand. (Dkt. No. 1610 at 597-611, 618-665.) 20 Perhaps the best evidence of the importance of the design and trade dress issues, in a trial 21 where time was the parties’ most precious commodity, was how much time each side chose to 22 spend on these issues. Totaling the trial time that each side spent on the design/trade dress 23 witnesses and utility patent witnesses, each party spent twice as much time on design/trade dress 24 as it did on utility patents. (Krevans Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.) 25 Based on all of these facts, allocating one-third of fees to Apple’s successful Lanham Act 26 claims is eminently reasonable. In Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 915 F. 27 Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Nev. 2013), the district court awarded fees under § 1117(a) using a similar 28 methodology to that advanced here by Apple. Although that plaintiff’s successful Lanham Act

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 11 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page17 of 19

1 claim was only one of five asserted claims, the court rejected defendant’s proposal to simply

2 award one-fifth of the fees as not a “fair apportionment.” Id. at 1189. The court reasoned that 3 “[m]ost of the fees related to discovery and much of the other work” would have been incurred 4 whether there was a single, or many, claims. Id. Taking into consideration the “relative time and 5 resources devoted to the various claims,” the court apportioned sixty percent of plaintiff’s hours 6 to the Lanham Act claim through summary judgment. Id. After summary judgment, when only 7 the Lanham Act and a state unfair competition claim remained, the court allocated seventy 8 percent of the hours to the Lanham Act claim, noting that a “fifty-fifty split” would be unfair. Id. 9 at 1189-90. 10 Like Fifty-Six Hope Road, other courts in this circuit have apportioned a similar, or even 11 significantly higher, percentage of fees for Lanham Act claims when other claims were asserted 12 than the one-third that Apple seeks here. See, e.g., Spalding Labs., Inc. v. Ariz. Biological 13 Control, Inc., No. CV 06-1157, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56100, at *16-17 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 14 2008) (reducing fees by 10% when Lanham Act claim was one of nine claims); Societe Civile 15 Succession Richard Guino v. Beseder Inc., No. CV 03-13-10, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83782, at 16 *43-44 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2007) (awarding one-third of fees when Lanham Act claim was one of 17 three claims). 18 By seeking only one-third of its fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000, 19 Apple ensures that it is not recovering fees for its unsuccessful claims concerning the unregistered 20 combination iPhone trade dress or for tablet design. First, the only differences between the 21 unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress on which Apple did prevail and the combination iPhone trade 22 dress is that the latter lacks two of the iPhone 3G trade dress elements (a metallic bezel around 23 the flat clear surface and a row of small dots on the display screen) and also covers “neutral 24 (black or white) borders” rather than the black borders covered by the 3G trade dress. (Compare 25 Dkt. No. 75 ¶ 59 (iPhone 3G trade dress), with id. ¶ 63 (combination trade dress).) Thus, the 26 same work would have been required to address the iPhone 3G trade dress even if the 27 combination trade dress had not been at issue. The only possible additional work required by 28 having the combination trade dress in the case was whatever might have been required to address

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 12 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page18 of 19

1 “neutral (black or white) borders” in addition to “black borders.” Apple’s request for only one-

2 third of fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 ensures that any such minimal fees 3 are not included in its request. 4 Second, phone design by the nature of the complaint was far more the focus of the trial 5 than was tablet design: 19 of the 28 accused products in the first trial were phones accused of 6 infringing Apple’s phone design rights, while only three of accused products were tablets accused 7 of infringing Apple’s tablet design rights. Moreover, almost all of Apple’s damages request at the 8 first trial was for infringement by accused phones rather than tablets. Of the $2.75 billion Apple 9 requested at the first trial, only $80.97 million—just 2.9%—was for Samsung’s tablets. (See 10 PX25A1.4.) Asking for only one-third of fees from timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 11 ensures that fees related to tablet design are not included in the fees request. 12 Applying the parameters discussed in the prior section, M&F billed Apple $47,210,976 13 for timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 in this case for their time through March 1, 2013, 14 when the Court issued its last order on motions from the first trial. (Krevans Decl. ¶ 3.) One-

15 third of that total is $15,736,992, which Apple requests as its fee award under the Lanham Act.2

16 III. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, Apple respectfully requests that the Court find this case 18 exceptional and award Apple $15,736,992 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

19 2 Courts have awarded fees comparable to and far higher than Apple’s request. For 20 example, a $105.7 million award in a copyright case was upheld on appeal. Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., No. CV 04-9049, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85998 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2011), aff’d, 705 21 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit upheld an award of $16.8 million for attorney fees in a patent case. Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., 549 F.3d 1381, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see 22 also Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., No. CV 03-0597, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131813, at *41 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31, 2009) (awarding $19 million in fees in patent case). 23 The Patent Act also permits attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. 24 Exceptionality may be based on “litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit; or willful infringement.” Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Int’l 25 Ltd., 726 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Considered together, Samsung’s misconduct during litigation, the jury’s finding of willful infringement on five of Apple’s seven asserted patent 26 claims, and other aspects of Samsung’s litigation tactics render this case “exceptional” within the meaning of § 285. Apple separately addresses Samsung’s litigation misconduct as a ground for 27 an exceptional case finding under § 285 in proceedings currently before Judge Grewal. (See Dkt. No. 2838-2.) Apple also preserves its right to seek fees on other grounds under § 285, including 28 in the event that the Court’s finding of no objective willfulness is reversed.

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 13 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-3 Filed12/05/13 Page19 of 19

1 Dated: December 5, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2 3 By: /s/ Rachel Krevans RACHEL KREVANS 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 APPLE INC. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 14 sf-3360108

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 87

11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 16 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MICHAEL A. JACOBS IN SUPPORT OF 17 v. APPLE’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG Date: January 30, 2014 19 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York Time: 1:30 p.m. corporation; and SAMSUNG Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 20 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants. 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 87

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 4 II. OVERVIEW OF SUIT AND THE APPLE LITIGATION TEAM ...... 1 A. Apple’s Claims ...... 3 5 i. Asserted Design Patents ...... 3 6 ii. Asserted Utility Patents ...... 4 7 iii. Trademarks ...... 4 iv. Trade Dress ...... 5 8 B. Written Discovery ...... 6 9 C. Depositions ...... 7 10 D. Discovery Disputes ...... 8 i. Samsung was sanctioned for failure to comply with 11 discovery orders regarding copying documents ...... 9 12 ii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding source code ...... 10 iii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding financial 13 information ...... 10 14 iv. Samsung was sanctioned for untimely disclosure of its theories ...... 11 15 v. Samsung was compelled to produce witnesses ...... 11 16 E. Experts ...... 12 F. Motions ...... 13 17 G. Sealing ...... 14 18 H. Substantive and Procedural Sub-Teams ...... 15 19 I. The Jury Trial and the Jury’s Verdict ...... 18 J. Post-Trial Briefing ...... 20 20 III. BIOGRAPHIES AND ROLES OF THE MORRISON & FOERSTER 21 TEAM ...... 21 A. Lead Trial Counsel ...... 21 22 B. Partners ...... 24 23 C. Of Counsel and Associates ...... 41 24 D. Paralegals and Other Employees ...... 78 IV. MORRISON & FOERSTER’S RATES ARE COMPARABLE TO 25 PREVAILING RATES IN THE COMMUNITY FOR LIKE-SKILLED PROFESSIONALS...... 82 26 V. DISCOUNTS, WRITE DOWNS, AND WRITE OFFS...... 83 27

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) i sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 87

1 I, MICHAEL A. JACOBS, declare as follows:

7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 2. Apple submits this declaration, the declaration of Rachel Krevans, and the 9 declaration of Mark Selwyn in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees. As set forth in Apple’s 10 motion, Apple is entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees but at this time requests only a portion 11 of the fees it has incurred in prosecuting this case. My declaration will focus on the development 12 of the case and the work of the Apple team from inception of the case through April 2013. 13 Rachel Krevans will address in a separate declaration the portion of its fees that Apple requests.

14 II. OVERVIEW OF SUIT AND THE APPLE LITIGATION TEAM 15 3. Apple filed the Complaint instituting this action on April 15, 2011. Apple initially 16 asserted 7 utility patents, 3 design patents, iPhone and iPod trade dress rights, iPad trade dress 17 rights, and trademark rights. Apple filed its Amended Complaint on June 16, 2011, asserting 8 18 utility patents and 7 design patents, as well as trade dress and trademark rights. Apple accused 19 Samsung’s Galaxy mobile phones and tablet computers of infringing on Apple’s intellectual 20 property rights, and named 28 specific examples of infringing phones and tablets. On June 30, 21 2011, Samsung filed counterclaims alleging infringement of 12 utility patents, seeking 22 cancellation of Apple’s trade dress and trademark registrations, and seeking declarations of 23 noninfringement and invalidity of Apple’s intellectual property rights. 24 4. The case was hotly contested and heavily briefed. Before the beginning of the first 25 trial on July 30, 2012, there were 1,456 docket entries (and by the final post-trial ruling on 26 March 1, 2013, the number had increased to 2,270). The litigation required many lawyers—as 27 listed on the Court’s docket, 62 attorneys have appeared to represent Apple and 52 have appeared 28 to represent Samsung.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 1 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page4 of 87

1 5. The case culminated in a three-and-a-half week jury trial. Due to several rounds of

2 pretrial case narrowing at the Court’s direction, trial proceeded, on Apple’s claims, as to three 3 utility patents, three phone design patents, one tablet design patent, iPhone trade dress rights, iPad 4 trade dress rights, and 28 accused Samsung products. After several days of deliberation, the jury 5 found that 26 of the 28 accused Samsung products infringed and/or diluted at least one of Apple’s 6 asserted intellectual property rights (the two exceptions were the Intercept, which was accused 7 only of infringing the ’163 and ’915, and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE), which was accused only 8 of infringing the D’889). The jury found that Samsung infringed the ’381, ’163, ’915, D’677, ad 9 D’305 patents willfully, and that Samsung diluted Apple’s trade dress willfully. The jury also 10 found that none of Apple’s patents was invalid and that Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and 11 unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress were protectable. The jury found that Apple did not infringe 12 any of Samsung’s asserted intellectual property rights. The jury awarded Apple damages in the 13 amount of $1,049,343,540. 14 6. The breadth of work continued with the parties’ post-trial motions. Apple filed a 15 brief regarding non-jury claims; a motion for permanent injunction and damages enhancements; 16 and a motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and amended judgment. Samsung filed a 17 motion regarding non-jury claims; a motion for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and/or 18 remittitur; as well as three motions to compel relating to the parties’ post-trial motions. The post- 19 trial motions were so substantial that they led to seven separate orders from December 2012 20 through March 2013, not counting orders on motions to compel or other ancillary filings: 21 (1) order regarding waiver, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition, (2) order 22 regarding Apple’s request for a permanent injunction, (3) order regarding Samsung’s allegations 23 of juror misconduct, (4) order regarding Apple’s JMOL/new trial motion, (5) order regarding 24 Samsung’s JMOL/new trial motion, (6) order regarding damages enhancements, and (7) the order 25 regarding damages that led to a November 2013 damages retrial. 26 7. Two law firms represented Apple in this case throughout the time period discussed 27 above. Broadly speaking, Morrison & Foerster prosecuted the claims brought by Apple, and 28 WilmerHale defended against the counterclaims brought by Samsung. A brief summary of the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 2 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page5 of 87

1 claims brought by Apple in this matter and the Morrison & Foerster team that litigated those

2 claims follows.

3 A. Apple’s Claims 4 8. Apple asserted a range of intellectual property rights directed to aspects of 5 smartphones and tablet computers, including design patents, utility patents, trademarks, and trade 6 dress. Apple described in detail that Samsung exhibited a pattern of copying to make Samsung’s 7 products look and work like Apple’s products. Apple noted that Samsung had even copied 8 Apple’s distinctive product packaging. Apple included illustrations throughout the Complaint to 9 demonstrate Samsung’s copying efforts, including side-by-side comparisons showing Samsung’s 10 products compared to Apple’s asserted design patents; Samsung’s products compared to Apple’s 11 trade dress; and Samsung’s icons compared to Apple’s icons.

12 i. Asserted Design Patents 13 9. Apple’s amended complaint asserted patent infringement claims based on the 14 following design patents:

15  U.S. Patent No. D504,889: The D’889 patent is directed to the design of a tablet 16 computer.

17  U.S. Patent No. D593,087: The D’087 patent is directed to the design of the 18 iPhone’s front face and bezel.

19  U.S. Patent No. D604,305: The D’305 patent is directed to the design of iPhone’s 20 graphical user interface.

21  U.S. Patent No. D617,334: The D’334 patent is directed to the design of iPhone’s 22 graphical user interface.

23  U.S. Patent No. D618,677: The D’677 patent is directed to the design of iPhone’s 24 black front face.

25  U.S. Patent No. D622,270: The D’270 patent is directed to the design of the iPod 26 touch.

27  U.S. Patent No. D627,790: The D’790 patent is directed to the design of iPhone’s 28 graphical user interface.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 3 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page6 of 87

1 ii. Asserted Utility Patents

2 10. Apple’s amended complaint asserted patent infringement claims based on the 3 following utility patents: 4  U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381: The ’381 patent is directed to a feature that informs 5 the user that an edge of an electronic document has been reached. 6  U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163: The ’163 patent is directed to a feature that allows a 7 user to zoom into and navigate a structured electronic document. 8  U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915: The ’915 patent is directed to a feature that 9 distinguishes between single-finger scroll and multi-finger gestures. 10  U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607: The ’607 patent is directed to touchscreen hardware. 11  U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129: The ’129 patent is directed to touchscreen hardware. 12  U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828: The ’828 patent is directed to a feature that interprets a 13 user’s contacts on a touchscreen. 14  U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002: The ’002 patent is directed to features in a status bar 15 for computing devices. 16  U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891: The ’891 patent is directed to timed notification 17 windows for computing devices. 18 iii. Trademarks 19 11. Apple asserted claims for federal trademark infringement (under 15 U.S.C. 20 § 1114), common law trademark infringement, and unfair business practices (under California 21 Business & Professions Code § 17200) based on the following registered trademarks: 22  U.S. Registration No. 3,886,196 for an icon that is green in color with a white 23 silhouette of a phone handset arranged at a 45 degree angle and centered on the 24 icon that represents the application for making telephone calls. 25  U.S. Registration No. 3,886,200 for an icon featuring a yellow and green 26 sunflower against a light-blue background that represents the application for 27 photographs. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 4 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page7 of 87

1  U.S. Registration No. 3,889,642 for an icon that is green in color with a white 2 silhouette of a speech bubble centered on the icon that represents the application 3 for messaging.

4  U.S. Registration No. 3,889,685 for an icon that features gears against a gray 5 background that represents the application for settings.

6  U.S. Registration No. 3,886,169 for an icon that features a yellow notepad that 7 represents the application for notes.

8  U.S. Registration No. 3,886,197 for an icon that features a silhouette of a man on a 9 spiral-bound address book that represents the application for contacts.

10  U.S. Registration No. 2,935,038 (the “iTunes Eighth Note and CD Design 11 Trademark”) for an icon that features a two eighth note and CD logo for iTunes 12 on-line music services. 13 12. Apple asserted common law trademark infringement and unfair business practices 14 claims (under California Business & Professions Code § 17200) based on the following 15 unregistered trademark:

16  Purple iTunes Store Trademark (unregistered trademark as shown in U.S. 17 Application Serial No. 85/041,463) for an icon with a purple background color 18 with a white circle and a silhouette of two white eighth notes within the white 19 circle.

20 iv. Trade Dress 21 13. Apple asserted claims for federal trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114), 22 federal trade dress dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)), and unfair business practices (under California 23 Business & Professions Code § 17200) based on the following registered trade dresses:

24  U.S. Registration No. 3,470,983 for the configuration of a handheld mobile digital 25 electronic device.

26  U.S. Registration No. 3,457,218 for the configuration of a handheld mobile digital 27 electronic device. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 5 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page8 of 87

1  U.S. Registration No. 3,475,327 for the configuration of a handheld mobile digital 2 electronic device. 3 14. Apple asserted claims for federal false designation of origin and unfair competition 4 (under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), federal trade dress dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)), and unfair 5 business practices (under California Business & Professions Code § 17200) based on the 6 following unregistered trade dresses:

7  iPhone Trade Dress 8  iPhone 3G Trade Dress 9  iPhone 4 Trade Dress 10  iPhone/iPhone 3G/iPhone 4 Trade Dress (aka “Combination Trade Dress”) 11  iPad Trade Dress 12  iPad 2 Trade Dress 13 15. At the direction of the Court, Apple narrowed its case several times during the 14 course of the litigation, dropping certain claims, patents, and trade dresses. Ultimately, trial 15 proceeded on the ’381, ’163, and ’915 utility patents; the D’677, D’087, D’305, and D’889 design 16 patents; the ’983 trade dress, unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress, and unregistered iPhone 17 combination trade dress; and unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress. 18 16. In addition to this action, Morrison Foerster represented Apple in other actions in 19 the United States involving utility and/or design patents that Apple has brought against Samsung. 20 See, e.g., In re Elec. Digital Media Devices & Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-796 (2012) and 21 Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 12-cv-0630-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.). Work done for each of those 22 cases was recorded using a separate matter number, and although certain depositions and 23 discovery from one or more of those actions were designated for use in this matter, Apple is only 24 seeking fees billed for this matter.

25 B. Written Discovery 26 17. The parties served and responded to extensive written discovery in this action. 27 Including both the offensive and defensive sides of the case, Samsung served 583 requests for 28 production, 89 interrogatories, and 2,518 requests for admission. Also across both sides of the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 6 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page9 of 87

1 case, Apple served 694 requests for production, 86 interrogatories, and 1,529 requests for

2 admission. Given the complexity of the case, individual requests for documents often 3 encompassed a large number of documents, and many interrogatories contained numerous 4 subparts. 5 18. Samsung produced many documents in Korean but did not provide translations for 6 these documents during discovery. This required Apple to retain Korean language translators and 7 attorneys with Korean language skills to review them.

8 C. Depositions 9 19. The parties conducted many depositions in this matter. Across both sides of the

10 case, the parties conducted over 200 depositions, resulting in well over 2,500 deposition exhibits.1 11 These included depositions of Apple, Samsung, and third-party witnesses. Because Samsung 12 generally made its employees available for deposition in the location where they worked, many 13 depositions occurred in or around Seoul, South Korea. The depositions of most Apple employees 14 were taken in Northern California. The parties also conducted a substantial number of third-party 15 depositions in locations across the United States. In all, the parties conducted depositions in 16 South Korea and England, as well as in California, New York, Utah, Texas, Illinois, 17 North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, Massachusetts, 18 Pennsylvania, Georgia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Florida, and Washington, D.C. 19 Throughout the fact discovery period, there were often numerous depositions across the 20 United States and in South Korea in a single week, and often multiple depositions on a single day,

21 requiring a very large team to accomplish all the necessary discovery. 22 20. There were a substantial number of documents produced that had to be reviewed 23 and analyzed for depositions. Selection of documents for depositions required numerous 24 attorneys and a multi-step process. On average, about one-tenth of the documents produced by

25 1 Because of the scope and complexity of the case, the Court authorized the parties to 26 conduct discovery beyond some of the usual limitations. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit depositions to ten per side (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i)) and those depositions 27 cannot exceed seven hours (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1)). 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 7 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page10 of 87

1 Samsung were sourced to a given custodian and flagged by Apple’s Korean-language attorneys as

2 potentially useful for the custodian’s upcoming deposition. Before Apple’s outside counsel could 3 review the flagged documents and consider them for use in deposition, however, each document 4 had to be translated into English. On average, each document produced by Samsung contained 5 about 12 pages of text. Apple’s experience was that an informal translation of 12 pages of text 6 suitable for internal use could be prepared in about 45 minutes, but formal translation took much 7 more time. Translation of documents needed for depositions typically took multiple full-time 8 Korean-language translators several days to complete. After documents were translated, Apple’s 9 outside counsel analyzed and selected the translated Samsung documents for deposition purposes. 10 21. For Samsung designers, developers, and marketing custodians, Apple had to piece 11 together from the custodian’s files what role (among the multitude of possible roles) he or she 12 played in the design, development, and/or commercialization of products that took several months 13 and sometimes years to plan, design, develop, and launch. Understanding the development of the 14 infringing features also involved reviewing e-mails and documents containing source code and 15 other technical information. The review of Samsung’s financial information was equally 16 complicated, as data had to be stitched together from several documents before the relevance of 17 financial materials could be determined. Further, Samsung produced multiple, conflicting 18 versions of certain key financial documents and produced documents in a manner that failed to 19 consolidate the financial information from its Korean and United States operations. These 20 failures were particularly important in connection with the trade dress case, in which Samsung’s 21 profits were an available remedy.

22 D. Discovery Disputes 23 22. Apple’s discovery costs were further multiplied by Samsung’s conduct during 24 discovery. Samsung forced Apple to file multiple motions to compel, including motions seeking 25 production of copying documents, source code, and financial information. In several instances, 26 Apple needed multiple orders before Samsung finally complied. 27 23. Samsung also pursued extensive discovery on hopeless defenses that it later 28 abandoned, including many arguments regarding the alleged “functionality” of the design patents

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 8 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page11 of 87

1 and asserted trade dresses. For example, Samsung demanded depositions of individuals that

2 worked in Apple’s model shop or as paint mixers, including Amy Chuang, Chris Harris, 3 Chris Hood, Zack Kamen, Mark Lee, Fred Simon, and Aaron Von Minden. These depositions 4 required Apple to review tens of thousands of documents. Samsung insisted that Apple run 5 special searches regarding white iPhone issues, which resulted in Apple reviewing additional 6 thousands of documents totaling many tens of thousands of pages. White iPhone issues were not 7 raised at trial. Similarly, Samsung insisted on deposing multiple individuals regarding “drop 8 tests” for the iPhone, including Richard Dinh, Phil Hobson, Chris Prest, Fletcher Rothkopf, 9 Tang Tan, Eric Wang, Wei Chen, and John Ternus. As a result of these depositions, Apple 10 reviewed over 89,000 documents and 3.6 million pages. Samsung also insisted that special search 11 terms pertaining to “drop tests” be applied to Apple’s documents. Apple again reviewed 12 thousands of documents totaling nearly 200,000 pages as a result of the “drop tests” search terms, 13 none of which was used at trial.

14 i. Samsung was sanctioned for failure to comply with discovery orders regarding copying documents 15 24. On July 1, 2011, Apple moved for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 86.) Soon 16 thereafter, on July 12, 2011, Apple served its first set of discovery requests, seeking documents 17 and facts relating to Samsung’s copying. Samsung objected to the requests as “oppressive and 18 harassing inasmuch as it implies Samsung engaged in copying and other such activity.” (Dkt. 19 No. 249, Motion filed under seal at 3.) 20 25. Samsung’s production was due on September 12, 2011. (Dkt. No. 115.) When the 21 deadline came, Samsung had produced only 15,000 pages of documents, few of which related to 22 design. 23 26. Apple moved to compel production of copying documents to support its 24 preliminary injunction motion. At the hearing on Apple’s motion, Samsung told the Court that 25 such documents did not exist: “[I]n producing our design documents we are not obligated to 26 manufacture documents that don’t exist. They are looking for a smoking gun document, a 27 document that says we copied something from Apple. We don’t have those documents.” (Dkt. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 9 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page12 of 87

1 No. 277 at 47-48.) Judge Grewal ordered Samsung to produce all documents from the custodial

2 files of Samsung designers of the Samsung products at issue “referencing the Apple products 3 alleged by Apple to embody one or more of the ornamental or utility features claimed in the 4 patents,” among other things. (Dkt. No. 267 at 3.) Samsung failed to comply with that order. 5 27. Apple moved to enforce the Court’s order and won. Samsung was again ordered 6 on December 22, 2011 to produce the above documents by December 31, 2011. (Dkt. No. 537 7 at 3.) Samsung produced many additional documents after the second order, even retaining a 8 second e-discovery vendor to assist as the volume of additional production was so high. (Dkt. 9 No. 880 at 6.) 10 28. Apple then moved for, and was granted, sanctions. Judge Grewal sanctioned 11 Samsung for violating two discovery orders requiring production of design and copying 12 documents. (Dkt. No. 880 at 9.)

13 ii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding source code 14 29. Apple served requests for production of documents on October 26, 2011, 15 requesting the production of source code for each version of the accused products. Judge Grewal 16 ordered Samsung to produce source code for all relevant versions of the accused products, 17 including alleged design-around code. On December 22, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s Motion 18 to Compel Samsung to produce its accused products’ source code no later than December 31, 19 2011. (Dkt. No. 537 at 2-3.) Again, Samsung failed to comply with the Court’s Order and Apple 20 moved for sanctions. Judge Grewal found that Samsung clearly violated the Court’s order and 21 that sanctions were warranted. The Court ordered preclusive sanctions, noting that “Samsung 22 offer[ed] precisely zero evidence to show that its actions were in good faith, or otherwise 23 justified.” (Dkt. No. 898 at 8.)

24 iii. Samsung was sanctioned for withholding financial information 25 30. Apple also had to seek multiple orders to obtain Samsung’s financial information 26 relevant to Apple’s showing of damages. Apple propounded Requests for Production as early as 27 August 3, 2011. (Dkt. No. 613 at 19 n.8.) Samsung’s responses were inadequate. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 10 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page13 of 87

1 31. Accordingly, Apple filed a motion to compel on January 11, 2012. (Id.) The

2 Court directed Samsung to produce the sales and financial information by February 3, 2012. 3 (Dkt. No. 673 at 2.) Samsung produced a single spreadsheet. This conduct compelled Apple to 4 move for sanctions. (Dkt. No. 759.) 5 32. Acknowledging Samsung’s failure to comply with the deadline to produce 6 financial documents, on April 23, 2012, Judge Grewal ordered discovery sanctions. (Dkt. 7 No. 880.) In total, Samsung revised its production of sales and financial information six times— 8 on February 3, 10, and 28, March 8 (the close of fact discovery), March 22 and March 29. On 9 April 16, which was more than a month after the discovery cut-off, Samsung completely 10 overhauled its financial calculation methods immediately prior to the delivery of Mr. Wagner’s 11 expert report.

12 iv. Samsung was sanctioned for untimely disclosure of its theories 13 33. Samsung faced sanctions again as a result of its decision to withhold until after the 14 close of discovery its defenses to Apple’s utility and design patent claims. On November 14, 15 2011, Apple served contention interrogatories seeking disclosure of Samsung’s non-infringement 16 and validity theories. Samsung’s response, served on December 19, 2011, was 18 pages of 17 boilerplate and Bates numbers. On March 19, 2012, nine days after the close of fact discovery, 18 Samsung served a 145-page supplemental response. Apple moved to strike the portions of 19 Samsung’s expert reports relying on these untimely disclosed theories. (Dkt. No. 939.) 20 Judge Grewal struck those portions of Samsung’s expert reports, and the Court affirmed his 21 Order. (Dkt. Nos. 1144, 1545.)

22 v. Samsung was compelled to produce witnesses 23 34. Despite Apple’s proper notices of deposition, Samsung initially failed to make 23 24 of its employees available for deposition because they were all purportedly “apex” employees. 25 Despite extensive discussions between the parties, Samsung refused to produce many of those 26 employees for deposition, forcing Apple to seek relief from the Court. The Court ultimately 27 ordered Samsung to produce four of the remaining six Samsung employees at issue, holding that, 28 among other reasons, Samsung had “fail[ed] to articulate any burden or extraordinary

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 11 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page14 of 87

1 circumstance present . . . that would set provide a counter-balance to Apple’s showing.” (Dkt.

2 No. 850 at 12.) Apple’s original deposition notices coincided with periods of time that 3 Morrison & Foerster attorneys were present in South Korea. By refusing to initially make these 4 witnesses available, Apple was forced to send its attorneys back to Korea at considerable 5 expense.

6 E. Experts 7 35. The parties exchanged a substantial number of expert reports regarding Apple’s 8 affirmative claims in this case. Specifically, Apple served the following expert reports regarding 9 its claims against Samsung: Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan (utility patents); Peter Bressler (design 10 patents and trade dress); James T. Carmichael (design patents); Jack C. Goldstein (inequitable 11 conduct); John Hauser (conjoint analysis); Dr. Alan Hedge (design patent and trade dress 12 functionality); Susan Kare (design patents, trademarks, and trade dress); Michel Maharbiz (utility 13 patents); Terry Musika (damages); Hal Poret (trade dress surveys); Dr. Karan Singh (utility 14 patents); Dr. Alex Snoeren (utility patents); Dr. Sanjay Sood (trade dress); Henry Urbach (design 15 patents and trade dress); Kent Van Liere (trade dress surveys); and Dr. Russell Winer (trade 16 dress). 17 36. Many of these reports were particularly lengthy, even for a high technology patent 18 infringement action, because of the number of asserted patents and the number of accused 19 devices. Although Samsung failed to invalidate a single asserted patent at trial, Samsung asserted 20 vast numbers of allegedly invalidating prior art references and devices in its discovery responses 21 and expert reports, though many were later stricken as untimely. Apple was required to 22 investigate most or all of this alleged prior art, even the prior art that was not timely disclosed. 23 37. Samsung served reports from the following experts: Robert John Anders (design 24 patents), Dr. Trevor Darrell (utility patents), Nicholas Godici (design patents; inequitable 25 conduct), Stephen Gray (utility patents), Dr. Jacob Jacoby (trade dress surveys), Dr. Jeffrey 26 Johnson (utility patents), Michael Kamins (trade dress surveys), Dr. Mark Lehto (design patent 27 functionality), Samuel Lucente (design patents, trademarks, and trade dress), George Mantis 28 (trade dress surveys), Dr. Michael Mazis (trade dress surveys), Christopher Mount (design

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 12 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page15 of 87

1 patents, trademarks, and trade dress), Itay Sherman (design patents), Dr. R. Sukumar (conjoint

2 analysis), Dr. Andries Van Dam (utility patents), Dr. Brian Von Herzen (utility patents), and 3 Michael Wagner (damages). 4 38. The parties deposed each of the other party’s experts within a very short expert 5 discovery period (April 17, 2012 to April 27, 2012), which required double, triple, and even 6 quadruple tracking of expert depositions. Due to time constraints or strategy considerations by 7 either party, certain Apple experts ultimately did not testify at trial. For example, Samsung 8 elected not to call one of its experts (Dr. Mark Lehto), who had opined that the design patents 9 were invalid because they were “functional.” As a result, Apple did not call its rebuttal expert on 10 this issue (Dr. Alan Hedge). Similarly, other experts did not testify because certain claims and/or 11 patents were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Court’s case-narrowing directives. For 12 example, Apple expert Dr. Alex Snoeren did not testify because the ’002 patent was dismissed 13 without prejudice before trial.

14 F. Motions 15 39. The parties have engaged in extensive motion practice throughout this action. For 16 example, including only the period through post-trial motions in connection with the first trial, the 17 parties filed the following motions (many of Apple’s motions were necessitated by Samsung’s 18 failure to comply with discovery rules and this Court’s schedule):

19  Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 86); 20  Apple’s Motions to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 247, 319, 467, 600, 611, 613, 682, 702, 21 723, 736, 815, 2082);

22  Samsung’s Motions to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 56, 195, 205, 283, 346, 483, 603, 604, 23 700, 781, 782, 2108, 2141, 2144);

24  Apple’s Motions for Sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 715, 759, 795); 25  Samsung’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 968); 26  Apple’s [Utility Patent] Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 461); 27  Samsung’s [Utility Patent] Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 589); 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 13 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page16 of 87

1  Samsung’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Certain of Apple’s Experts (Dkt. 2 No. 927);

3  Apple’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Samsung’s Experts (Dkt. No. 940); 4  Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 930); 5  Samsung Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Based on Undisclosed Facts and 6 Theories (Dkt. No. 934);

7  Apple’s Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung’s Expert Reports (Dkt. No. 939); 8  Apple’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 62(c) for Entry of Preliminary Injunction 9 Without Further Hearing (Dkt. No. 951);

10  Apple’s Design Patent Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 1089); 11  Samsung’s Memorandum Regarding [Design Patent] Claim Construction (Dkt. 12 No. 1090);

13  Apple’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 1184); 14  Samsung’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 1185); 15  Apple’s Motion for Judgment on Non-jury Claims (Dkt. No. 1981); 16  Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction and Willfulness (Dkt. No. 1982); 17  Samsung’s Motion for Judgment on Non-jury Claims (Dkt. No. 1988); 18  Apple’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed), New Trial, and 19 Amended Judgment (Dkt. No. 1989); and

20  Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur 21 (Dkt. No. 1990). 22 40. During each day of the trial itself, both sides also filed and argued multiple 23 motions.

24 G. Sealing 25 41. This case garnered an unusually high degree of public interest, and the Court 26 applied a strict sealing standard. This case also implicated a significant amount of confidential 27 information for the parties, as well as for third parties, and accordingly Apple devoted significant 28 resources to protecting its and third parties’ confidential information through motions to seal.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 14 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page17 of 87

1 42. As stated in the prior section, the parties engaged in extensive motions practice.

2 For each motion Apple filed, it conducted a thorough review of all briefs and supporting materials 3 for Apple and third-party confidential information and trade secrets, so that it could request that 4 the Court seal any such information. Apple also reviewed its motion papers for Samsung 5 information that could potentially warrant confidential treatment, so that it could notify Samsung 6 of its plans to disclose such information and enable Samsung to request sealing. Apple also had 7 to review briefs and supporting materials for motions filed by Samsung to determine whether they 8 contained Apple or third-party confidential information and, if so, to request that the Court seal 9 such information. Apple typically had at least one senior associate and a partner who were both 10 familiar and heavily involved in the case conduct an initial and secondary review of any 11 documents to be filed to ensure that no confidential information from either party or any third- 12 party was inadvertently filed on the public record. Apple followed this review procedure through 13 trial and after trial. 14 43. Once Apple identified confidential information, it prepared motions to seal and 15 coordinated preparation of supporting declarations. Such efforts included conferring with Apple 16 employees responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of such information, assisting in the 17 preparation of supporting declarations from such employees, researching applicable case law, 18 drafting and editing briefs, and preparing and coordinating filing of motions and supporting 19 materials with the Court.

20 H. Substantive and Procedural Sub-Teams 21 44. The size and scope of this case required that the Morrison & Foerster litigation 22 team be broken down into sub-teams with primary responsibility for certain substantive and 23 procedural areas. These sub-teams were supervised and coordinated by Harold J. McElhinny, 24 Michael A. Jacobs, Alison M. Tucher, and Richard S.J. Hung. 25 45. Before trial, there was a team primarily responsible for the trade dress and design 26 patent issues (“Design Team”) headed up by Jennifer Lee Taylor and assisted by, among others, 27 Charles S. Barquist, Jason A. Crotty, Patrick Zhang, Francis Ho, Julia Kripke, Danielle Coleman, 28 and Daniel Zlatnik. The Design Team led the work on design issues, frequently assisted by other

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 15 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page18 of 87

1 individuals and members of the other teams. There was a team primarily responsible for the

2 utility patents (“Utility Team”) headed up by Andy Monach and assisted by, among others, 3 Karl Kramer, Matthew Kreeger, Matthew Ahn, Mark Melahn, Eric Ow, Joseph Kanada, and 4 Ruchika Agrawal. There was a team primarily responsible for damages (“Damages Team”) 5 headed up by Erik Olson and assisted by, among others, Ken Kuwayti, Eugene Illovsky, 6 Christopher Robinson, Brittany DePuy, Cecilia Ziniti, Dinah Ortiz, and Emily Sheffield. There 7 was also a team responsible for the review and analysis of Samsung internal documents, 8 deposition testimony, advertising, news articles, and other evidence relating to and confirming 9 Samsung’s intentional copying of Apple’s products, features, and asserted intellectual property 10 (“Copying Team”) headed up by Brooks Beard and assisted by, among others, Grant Kim, 11 Minn Chung, Christopher Wiener, Taryn Rawson, and Annabel Chang. Given the amount of 12 briefing in the case, often on shortened time, there was a team focused on briefing across all 13 substantive areas (“Briefing Team”) headed up by Ruth Borenstein and assisted by Grant Kim, 14 Raymond Hasu, and Christopher Wiener. Finally, there was a team primarily responsible for 15 discovery (“Discovery Team”) headed up by Jason Bartlett and Mia Mazza, assisted by, among 16 others, Marc Pernick, Wesley Overson, Teresa Burlison, Nathan Sabri, Esther Kim, Jamie Kitano, 17 and Katie Roney. These roles were not set in stone, however—for example, given the emphasis 18 on design issues in the case, many of the individuals listed above as being part of the Damages 19 Team, Copying Team or Discovery Team worked on design issues and briefing, and as trial 20 approached, many members of the Utility Team worked on matters of more general applicability 21 across the case. 22 46. The substantive teams were responsible for development and analysis of the legal 23 arguments within that substantive area, factual and legal analysis of Samsung’s arguments within 24 that substantive area, review and analysis of documents produced by both Apple and Samsung, 25 locating and retaining experts, working with experts to develop their reports, working with the 26 Discovery Team to propound and respond to written discovery, preparing for and defending 27 depositions of Apple witnesses, taking depositions of Samsung and third-party witnesses, and 28 preparing the case for trial.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 16 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page19 of 87

1 47. The Discovery Team was responsible for both affirmative and defensive

2 discovery, including collecting, reviewing, and producing documents from Apple, reviewing 3 documents produced by Samsung and third parties, propounding and responding to written 4 discovery, meeting and conferring with Samsung on numerous discovery issues, drafting motions, 5 and responding to Samsung’s motions. Because of the scope of discovery issues, Apple and 6 Samsung agreed that weekly discovery conference calls should be held. Those weekly calls 7 occurred through much of the discovery period and were attended by several members of the 8 Discovery Team, as the disputes were wide-ranging. For this same reason, the calls often lasted 9 for several hours. 10 48. The Discovery Team also oversaw the selection, training, and document review of 11 approximately 30 contract attorneys, as well as approximately 25 Morrison & Foerster 12 associates. Additionally, the Discovery Team worked with each of the substantive teams to 13 formulate search terms and date restrictions, as well as review guidelines for the document 14 reviewers. The coordination between the substantive teams and the Discovery Team was ongoing 15 and extensive throughout the discovery period. The Discovery Team also worked with the 16 document database vendor to collect documents, run search terms through the database, set up the 17 document review process, and produce documents. This involved weekly scheduled conference 18 calls with the database vendor, Apple, and two members of the Discovery Team. The Discovery 19 Team was responsible for coordinating inspections of CAD, source code, and physical models. 20 Additionally, the Discovery Team was responsible for drafting Apple’s transparency disclosures, 21 which provided custodial information, search terms, and date restrictions used on each custodian, 22 and identified documents produced (and the corresponding custodians) in response to Samsung’s 23 document requests. The team also reviewed Samsung’s transparency disclosures. When Apple 24 witnesses were noticed for depositions, the Discovery Team oversaw the scheduling of 25 depositions, staffing of partners and associates to defend those depositions, and coordinated 26 deposition preparation projects. The Discovery Team also created Apple’s privilege log. 27 49. After the close of fact and expert discovery, Apple substantially reduced the 28 number of attorneys on the case. The Trial Team that spent some or all of the duration of the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 17 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page20 of 87

1 2012 trial at a trial site in San Jose included: Harold J. McElhinny, Michael A. Jacobs,

2 Rachel Krevans, Jennifer Lee Taylor, Richard S.J. Hung, Alison M. Tucher, Charles S. Barquist, 3 Erik Olson, Andrew E. Monach, Jason Bartlett, Patrick Zhang, Francis Ho, Julia Kripke, 4 Ruchika Agrawal, Taryn Rawson, Jamie Kitano, Christopher Robinson, Mark Melahn, 5 Joshua Hartman, Nathan Sabri, Matthew Ahn, Marc Pernick, Eric Ow, Danielle Coleman and 6 Daniel Zlatnik. The Trial Team was responsible for presenting Apple’s case to the jury, as well 7 as disclosing and objecting to trial exhibits and designations, preparing fact and expert witnesses, 8 developing trial graphics, negotiating and filing papers regarding jury instructions, and other trial- 9 related tasks. 10 50. After the 2012 trial, Apple turned to post-trial briefing. Much of the Trial Team 11 assisted to some degree in post-trial briefing, but the primary Post-Trial Team consisted of 12 Michael A. Jacobs, Rachel Krevans, Richard S.J. Hung, Alison M. Tucher, Grant L. Kim, 13 Ruth N. Borenstein, Andrew E. Monach, Matthew I. Kreeger, Erik Olson, Nathan Sabri, 14 Christopher Robinson, Matthew Ahn, Patrick Zhang, Danielle Coleman, and Christopher J. 15 Wiener.

16 I. The Jury Trial and the Jury’s Verdict 17 51. The jury trial in this case started on July 31, 2012. The jury was instructed and the 18 parties presented their closing arguments on August 21, 2012. The jury arrived at a verdict on 19 August 24, 2012. As to the affirmative claims brought by Apple, the jury found that the ’163, 20 ’381, ’915, D’087, D’305, D’677, and D’889 patents were not invalid; that Samsung infringed all 21 the ’163, ’381, ’915, D’087, D’305, and D’677 patents; that Samsung infringed the ’163, ’381, 22 ’915, D’305, and D’677 patents willfully; that Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and 23 unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress were protectable and famous; and that Samsung willfully 24 diluted Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress. The jury 25 awarded damages to Apple in the amount of $1,049,343,540. As to the claims brought by 26 Samsung, the jury found that none of the accused Apple products infringed any of the asserted 27 Samsung patents. This combination of findings was decisively in Apple’s favor. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 18 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page21 of 87

1 52. The trial received virtually unprecedented coverage in the mainstream, technology,

2 and legal media. Major news publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, 3 San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, and others ran stories 4 about the trial and the verdict. Several media outlets ran live blogs of the trial from the 5 courthouse, reflecting a significant interest in the litigation. See, e.g., Howard Mintz, Live blog 6 recap: Apple awarded $1 billion in Samsung patent trial, http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-vs- 7 samsung/ci_21356424/live-blog-verdict-apple-samsung-patent-trial-billion-victory. Indeed, the 8 verdict in favor of Apple was reported on the front page of the national edition of The New York 9 Times on Saturday, August 25, 2012. The Wall Street Journal reported that the jury “delivered a 10 sweeping victory to Apple” in this case by awarding Apple $1.05 billion in damages. 11 Jessica E. Vasellaro, Apple Wins Big in Patent Case, The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 25, 2012, 12 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html. 13 Santa Clara University School of Law professor Brian Love called the jury’s verdict “a huge, 14 crushing win for Apple.” Id. The San Jose Mercury News called the jury verdict “a home run – a 15 grand slam – for Apple” and noted that the $1.05 billion damages award “indicates just how 16 overwhelming the rulings came back in Apple’s favor.” Chris O’Brien, O’Brien: Jury verdict 17 cements Apple’s image as mobile innovator, Aug. 25, 2012, http://www.siliconvalley.com/chris- 18 obrien/ci_21395088/obrien-jury-verdict-cements-apples-image-mobile-innovator. Many of these 19 publications noted the potential impact of the verdict on the smartphone and tablet markets and 20 the complexity and contentious nature of the litigation. The Court provided the jurors a binder of 21 the press coverage of the case. 22 53. The verdict and the press coverage of the verdict reflect the significance of the 23 litigation and the outcome of this case. It also reflects the complex issues presented at trial and 24 suggests that reasonable attorneys’ fees in this matter would be consistent with the size, scope, 25 complexity, and importance of the case, and that reasonable fees would be substantially above 26 that other patent infringement cases, even other prominent cases. For these reasons, and for the 27 other reasons set forth herein, Apple submits that the fees it requests are more than reasonable 28 given the extraordinary circumstances of this case.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 19 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page22 of 87

1 J. Post-Trial Briefing

2 54. In the months following the verdict, each party filed a number of motions. Apple 3 filed: 4  Brief Regarding Non-Jury Claims Including Waiver, Equitable Estoppel, Unclean 5 Hands, and Unfair Competition (Dkt. No. 1981). 6  Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements (Dkt. 7 No. 1982). 8  Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Renewed), New Trial, and Amended 9 Judgment [FRCP 50, 59] (Dkt. No. 1989). 10 55. The briefing on Apple’s permanent injunction and enhancement brief was 11 especially substantial. Apple’s motion was accompanied by six declarations, including two 12 expert declarations, a declaration from an individual who worked with Apple’s damages expert, 13 and a declaration from an Apple executive, Philip Schiller. Samsung’s opposition was 14 accompanied by fourteen declarations, including seven from experts. Apple’s reply was 15 accompanied by four declarations. Samsung filed a supplemental declaration from one expert. 16 56. Samsung filed: 17  Motion on Samsung’s Non-Jury Claims, Including Indefiniteness (Dkt. No. 1988). 18  Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to 19 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 (Dkt. No. 1990). 20 57. Samsung also filed three motions to compel relating to the parties’ post-trial 21 motions. 22 58. The Court issued seven separate orders from December 2012 through March 2013 23 on the above motions. Among other things, the Court found insufficient evidence of objective 24 willfulness with respect to patent infringement, but did not reach the issue of subjective 25 willfulness and let the verdict stand as to willful trade dress dilution. The Court denied 26 Samsung’s motion for a new trial overall, but granted a new trial as to damages for 14 infringing 27 products. The latter resulted in the Court striking $450,514,650 from the jury’s award. (Dkt. 28 No. 2271 at 26.)

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 20 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page23 of 87

1 59. After additional briefing and hearing, the Court subsequently issued a case

2 management order reconsidering-in-part the March 1, 2013 damages order and reinstating 3 $40,494,356 of the verdict. (Dkt. No. 2316 at 2.)

4 III. BIOGRAPHIES AND ROLES OF THE MORRISON & FOERSTER TEAM 5 60. A summary of timekeepers who billed more than $100,000 in fees on this matter is 6 below. Apple is presently seeking only a portion of the amount that these individuals billed 7 through March 1, 2013, which is substantially less than the total amount of fees Apple has 8 incurred in prosecuting this matter, as set out in the concurrently filed declaration of Rachel 9 Krevans at ¶ 5.

10 A. Lead Trial Counsel 11 61. HAROLD J. MCELHINNY. Mr. McElhinny started at Morrison & Foerster in 12 1976. His practice includes representing clients, as both plaintiff and defendant, in significant 13 matters involving all aspects of patent, copyright, and trade secret litigation. Mr. McElhinny is a 14 former Managing Partner of the firm, former Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department, and 15 former Co-Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice. His trial expertise has been 16 recognized by the most distinguished legal organizations in the United States, including The 17 American College of Trial Lawyers, which inducted him as a fellow of the College in 2007. 18 Mr. McElhinny is recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers Global 2012, Chambers USA 19 2012, Legal 500 US 2012, PLC Which lawyer? 2012, Best Lawyers In America 2013, 20 Euromoney’s Expert Guides, and Super Lawyers 2011. Mr. McElhinny was also named one of 21 the Daily Journal’s “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” in 2009, 2010, and 22 2012, and one of their “100 Top Lawyers in California” in 2009. In 2013, The National Law 23 Journal named Mr. McElhinny to its list of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America” and 24 Chambers & Partners named him one of the top nine patent attorneys in the United States in 25 Chambers Global 2013. Mr. McElhinny graduated from the University of California at Berkeley 26 School of Law in 1975, where he was a contributing author to the law review and was elected to 27 the Order of the Coif. He clerked for the Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld of the U.S. District 28 Court for the District of Connecticut.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 21 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page24 of 87

1 62. Mr. McElhinny’s responsibilities began with the inception of this case, and have

2 included the filing of the complaint, the preliminary injunction motion, discovery, motion 3 practice, and trial. He regularly met with and advised Apple. As lead counsel, Mr. McElhinny 4 negotiated with Samsung’s counsel, supervised briefs and analyses, coordinated case strategy, 5 and represented Apple at many hearings—e.g., discovery, Markman, and summary judgment 6 hearings. During discovery, he took the depositions of Samsung witnesses, including Samsung 7 CEO Gee-Sung Choi, Justin Denison, Won-Pyo Hong, Wookyun Kho, and Brian Rosenberg. He 8 deposed Samsung expert Robert Anders and defended the depositions of Apple witnesses such as 9 Daniele De Iuliis and Philip Schiller. Mr. McElhinny was Apple’s lead attorney at the 2012 trial, 10 presenting the opening statement and closing argument, examining witnesses, and arguing 11 motions. 12 63. MICHAEL A. JACOBS. I am the co-founder of Morrison & Foerster’s 13 Intellectual Property Practice Group. I started at the firm in 1984 and have been a partner for 28 14 years. I served as a Managing Partner of the firm. My practice focuses on litigation of high- 15 technology and intellectual property matters. I have twice won the California Lawyer Attorneys 16 of the Year (CLAY) award, one for my advocacy on behalf of Intel in the Intel v. Hamidi 17 “trespass to chattels” case and in 2012 for my defense of Novell in SCO v. Novell. I am listed in 18 Band 1 by Chambers in its California Intellectual Property category. I was also named to The 19 BTI Client Service All-Stars 2012 list by corporate counsel. I have been identified as a leading 20 intellectual property lawyer by Chambers Global 2012, Chambers USA 2012, Legal 500 US 21 2012, PLC Which Lawyer? 2012, Best Lawyers in America 2013, Euromoney’s Expert Guides, 22 and Super Lawyers 2011. The Daily Journal named me one of their Top 75 IP Litigators in 23 California for 2010-2012. I served as co-lead counsel in this litigation through April 2013. I 24 graduated from Yale Law School in 1983. 25 64. As Apple’s co-lead trial counsel, I was involved with the case since the outset and 26 was responsible for the overall strategy and management of the case. I regularly conferred with 27 and advised Apple throughout the case. I was heavily involved with all aspects of motion 28 practice, including discovery motions, utility patent and design patent claim construction briefing,

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 22 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page25 of 87

1 and summary judgment motions. I worked closely with the Design Team, including on the

2 selection of Apple’s trade dress survey experts and survey formulation. I argued at numerous 3 hearings, including discovery motions and Markman hearings. I was involved in Federal Circuit 4 appeals, arguing the preliminary injunction appeal and working on many other appeal briefs. I 5 also prepared and defended key Apple witnesses for deposition, including Greg Christie, 6 Evans Hankey, Scott Forstall, Jonathan Ive, Greg Joswiak, and Chris Stringer. I prepared for and 7 took the depositions of key Samsung witnesses, including Samsung expert Benjamin Bederson. 8 As co-lead counsel, I played a key role at the 2012 trial, formulating trial strategy and preparing 9 and examining witnesses, including both trade dress survey experts and Russell Winer, Apple’s 10 expert on strength of brand, design, distinctiveness of Apple’s trade dress, and Samsung’s 11 misappropriation of Apple’s trade dress. I also oversaw post-trial motions and post-trial 12 conferences through April 29, 2013. 13 65. RACHEL KREVANS. Ms. Krevans has tried patent disputes involving all 14 manner of products in the electronics and biosciences areas for over twenty years. Her work in 15 these industries has involved an assortment of technologies-from DVRs, cable and satellite TV, 16 and computer-phone interfaces, to HIV and cancer treatments, vaccines, and blood and antibody 17 research. Chambers notes Ms. Krevans as “one of the most thorough, calculating and technically 18 astute IP lawyers around” and says “the powerful scientific mind of Rachel Krevans has 19 impressed clients in the life sciences industry.” She is recommended as a leading lawyer by 20 Chambers Global 2012, Chambers USA 2012, The International Who’s Who of Life Sciences 21 Lawyers 2012, Best Lawyers in America 2013, PLC Which lawyer? 2012, Legal 500 US 2010, 22 and Super Lawyers every year since 2004. She has been recognized as a “Life Sciences Star” 23 within the inaugural edition of LMG Life Sciences 2012. California Lawyer honored her in 2008 24 with the prestigious “California Lawyer of the Year” award in the IP category. The Daily Journal 25 selected Ms. Krevans as one of the top 75 female litigators in California from 2008-2012, and one 26 of the top 75 IP lawyers in California from 2010-2012. In 2013, Chambers USA Women in Law 27 honored her as “IP Lawyer of the Year.” Ms. Krevans graduated from the University of 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 23 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page26 of 87

1 California at Davis, School of Law in 1984, and clerked for the Honorable Robert Boochever of

2 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She came to Morrison & Foerster in 1985. 3 66. Ms. Krevans became heavily involved in this case shortly before the 2012 trial and 4 played a major role in coordinating pre-trial, trial, post-trial, and damages retrial strategy. 5 Ms. Krevans assisted with preparing 2012 trial materials, including the exhibit list, deposition 6 designations, verdict form, jury instructions, demonstratives, and other trial graphics. She also 7 helped prepare the 2012 trial opening statement and closing argument. Ms. Krevans prepared and 8 examined several witnesses at trial. Ms. Krevans was also responsible for developing Apple’s 9 post-trial strategy.

10 B. Partners 11 67. ALISON M. TUCHER. Ms. Tucher has been a partner at Morrison & Foerster 12 for 10 years. She has a complex commercial litigation practice with an emphasis on intellectual 13 property matters. Ms. Tucher has handled patent cases for a variety of technology clients and a 14 wide range of other commercial disputes. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 1992, 15 Ms. Tucher clerked for the Honorable William A. Norris of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 16 Ninth Circuit, and then for Justice David H. Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court. She started at 17 Morrison & Foerster in 1998. 18 68. Ms. Tucher was active in the litigation from shortly after the complaint was filed. 19 Ms. Tucher was responsible for coordination between this litigation and related litigation around 20 the world. She helped prepare Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and assisted on the 21 subsequent appeal of the denial of that motion. Ms. Tucher also helped draft Apple’s mediation 22 briefs. Ms. Tucher also helped devise expert strategy for Apple’s survey experts, and helped 23 prepare the report of Dr. Russ Winer. She deposed Samsung expert Sam Lucente and fact 24 witness Timothy Benner, and third-party Robert Brunner. 25 69. Ms. Tucher participated in preparing and/or arguing numerous motions, including 26 Apple’s motion for sanctions relating to damages documents, Apple’s motion for sanctions 27 relating to source code production, Apple’s spoliation sanctions motion, motions to strike, and 28 Daubert motions. Ms. Tucher additionally participated in preparing and/or arguing oppositions to

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 24 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page27 of 87

1 Samsung’s motion to strike, Daubert motion, and sanctions motions. Ms. Tucher also worked as

2 a coordinator and point of contact between the client and the internal team, and participated in 3 some of the parties’ numerous meet and confer sessions. She also helped plan, and participated 4 in, Apple’s 2012 mock trial. Ms. Tucher was a member of Apple’s 2012 Trial Team. She 5 worked on numerous trial motions and oppositions, including motions for judgment as a matter of 6 law and an opposition to Samsung’s motion for an adverse inference. She also assisted with jury 7 instructions and witness preparation. 8 70. JASON R. BARTLETT. Mr. Bartlett has represented international and domestic 9 companies as both plaintiffs and defendants in matters involving information technology, wireless 10 telecommunications standards, biotechnology, medical devices, computer hardware, and heavy 11 industry. Mr. Bartlett is the former Co-Chair of Morrison & Foerster’s E-Discovery Task Force. 12 Mr. Bartlett graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1998. 13 He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 14 71. He was responsible for day-to-day management of the early phases of the case. He 15 worked on all aspects of initial motion practice, including preliminary injunction briefing, and 16 developed supporting evidence. Mr. Bartlett also led the Discovery Team. In this capacity, he 17 had day-to-day responsibility for team management and overseeing document collection, review, 18 and production. He managed both defensive and offensive discovery, including propounding and 19 responding to Samsung’s voluminous written discovery requests. He handled (and supervised the 20 handling of) numerous document collection interviews for Apple custodians. He prepared many 21 witnesses for deposition and defended a number of depositions, including Chris Blumenberg, 22 Andre Boule, Brian Huppi, Beth Kellermann, and Rico Zorkendorfer. Mr. Bartlett was 23 responsible for managing discovery disputes, including the motions to strike, motions to compel, 24 and motion to exclude expert testimony. He participated in many negotiations with co-counsel 25 and opposing counsel on pretrial issues. He handled many aspects of pretrial filings and 26 selections of exhibits. He also played a significant role in the 2012 mock trial. Mr. Bartlett was a 27 member of the 2012 Trial Team in San Jose. He was involved in trial preparation and 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 25 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page28 of 87

1 coordination, such as the creation of trial demonstratives, mid-trial motions, and responding to

2 high priority objections. He continued his work on the case with post-trial briefing. 3 72. ERIK J. OLSON. Mr. Olson’s practice focuses on the litigation of securities and 4 intellectual property disputes, with particular emphasis on clients in the biotechnology, medical 5 device, retail, and high-technology industries. From 2007 to 2008, Mr. Olson served as Chair of 6 the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California. From 2005 to 2007, he also served as the 7 Chair of the Litigation Section’s Rules & Legislation Committee, which reviews and comments 8 on legislative and rule changes to laws that affect civil litigation in California. Mr. Olson 9 graduated from Stanford Law School in 1994, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. 10 After law school, Mr. Olson clerked for the Honorable Leonard I. Garth, United States Circuit 11 Judge for the Third Circuit. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1997. 12 73. Mr. Olson headed Apple’s Damages Team, which had responsibility for working 13 with Apple’s experts to formulate the complex damages information for this case and address all 14 legal and factual issues regarding the calculation and proof of Apple’s damages. Mr. Olson 15 joined the case early on and helped formulate Apple’s overall strategy for damages and relief. 16 Along with his team, Mr. Olson had primary responsibility for working with Apple damages 17 experts Terry Musika and John Hauser in a process that involved Mr. Musika creating a software 18 suite to analyze the incredibly complex, multi-sourced information relating to Samsung’s sales, 19 profits, and costs and Dr. Hauser preparing a complex conjoint analysis of consumer preferences. 20 Mr. Olson worked with Mr. Musika’s team, Dr. Hauser’s team and a team of Morrison & Foerster 21 attorneys, to process the repeated productions by Samsung of this complex information. 22 Mr. Olson also assisted with Apple's defense of its invention of the '915 Patent and evaluation of 23 Samsung's infringement of that patent. He defended the deposition of the two inventors of the 24 '915 Patent, Mr. Herz and Mr. Platzer, and assisted in the collection, production and review of 25 their materials. Mr. Olson was also involved in discovery disputes relating to damages 26 information, and helped draft and prepare Apple’s motions relating to Samsung’s deficient 27 production of damages documents, and the resulting motion for sanctions, and helped draft 28 Apple’s motion to compel testimony relating to apex witnesses. Mr. Olson also prepared and

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 26 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page29 of 87

1 opposed motions related to damages issues in connection with expert discovery and motions in

2 limine. 3 74. Mr. Olson assisted regarding issues of irreparable harm and relief in connection 4 with motions for preliminary injunctions. Mr. Olson took the depositions of Samsung employees 5 Tim Sheppard, Jae Hwang Sim, Joseph Cheong, Dale Sohn, and of Samsung expert 6 Michael Wagner. He defended the depositions of Andrew Platzer, Scott Herz, Chip Lutton, 7 Boris Teksler, Mark Buckley, and Apple’s damages expert Terry Musika. Mr. Olson was also 8 part of the 2012 Trial Team in San Jose. He helped prepare Mr. Musika and Dr. Hauser for their 9 testimony in the 2012 trial, and helped prepare Apple’s demonstratives, the jury verdict form, jury 10 instructions, and helped formulate trial strategy relating to damages. Mr. Olson’s involvement 11 continued through post-trial proceedings. 12 75. RICHARD S.J. HUNG. Mr. Hung has litigated a wide variety of complex 13 technology matters for clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts. His patent litigation 14 matters have spanned technologies such as internet search and advertising, digital rights 15 management and encryption, programmable logic devices, electronic books, and anticancer 16 therapeutics. Mr. Hung graduated from Columbia Law School in 1998, where he was a 17 James Kent Scholar, and clerked for the Honorable Paul Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 18 the Federal Circuit. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 19 76. Mr. Hung oversaw the day-to-day activities from the filing of the amended 20 complaint through the 2012 trial and post-trial activities, and acted as the primary conduit for 21 information between the team and Apple in 2011 and 2012. His work extended across the 22 Morrison & Foerster substantive and discovery teams. Mr. Hung assisted with case strategy from 23 the early preliminary injunction phase through trial. He also reviewed Apple assets for potential 24 assertion, investigated Samsung’s products, and analyzed alleged prior art. He participated in 25 numerous meet and confers with opposing counsel and coordinated with WilmerHale co-counsel 26 on a myriad of issues. He assisted and oversaw the drafting of Apple’s discovery requests and 27 responses and discovery-related correspondence. Mr. Hung also attended and assisted with 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 27 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page30 of 87

1 almost all of the discovery and motion hearings in this litigation, including arguing a motion to

2 compel. 3 77. Mr. Hung was instrumental in coordinating deposition coverage and preparations 4 throughout the case. He defended the depositions of Apple employees Greg Christie, Bas Ording, 5 and Eugene Whang, and former Apple employee Douglas Satzger. He also defended the 6 deposition of Apple experts Kent Van Liere and Russell Winer. He took the depositions of 7 Samsung executives Omar Khan and Justin Denison and Samsung experts Michael Kamins, 8 Andries Van Dam, and Tulin Erdem. Mr. Hung advised on third-party subpoenas, including Best 9 Buy and HumanCentric. Mr. Hung drafted and revised some or all of multiple motions and 10 briefs, including oppositions to Samsung’s motion to compel, motion for inclusion of the iPhone 11 4S, and a mediation brief. Mr. Hung also assisted with pre-trial and trial management, including 12 coordinating witness preparation, trial planning, and trial strategy. He also helped with the 13 witness list, exhibit list, and objections to Samsung’s exhibit list. As part of the 2012 Trial Team 14 in San Jose, Mr. Hung was responsible for daily trial coordination and management. Mr. Hung 15 continued to be involved with the case during post-trial coordination and briefing in late 2012. 16 78. MIA A. MAZZA. Ms. Mazza is the founder and co-Chair of Morrison & 17 Foerster’s E-Discovery Task Force. In this role she leads a team of Litigation partners that acts as 18 an internal resource for all litigators in helping solve e-discovery challenges as they arise in 19 practice. Ms. Mazza is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Society of 20 Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals, and many other national, state, and local bar 21 associations. She graduated from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 1996. 22 Ms. Mazza started at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 23 79. Ms. Mazza was the Discovery manager and coordinated discovery-related 24 communications between the client, the internal teams, Apple’s co-counsel at WilmerHale, and 25 Samsung’s attorneys at Quinn Emanuel. She coordinated both offensive and defensive discovery 26 efforts, including the identification of Apple custodians, keyword searches, document collection, 27 document review (of both Apple and Samsung productions), and production of Apple 28 documents. She was responsible for supervising Apple’s document review team of in-house

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 28 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page31 of 87

1 attorneys, contract attorneys, and Korean language reviewers, and was the primary contact for

2 Apple’s discovery vendors. Ms. Mazza corresponded extensively with attorneys at Quinn 3 Emanuel and participated in numerous meet and confer sessions. In addition to her broad 4 discovery roles, Ms. Mazza helped draft numerous motions, including Apple’s motions to compel 5 document productions, motion for sanctions relating to the violation of discovery orders, Apple’s 6 motion to compel apex witness depositions, and Daubert motions. 7 80. JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR. Ms. Taylor is engaged in a broad intellectual 8 property practice, with an emphasis in intellectual property litigation and counseling. She has 9 litigated a variety of intellectual property cases, including patent, trademark, and copyright 10 infringement actions, as well as unfair competition and false advertising actions. Her cases have 11 included litigation of design patents related to consumer electronics, and trademarks and trade 12 dress relating to medical devices, apparel, motorcycles and boats, pharmaceuticals, foods, 13 computers, consumer products, and a variety of service sectors. Ms. Taylor has trial and appellate 14 experience, as well as extensive experience litigating opposition and cancellation proceedings 15 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She graduated from the University of Michigan 16 Law School in 1991. Ms. Taylor started at Morrison & Foerster in 1992. 17 81. Ms. Taylor led Apple’s Design Team, and had primary responsibility for the 18 design patent, trademark, and trade dress assets asserted in the litigation. She assisted with the 19 drafting of Apple’s complaint and was involved in the analysis of Apple’s potential and asserted 20 assets. Ms. Taylor helped select and retain Apple’s design-related experts, including 21 Peter Bressler, Susan Kare, Dr. Alan Hedge, Dr. Russ Winer, Hal Poret, Kent Van Liere, 22 Henry Urbach, and Dr. Sanjay Sood, and worked with each of these experts on the drafting of 23 their opening and/or rebuttal expert reports and various declarations. She also worked with 24 experts on the types of surveys to be conducted. 25 82. Ms. Taylor oversaw Apple’s offensive discovery efforts on the design patent, 26 trademark, and trade dress issues. She also assisted in Apple’s defensive discovery efforts and 27 reviewed key documents from both Apple and Samsung, and assisted with Apple’s written 28 discovery responses. She worked with Apple’s in-house counsel and employees throughout the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 29 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page32 of 87

1 case, including helping to prepare a number of Apple employees for deposition. Ms. Taylor also

2 drafted significant portions of briefs related to design issues, including the preliminary injunction 3 briefs, the claim construction briefs, the Daubert motions, Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s 4 motion for summary judgment, Apple’s trial brief, the motions in limine, and portions of 5 numerous discovery-related briefs. She also supervised the drafting of Apple’s jury instructions 6 on design patent and trade dress-related issues, as well as objections to Samsung’s jury 7 instructions on the same issues. During Apple’s preliminary injunction appeal, Ms. Taylor helped 8 draft portions of the briefs and advised the team regarding the design issues. 9 83. Ms. Taylor coordinated the depositions of all members of Apple’s Industrial 10 Design, Product Design, and Marketing departments and defended the depositions of 11 Bartley Andre, Matthew Rohrbach, Sissie Twiggs, Michael Tchao, Richard Howarth, 12 Shin Nishibori, and Apple expert Susan Kare. She also took the depositions of Roger Fidler and 13 Samsung expert Itay Sherman. Ms. Taylor was a member of Apple’s Trial Team, and prepared 14 witnesses for testimony, including Chris Stringer, Susan Kare, Peter Bressler, Dr. Russ Winer, 15 and Richard Howarth, prepared for cross examination of Samsung design-related witnesses, 16 including expert Itay Sherman, Jin Soo Kim, Jinyeun Wang, expert Robert Anders, and expert 17 Sam Lucente, prepared and responded to motions, briefing, and evidentiary objections, and 18 helped set Apple’s 2012 trial strategy on design issues. 19 84. ANDREW E. MONACH. Mr. Monach has a trial and appellate litigation and 20 arbitration practice, with special emphasis on patent litigation and other disputes involving 21 advanced technology. He has served as lead counsel in numerous patent cases. His civil jury trial 22 practice has included, in addition to patent litigation, several complex fraud cases, disputes 23 between electric utilities and independent power producers, securities and fiduciary duty 24 litigation, and other commercial disputes. Mr. Monach graduated from Yale Law School in 1979, 25 and he started at Morrison & Foerster that same year. 26 85. Mr. Monach headed Apple’s Utility Patent Team, and had primary responsibility 27 for Apple’s asserted utility patents. Mr. Monach took the deposition of Samsung employees 28 Kihyung Nam and Ioi Lam and Samsung’s expert Stephen Gray. Mr. Monach prepared witnesses

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 30 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page33 of 87

1 and defended the depositions of Apple fact witnesses Freddy Anzures, Wei Chen,

2 Richard Howarth, Duncan Kerr, Steve Lemay, Richard Lutton, and Tang Tan, and of Apple’s 3 experts Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan, Dr. Karan Singh, Dr. Alex Snoeren, and Cooper Woodring. 4 Mr. Monach had major roles in the drafting of Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction, its 5 Markman briefs, motions to strike expert reports, claim charts, Daubert motions, and oppositions 6 to motions for summary judgment. He also helped prepare Apple’s technical tutorial, and 7 provided analyses of Apple’s asserted patent assets and Samsung’s non-infringement and 8 invalidity arguments. 9 86. Mr. Monach had a hand in helping prepare all of Apple’s technical expert reports 10 on Apple’s utility patents. In particular, he worked with Apple experts Drs. Ravin Balakrishnan, 11 Alex Snoeren, and Karan Singh. Mr. Monach was a part of Apple’s 2012 Trial Team, working in 12 San Jose throughout the trial to prepare Apple’s fact and expert witnesses for direct and cross 13 examination, to prepare cross examinations of Samsung’s fact and expert witnesses, to craft case 14 strategy, and to draft and edit various trial motions and briefs. 15 87. MARC J. PERNICK. Mr. Pernick was a partner with a complex commercial 16 litigation practice, with an emphasis on intellectual property litigation. He represented clients in 17 patent litigation in the computer graphic chip, semiconductor, DVR, credit card fraud, wireless 18 communication, ultrasound contrast agent, DNA microarray, water filtration, and consumer 19 products industries. He represented clients in several trade secret cases, as well as in litigation 20 regarding patent licensing disputes, copyright ownership disputes, and software copyright 21 infringement. Mr. Pernick graduated from the New York University School of Law in 1992. He 22 started at Morrison & Foerster in 1992. 23 88. Mr. Pernick was a member of the Discovery Team. He served as one of Apple’s 24 lead points of contact with Quinn Emanuel on discovery issues, working with the Apple team to 25 communicate disputes and negotiate resolutions. Mr. Pernick also participated in the regularly 26 scheduled meet and confer sessions. He helped draft several of Apple’s discovery motions, 27 including a motion to compel and Apple’s motion for sanctions for belated production of 28 documents. He assisted in drafting and negotiating third-party subpoenas. He drafted and

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 31 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page34 of 87

1 negotiated various trial issues, and led the team drafting jury instructions, also heading

2 negotiations with Samsung over those instructions both before and during trial. 3 89. RUTH N. BORENSTEIN. Ms. Borenstein is engaged in a complex litigation 4 practice at both the trial and appellate levels in courts throughout the country. She has 5 successfully defended companies against tort, statutory, and contract claims in a variety of 6 contexts, ranging from consumer class actions alleging overcharges to franchisees’ complaints 7 about profitability and franchisor support. The National Law Journal named Ms. Borenstein a 8 key practitioner. She graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986 and clerked for the Honorable 9 Robert E. Keeton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Ms. Borenstein 10 started at Morrison & Foerster in 1987. 11 90. Ms. Borenstein primarily headed the Briefing Team and was responsible for the 12 drafting of numerous Apple motions and oppositions to many of Samsung’s motions. 13 Ms. Borenstein assisted with opening, opposition, and reply briefs, including the following: 14 motion for preliminary injunction, motion for sanctions, motion to compel regarding invalidity 15 contentions, motion to compel apex witnesses, motion to compel regarding damages discovery, 16 motion for sanctions regarding spoliation, opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary 17 judgment, motion to strike, Daubert motion, and others. Mr. Borenstein also worked on Apple’s 18 preliminary injunction appeal. She also coordinated strategy with the Morrison & Foerster team 19 as well as co-counsel WilmerHale to draft and finalize briefs and supporting documents. 20 Ms. Borenstein helped prepare materials for oral argument on many of these motions, including 21 Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment and several discovery and 22 sanctions motions. 23 91. MATTHEW I. KREEGER. Matthew Kreeger is a partner in the firm’s 24 Intellectual Property Group and co-chair of the firm’s PTO Trial Practice Group. Mr. Kreeger 25 specializes in helping clients find efficient, creative, business-oriented solutions to high stakes 26 intellectual property disputes. Mr. Kreeger also helps develop patent prosecution and 27 reexamination strategies, including new inter partes review and post-grant review procedures 28 instituted by the America Invents Act, that protect his clients’ patents and minimize risk. He has

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 32 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page35 of 87

1 served as lead or co-lead counsel in more than 15 patent interferences. Mr. Kreeger graduated

2 from Harvard Law School in 1990 and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and 3 Trademark Office. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1991. 4 92. A member of the Utility Team, Mr. Kreeger’s work on the case focused on 5 Apple’s asserted utility patents. Mr. Kreeger took the deposition of Samsung experts Brian von 6 Herzen and Andries van Dam. Mr. Kreeger helped draft the utility sections of Apple’s motion for 7 a preliminary injunction. He also helped analyze Apple’s asserted assets, and source code 8 produced by both parties. Mr. Kreeger used that knowledge to assist in drafting claim 9 construction charts, and to prepare for the Markman hearing and help draft the brief. Mr. Kreeger 10 also assisted in preparing the expert reports of Drs. Karan Singh and Ravin Balakrishnan, and 11 helped prepare them for their depositions. Mr. Kreeger was also a key member of the 2012 Post- 12 Trial Team, working extensively on Apple’s post-trial briefs. 13 93. CHARLES S. BARQUIST. Mr. Barquist has represented numerous foreign and 14 domestic companies in patent litigation in U.S. courts and before the International Trade 15 Commission. He has also conducted numerous adversarial licensing negotiations with patent 16 holders in the U.S., Asia, and Europe. In addition, he is experienced in other complex 17 commercial and business litigation, including antitrust, products liability, and environmental 18 matters. Mr. Barquist graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978. After law school, he clerked 19 for the Honorable Milton Pollack of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 20 New York. Mr. Barquist started at Morrison & Foerster in 1987. 21 94. Mr. Barquist was a member of the Design Team. He was involved in numerous 22 depositions. Specifically, he prepared for and defended the depositions of Apple witnesses, 23 including John Elias, Josh Strickon, Richard Williamson, Marcel Van Os, and Andrew Bright. 24 He also prepared for and took depositions of Samsung experts Itay Sherman, Nicholas Godici, 25 and Samuel Lucente and he defended the depositions of Apple experts Peter Bressler and 26 James Carmichael. Mr. Barquist also assisted with design patent issues in Apple’s motions, 27 including motions in limine. His role on the Design Team also encompassed developing pre-trial 28 and trial strategy. He worked with the team to review and revise demonstratives, jury

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 33 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page36 of 87

1 instructions, verdict form, and exhibits. Mr. Barquist was a member of the 2012 Trial Team in

2 San Jose where he worked on fact and expert witness outlines and prepared witnesses to testify. 3 He also helped prepared the design patent supplement to the FJC video for the jury. In addition, 4 Mr. Barquist helped brief objections and responses to objections to exhibits, assisted in preparing 5 an offer of proof, and assisted in drafting and revising briefs on various evidentiary issues. He 6 also helped prepare the closing argument and closing demonstratives. Mr. Barquist’s work on the 7 case continued post trial and included, for example, helping draft a post-trial declaration in 8 support of Apple’s injunction motion. 9 95. KARL J. KRAMER. Mr. Kramer’s practice concentrates on complex 10 commercial litigation and trials, with a particular focus on intellectual property matters, including 11 patent litigation and negotiations for high-technology clients. He has handled cases for clients in 12 a broad range of technology industries, including computers, networking, and semiconductors. 13 He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School. Mr. Kramer started at Morrison & 14 Foerster in 1995. 15 96. Mr. Kramer was a member of the Utility Team. Mr. Kramer was heavily involved 16 in deposition discovery—he prepared for and took the depositions of Samsung employees Han- 17 Soo Jung, Dong-Sub Kim, Heon-Seok Lee, Hye-Jung Lee, Kiwon Lee, Sungsik Lee, and Min- 18 Cheol Shin. He prepared and defended Apple witnesses Steven Christensen, Steve Hotelling, and 19 Brian Land. As a Utility Team member, he was responsible for assisting with utility patent 20 analysis, including reviewing infringement, validity, and priority issues. He also helped 21 coordinate the Utility Team’s discovery and trial plan. He worked extensively with Apple’s 22 experts and assisted with the drafting of the expert reports of Dr. Michel Maharbiz. Additionally, 23 he helped analyze the report, and prepare for the deposition, of Samsung expert Dr. Brian von 24 Herzen. Mr. Kramer also assisted with motion practice related to the utility patents, including 25 drafting sections of oppositions to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment and motion to strike. 26 Mr. Kramer also helped with preparation for the 2012 trial. He drafted expert witness outlines, 27 prepared graphics, and provided input on the proposed jury instructions. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 34 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page37 of 87

1 97. BROOKS M. BEARD. Mr. Beard has a litigation practice focusing on

2 intellectual property matters. His clients have come from a wide range of industries, including 3 Internet technologies, semiconductors, consumer electronics, telecommunications, consumer 4 products, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. Mr. Beard received his J.D., cum laude, from 5 Vermont Law School, and an LL.M., with distinction, from Georgetown University Law Center. 6 He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1997. 7 98. Mr. Beard led the Copying Team, which was responsible for evaluating those 8 aspects of Samsung’s document production, deposition testimony, advertising, and other evidence 9 that showed how Samsung had copied all aspects of Apple’s products. As the Copying Team 10 leader, he also assisted in preparing questions for deposition takers, assisted in preparing trial 11 demonstratives supporting the copying case, drafted sections of briefs relating to copying issues, 12 and helped prepare the copying components of both Apple’s and Samsung’s 2012 mock trial 13 presentations. Mr. Beard also took several depositions in this case, including fact witness 14 Jeeyeun Wang, and expert witnesses Jacob Jacoby and Michael Mazis. He also defended the 15 depositions of Stephen Zadesky and Chris Prest, and of Apple expert Hal Poret. Mr. Beard was 16 involved more broadly in the development of Apple’s case strategy and themes, including setting 17 global deposition and document strategies. He assisted with third-party subpoenas and planning, 18 and helped craft Apple’s trial evidence plan. Mr. Beard also worked with Apple’s consumer 19 survey experts (including Hal Poret and Kent Van Liere), including assisting them in preparing 20 expert reports and preparing them for their depositions. 21 99. JASON A. CROTTY. Mr. Crotty was a partner whose practice focused on patent 22 infringement cases, particularly complex or multi-defendant cases for high technology clients. 23 He handled cases in a variety of technologies, including television set-top boxes such as DVRs, 24 interactive phone systems, pharmaceuticals, and engineered antibodies, representing both 25 plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases. Mr. Crotty received his J.D. from the University of 26 Michigan Law School in 1997, and then clerked for the Honorable William B. Shubb of the U.S. 27 District Court for the Eastern District of California. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1998. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 35 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page38 of 87

1 100. As a member of the Design Team, Mr. Crotty assisted Dr. Alan Hedge,

2 Susan Kare, Dr. Sanjay Sood, and Dr. Russell Winer with their expert reports. He coordinated 3 expert deposition discovery. He prepared for and took the deposition of Samsung expert 4 Dr. Mark Lehto and defended the deposition of Apple expert Dr. Alan Hedge. Mr. Crotty also 5 prepared trade dress demonstratives for trial and helped manage the Design Team. 6 101. WESLEY OVERSON. Mr. Overson is head of Morrison & Foerster’s 7 San Francisco litigation department. His practice focuses on patent litigation and other complex 8 litigation involving technological, scientific, and medical issues. His clients include international 9 pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations, for whom he has crafted winning strategies for 10 both the courtroom and arbitration proceedings. He is currently on the Executive Committee of 11 the Litigation Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and has previously served as the 12 Chair of the Civility Committee. Mr. Overson graduated cum laude from the University of 13 California, Hastings College of the Law in 1991. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1995. 14 102. Mr. Overson’s role primarily involved covering depositions, attending to 15 discovery-related issues, and developing the evidence for Apple’s arguments that Samsung 16 copied Apple’s products. He helped develop the early offensive discovery strategy and plans, and 17 coordinated those efforts with the parallel ITC action. Mr. Overson drafted discovery 18 correspondence and participated in meet and confer efforts on issues such as Samsung’s deficient 19 document production. He successfully argued before Judge Grewal regarding Apple’s motion to 20 compel regarding Samsung’s deficient document production. He helped propound and respond to 21 discovery requests. During the preliminary injunction phase, Mr. Overson prepared for and took 22 the deposition of Samsung experts Nicholas Godici (inequitable conduct), Jeffrey Johnson 23 (infringement of utility patent), and Michael Wagner (damages/irreparable harm). He also 24 prepared for and defended the depositions of former Apple employee Bob Borchers and current 25 Apple employees Jared Gosler, Eric Jue, and Fletcher Rothkopf. He prepared for and took the 26 depositions of Samsung employees Dong Hoon Chang, Joon-Il Choi, Kyu Hyuk Lee, and 27 Tim Sheppard, and Samsung expert Ramamirtham Sukumar. Mr. Overson also helped to develop 28 the evidence that Samsung copied Apple’s designs and features.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 36 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page39 of 87

1 103. KENNETH A. KUWAYTI. Mr. Kuwayti is co-chair of the firm’s Commercial

2 Litigation Group. His practice concentrates on complex commercial litigation and trials, with a 3 particular focus on intellectual property and securities disputes. His cases have involved a broad 4 range of technology industries, including software, semiconductor, Internet, and life sciences. He 5 has successfully recovered damages, and defended against damages claims, in the hundreds of 6 millions of dollars in several high profile intellectual property cases. Mr. Kuwayti clerked for the 7 Supreme Court of Canada from 1990 to 1991. He also served as managing partner of the firm’s 8 Palo Alto office from 2005 to 2010. Mr. Kuwayti graduated from Stanford Law School in 1989 9 and started at Morrison & Foerster in 1992. 10 104. Mr. Kuwayti was a member of the Damages Team. His work focused on the 11 conjoint expert analysis, beginning with selection of an expert to help to oversee the survey. 12 Mr. Kuwayti assisted in developing the framework of the survey, from the voiceover script to the 13 questionnaire. He helped draft the expert report of John Hauser regarding the conjoint analysis. 14 Mr. Kuwayti also prepared witnesses and defended the depositions of Apple employees 15 Priya Balasubramaniam, Art Rangel, BJ Watrous, and Tamara Whiteside. Mr. Kuwayti assisted 16 with motion practice, including helping to draft a motion to seal and supporting declaration of 17 Greg Joswiak as well as drafting sections of Apple’s opposition to a Daubert motion and 18 supporting declaration of John Hauser. He researched and drafted sections of Apple’s motion for 19 judgment as a matter of law and opposition to Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. 20 Mr. Kuwayti provided assistance at the 2012 trial, ranging from drafting witness outlines, 21 responding to high priority objections, and preparing witnesses for trial. 22 105. SCOTT F. LLEWELLYN. Mr. Llewellyn’s practice involves complex litigation 23 before state and federal courts throughout the country, with an emphasis on patent disputes. In 24 addition to his experience with patent litigation, Mr. Llewellyn has successfully tried commercial 25 arbitration and agency matters; successfully briefed and argued appeals in various federal 26 appellate courts; worked on a variety of securities class actions and investigations; and tried more 27 than fifteen cases for the Denver City Attorney’s office, including eight jury trials. Mr. Llewellyn 28 received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1997. After school, he clerked

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 37 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page40 of 87

1 for the Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, and for

2 the Honorable Diarmuid O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 3 Mr. Llewellyn started at Morrison & Foerster in 2003. 4 106. Mr. Llewellyn primarily worked with the Utility Team on a variety of fronts from 5 helping the team craft their infringement arguments to defending against claims of inequitable 6 conduct. He reviewed Samsung source code for the Utility Team’s infringement analysis, and 7 drafted infringement arguments for Apple’s utility patents. He assisted Drs. Karan Singh and 8 Ravin Balakrishnan with their expert reports. He prepared for and took the depositions of third 9 parties Thinkfree, Infraware, and Gravity Tank, and depositions of Samsung witnesses Oh Chae 10 Kwon and Min Suk Kim. Mr. Llewellyn also took the lead in responding to Samsung’s 11 inequitable conduct allegations, including reviewing and analyzing materials related to those 12 allegations and analyzing Samsung’s arguments. He assisted Apple expert Jack Goldstein with 13 the drafting of his expert report addressing inequitable conduct. Mr. Llewellyn also prepared and 14 defended the deposition of Mr. Goldstein. In addition, Mr. Llewellyn drafted sections of Apple’s 15 motion to strike expert testimony. 16 107. PHILIP T. BESIROF. Mr. Besirof has more than fifteen years of experience in 17 complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on securities class actions, intellectual property 18 disputes, and business/contract disputes. He represents companies, officers, and directors in a 19 broad range of industries, including technology, financial services, and consumer products. 20 Mr. Besirof is currently the managing partner of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. 21 Mr. Besirof graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1996. 22 He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 23 108. Mr. Besirof was responsible for managing third-party discovery. This included 24 approximately 120 subpoenas, for corporations ranging from Best Buy to Gravity Tank to 25 Google. He reviewed and drafted subpoena-related correspondence, analyzed objections to 26 subpoenas and negotiated the scope of subpoenas with opposing counsel and counsel for third 27 parties. Mr. Besirof also managed internal resources for scheduling and staffing third-party 28 depositions.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 38 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page41 of 87

1 109. BRIAN R. MATSUI. Mr. Matsui is a member of the firm’s Appellate and

2 Supreme Court practice group. His practice primarily includes the representation of clients in 3 appellate litigation in both federal and state appellate courts. Mr. Matsui has argued cases in both 4 federal and state appellate courts, and he has been involved in more than 35 cases before the 5 Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Matsui has extensive experience in the federal courts of 6 appeals, having represented clients in appeals in almost every federal appellate court. In 7 particular, he has represented clients in a substantial number of cases in the Federal Circuit on 8 issues involving intellectual property. Mr. Matsui graduated from Stanford Law School in 1999, 9 where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. After law school, Mr. Matsui clerked for the 10 Honorable David F. Levi, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; the 11 Honorable Pamela A. Rymer, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and finally for 12 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 13 2006. 14 110. Mr. Matsui worked on the appeal of the preliminary injunction order to the U.S. 15 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and provided other legal analysis to the trial team on 16 appellate-related issues during the case. He worked on the opening and reply briefs and assisted 17 with oral argument preparation and strategy in the Federal Circuit. He also provided analysis and 18 guidance related to post-appeal issues and the mandate following the Federal Circuit ruling, and 19 contributed to motion practice before the Federal Circuit in the second preliminary injunction 20 appeal. Mr. Matsui reviewed and analyzed other legal issues relating to potential post-judgment 21 appeals in the Federal Circuit. 22 111. STUART C. PLUNKETT. Mr. Plunkett represents a variety of clients in 23 complex commercial disputes. He has significant expertise in antitrust litigation and counseling. 24 Mr. Plunkett was the Chair of the Antitrust Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and 25 serves on the Executive Committee of the Antitrust Section of the California State Bar. He is 26 recommended as a leading lawyer by Super Lawyers 2009, 2010, and 2011. Mr. Plunkett 27 graduated from Northwestern University School of Law in 1995, and clerked for the 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 39 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page42 of 87

1 Honorable Walter J. Cummings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He started

2 at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 3 112. Mr. Plunkett was instrumental in defending and taking depositions, including 4 design and marketing-related depositions. He prepared for and defended depositions of Apple 5 witnesses Stanley Ng, Steve Sinclair, and Myra Haggerty. He also took the deposition of 6 Samsung witnesses Corey Kerstetter and Todd Pendleton. He prepared for and defended third- 7 party depositions of OMD, TBWA, and MAL. He also prepared for and defended the deposition 8 of Apple expert Dr. Sanjay Sood and he corresponded with opposing counsel regarding document 9 production issues related to Dr. Sood. 10 113. EUGENE G. ILLOVSKY. Mr. Illovsky specializes in complex civil and 11 criminal litigation, corporate internal investigations, and corporate counseling. He serves on the 12 Criminal Justice Act Appeals Panel for the Northern District of California and as Commissioner 13 on the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) of the State Bar of California. 14 Mr. Illovsky graduated from Yale Law School in 1983, where he was an Editor of the Yale Law 15 Journal, and clerked for the Honorable J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 16 Ninth Circuit. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 1998. 17 114. Mr. Illovsky was a member of the Damages Team. Mr. Illovsky’s role on the 18 Damages Team primarily focused on expert-related issues, such as expert reports and depositions. 19 He prepared for and defended the deposition of expert John Hauser. Mr. Illovsky also assisted 20 with drafting sections of Apple’s Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony and motion to 21 strike, and he helped expert Russell Winer with this supporting declaration. He also assisted with 22 drafting sections of Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion and expert John Hauser 23 with his supporting declaration. In addition, Mr. Illovsky prepared for and attended the 24 depositions of third-party Motorola Mobility. 25 115. PETER J. STERN. Mr. Stern has a general commercial practice with an 26 emphasis on intellectual property litigation and counseling. His experience in patent matters 27 includes adversarial licensing and all phases of litigation. He has litigated or arbitrated numerous 28 commercial disputes in the fields of contract, licensing, and trade secret misappropriation.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 40 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page43 of 87

1 Mr. Stern has been ranked by Chambers Asia as a “Leading Individual” in the field of Intellectual

2 Property and listed by “Best Lawyers” in the categories of both Intellectual Property and 3 Litigation. He graduated from the University of California at Berkeley, School of Law in 1992, 4 and clerked for the Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5 Ninth Circuit. Mr. Stern started at Morrison & Foerster in 1994. 6 116. As a member of the Design Team, Mr. Stern was involved in design patent-related 7 tasks, including meeting with the team to discuss expert reports and case presentation. He 8 defended the deposition of an outside patent attorney for Apple, Steve Beyer, and prepared for 9 and took the depositions of Samsung witnesses, including MinHyouk Lee, Jinsoo Kim, and 10 Hangil Song.

11 C. Of Counsel and Associates 12 117. PATRICK ZHANG. Mr. Zhang was an associate in the Litigation Department of 13 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He focused on intellectual property litigation and 14 patent litigation in particular. He represented clients in numerous patent litigations involving 15 software, electronics, medical devices, and semiconductor technology. Mr. Zhang was also 16 experienced in strategic patent analysis and licensing negotiations. Prior to and during law 17 school, Mr. Zhang worked as a registered patent agent at a prominent intellectual property 18 boutique, where he gained significant experience in patent analysis and counseling. He graduated 19 from Fordham University School of Law in 2006. Mr. Zhang came to Morrison & Foerster in 20 2008. 21 118. As a member of the Design Team, Mr. Zhang was involved in the case from the 22 start, preparing an analysis of design patent rights and legal standards and assisting in drafting the 23 amended complaint. He also helped draft the preliminary injunction motion as well as supporting 24 declarations from expert Cooper Woodring and Apple employee Chris Stringer. Mr. Zhang also 25 assisted in preparing Cooper Woodring and Chris Stringer for depositions related to the 26 preliminary injunction proceedings. He helped prepare the appeal of the preliminary injunction 27 order. His responsibilities have included review of Apple documents, particularly analyzing 28 Apple CAD files to determine conception dates and identify alternative designs and reviewing

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 41 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page44 of 87

1 Apple industrial design sketchbooks and documents for production. He helped prepare Apple

2 industrial designers and product designers for deposition, including Jonathan Ive, Eugene Whang, 3 Daniel Coster, Daniele De Iuliis, Duncan Kerr, Matt Rohrbach, Evans Hankey, and 4 Stephen Zadesky. He prepared for and took depositions of Samsung employees, including Bo- 5 Ra Kim, Nara Cho, Jungmin Yeo, Yunjung Lee, Sun Young Yi, MinKyung Kim, Gi Young Lee, 6 and Dongseok Ryu. He also prepared for and attended the deposition of third-party Bloomberg. 7 119. Mr. Zhang assisted Peter Bressler, James Carmichael, and Susan Kare with their 8 expert reports. He helped prepare for the deposition of Samsung expert Itay Sherman and 9 prepared for and took the deposition of Samsung expert Christopher Mount. Mr. Zhang’s case 10 analysis work entailed analyzing and rebutting Samsung’s design patent defenses— 11 indefiniteness, double patenting, actual confusion, and role of non-prior art in Apple design 12 patents. He assisted with preparing responses to Samsung’s interrogatories on design patent 13 issues. Mr. Zhang worked on substantive motions such as an opposition to Samsung’s motion for 14 summary judgment and a supporting Peter Bressler expert declaration, motion to strike 15 Samsung’s expert reports, and design patent claim construction briefing. Mr. Zhang was a 16 member of the trial team in San Jose. During the 2012 trial, he assisted with preparing witness 17 outlines, trial exhibits, deposition designations, demonstrative graphics, and objections to various 18 disclosures. Mr. Zhang also assisted with post-trial briefing in 2012. 19 120. DEOK KEUN MATTHEW AHN. Mr. Ahn was an associate in the litigation 20 department of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He had extensive experience 21 representing both international and domestic clients in intellectual property matters, and focused 22 his practice on patent infringement dispute resolution. Mr. Ahn represented both patent holders 23 and infringement defendants in a variety of technical disciplines, including consumer electronics, 24 communications networks, computer software, and semiconductor devices. Mr. Ahn was a 25 Fulbright Scholar, and earned an LL.M. in Japanese comparative law. He received his J.D. from 26 Harvard Law School in 2002, and clerked for the Honorable James A. Parker of the U.S. District 27 Court for the District of New Mexico. Mr. Ahn started at Morrison & Foerster in 2007. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 42 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page45 of 87

1 121. Mr. Ahn was a member of the Utility Team. Mr. Ahn was involved in the case

2 from the start, analyzing utility patent rights, assisting in drafting the amended complaint, 3 preparing the motion for expedited trial, preparing the preliminary injunction motion, reply and 4 supporting expert declarations from Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan. He also helped prepare Bas Ording 5 and Ravin Balakrishnan for preliminary injunction depositions, assisted with taking preliminary 6 injunction depositions of Samsung witnesses Benjamin Bederson and Andries Van Dam, and 7 helped prepare for the preliminary injunction hearing. 8 122. Mr. Ahn assisted with discovery by collecting documents, conducting custodian 9 interviews, and assisting with preparing written discovery and responses to Samsung’s written 10 discovery, including interrogatory responses and requests for admissions. He helped prepare 11 Apple inventors and employees for deposition, including Bas Ording, Scott Forstall, and 12 Jason Skinder. He prepared for and took depositions of Samsung employees Seung Yun Lee, 13 Wookyun Kho, Byung Wook Kim, Jong Dae Park, Hyun Goo Woo, Seong Hee Hwang, 14 Hyejung Lee, and third-party depositions of Bluebird Software. Mr. Ahn assisted with preparing 15 for depositions of Samsung employees, including Jaegwan Shin, Ahyoung Kim, Sun Young Yi, 16 Oh Chae Kwon, Ioi Lam, Qi Ling, and third parties Cirque, ThinkFree, and Quickoffice. 17 Mr. Ahn assisted with preparing expert reports of Ravin Balakrishnan, Karan Singh, 18 Alex Snoeren, and Jack Goldstein, and prepared for and assisted with defending the depositions 19 of Ravin Balakrishnan, Alex Snoeren, and Jack Goldstein. Mr. Ahn prepared for and took the 20 deposition of Samsung expert Jeffrey Johnson and prepared for depositions of Samsung experts 21 Andries Van Dam and Benjamin Bederson. Mr. Ahn also prepared discovery motions, including 22 a motion to compel production of source code and motion for sanctions. 23 123. Mr. Ahn’s case analysis work included preparing infringement contentions, 24 reviewing documents and deposition transcripts to determine conception and reduction to practice 25 dates for utility patents, rebutting Samsung’s utility patent defenses, including indefiniteness and 26 invalidity, assisting with source code review, conducting inspections of prior art systems, and 27 preparing the evidentiary plan for utility patent issues for trial. Mr. Ahn helped work on 28 substantive motions such as preparing the Federal Circuit appeal of the preliminary injunction

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 43 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page46 of 87

1 order, the utility patent claim construction briefing, opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary

2 judgment and supporting declarations from Ravin Balakrishnan and Karan Singh, and motions to 3 strike Samsung’s expert reports. He assisted with preparing objections to Samsung's proposed 4 jury instructions on utility patent issues, motions in limine and responses to Samsung’s motions in 5 limine. Mr. Ahn was a member of the 2012 Trial Team in San Jose. During trial, he helped 6 prepare evidentiary objections and responses to objections to trial exhibits, direct examinations, 7 exhibits, demonstratives, and witness examination outlines. Mr. Ahn also worked on post-trial 8 briefing, particularly as it related to utility patent issues. 9 124. MARK E. MELAHN. Mr. Melahn was an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s 10 Litigation Department in the San Francisco office. Mr. Melahn received his J.D., with 11 distinction, from Stanford Law School in 2009, where he served as Managing Editor of the 12 Stanford Law Review. Mr. Melahn received his B.S.E. in computer science, magna cum laude, 13 from Princeton University, where he was elected to membership in Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta 14 Pi. Mr. Melahn clerked for the Honorable Richard R. Clifton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 15 Ninth Circuit. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 16 125. Mr. Melahn was a member of the Utility Team. Mr. Melahn began working on the 17 case in its early stages, analyzing Apple patents, preparing claim charts to recommend assets for 18 assertion, and assisting with preparation of the amended complaint. He helped review documents 19 and source code to support Apple’s conception and reduction to practice of its patented 20 inventions, and he reviewed documents produced by Samsung and Apple in connection with 21 utility patent issues. Mr. Melahn prepared and responded to written discovery regarding the 22 utility patents. He helped manage the Android source code expert team and analyzed Android 23 source code in connection with the utility patents. He also helped analyze technical aspects of 24 prior art, Samsung products, and source code cited by Samsung. Mr. Melahn conducted legal 25 research and summarized his findings. He helped draft motions, claims charts, and other 26 supporting materials for the preliminary injunction motion and reply brief. He also assisted with 27 preparations for the preliminary injunction hearing. He prepared attorneys to take and defend 28 depositions on design and utility patent issues, including Cooper Woodring, Benjamin Bederson,

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 44 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page47 of 87

1 Jeffrey Johnson, Bryan Agnetta, Shawn Day, Dooju Byun, Wookyun Kho, Ioi Lam, Qi Ling,

2 Jaegwan Shin, and Richard Woolley. 3 126. He helped select utility patent expert witnesses. Mr. Melahn assisted 4 Dr. Karan Singh with his expert report and assisted with the preparation and defense of his 5 deposition. He also helped prepare for and assisted in taking depositions of Samsung expert 6 Stephen Gray. He assisted with preparing correspondence, stipulations, motions, and responses 7 related to source code production and sanctions. He worked on a number of motions, including 8 motion to strike expert reports, and opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment. 9 Mr. Melahn was a member of the Trial Team in San Jose, helping to prepare trial plans, witness 10 examination outlines, demonstratives, jury instructions, deposition designations, trial exhibits, 11 and objections to Samsung’s exhibits. Mr. Melahn also assisted with post-trial briefing in 2012. 12 127. NATHANIEL B. SABRI. Mr. Sabri is an associate in the firm’s litigation 13 department, and is involved in a wide variety of intellectual property matters, with an emphasis 14 on intellectual property litigation and counseling. He has experience litigating patent, copyright, 15 and trademark infringement actions in federal court for clients in a variety of industries, including 16 software and biotechnology. Mr. Sabri received his J.D., Order of the Coif and Order of 17 Barristers, from the University of California, Davis School of Law in 2007, where he was 18 executive editor of The UC Davis Law Review. He was awarded the Law School Medal for the 19 highest academic achievement in his graduating class. Mr. Sabri started at Morrison & Foerster 20 in 2007. 21 128. Mr. Sabri was involved in the case from the start, working on Apple’s motion in 22 support of a preliminary injunction, supporting declarations, and early depositions. After the 23 preliminary injunction phase, in 2011 and leading up to the 2012 trial, Mr. Sabri assisted with 24 discovery by preparing the plan for industrial design discovery, and preparing for and conducting 25 pre-collection interviews with and collections from Apple custodians. He also analyzed, prepared 26 objections, and drafted correspondence relating to third-party depositions, prepared discovery 27 correspondence and discovery responses, and conducted defensive discovery, including preparing 28 for and participating in extensive meet-and-confer sessions with opposing counsel. Mr. Sabri also

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 45 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page48 of 87

1 prepared and/or argued various discovery-related motions, including motions to compel and

2 oppositions to motions to compel. Mr. Sabri assisted in coordination between this litigation and 3 related litigation around the world. Mr. Sabri assisted with expert discovery by preparing for the 4 deposition of Samsung expert Jacob Jacoby, and helped draft the Daubert motion and reply for 5 Samsung expert Itay Sherman. Mr. Sabri also prepared the opposition to the motion to strike 6 portions of Apple expert Peter Bressler’s report. 7 129. Mr. Sabri’s case work before the 2012 trial also entailed preparing arguments and 8 briefs regarding claim construction, indefiniteness, design patent conception and reduction to 9 practice, admission of exhibits, objections, and responses to objections. Mr. Sabri worked on 10 motions in limine, including a motion in limine regarding the 035 model, motion in limine 11 regarding partial views, motion in limine regarding non-prior or non-public “prior art,” and 12 motion in limine regarding unasserted patents. Mr. Sabri also had primary responsibility for 13 sealing work at the district court level. Mr. Sabri was a member of the 2012 Trial Team in San 14 Jose. During trial, he assisted with preparing the trial plan for the overall Apple story and 15 introduction of key evidence, objections to jury instructions, and finalizing exhibits for 16 submission to the jury. Mr. Sabri also worked on Apple’s post-trial briefing in 2012 and played a 17 significant role in mock trials. In 2013, Mr. Sabri took over responsibility as the primary conduit 18 for information between the team and Apple, as well as the main point-of-contact for discussions 19 between the Apple team and the Samsung team. 20 130. GRANT L. KIM. Mr. Kim has over 25 years of experience with intellectual 21 property litigation, international arbitration, and other complex commercial disputes. He has 22 served as lead trial counsel in international arbitrations administered by the International 23 Chamber of Commerce, the American Arbitration Association, and the Korean Commercial 24 Arbitration Board and as second chair in patent trials before the Northern District of California 25 and the International Trade Commission. He has handled numerous patent, copyright, trademark, 26 and trade secret cases involving a wide range of technology, including computer software and 27 hardware, semiconductors, medical devices, biotechnology, and mechanical devices. He 28 graduated magna cum laude from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 46 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page49 of 87

1 1984, where he was an editor of the Hastings Law Journal, and served as a Ninth Circuit staff

2 attorney from 1984 to 1986. 3 131. Mr. Kim was a core member of the team from shortly after the complaint was filed 4 in April 2011. Mr. Kim was a primary drafter of Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction and 5 numerous related briefs, including Apple’s motions for expedited discovery and for expedited 6 trial, Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion for expedited discovery, the parties’ motions to 7 augment the preliminary injunction record, and Apple’s successful appeal to the Federal Circuit 8 of the denial of an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1. He also assisted with numerous other 9 briefs, including Apple’s motion to compel depositions of Samsung’s apex witnesses, other 10 motions to compel discovery, Apple’s spoliation motion, case management statements, and 11 mediation and settlement briefs, as well as related correspondence with Quinn Emanuel. He also 12 assisted with preparation of lay and expert declarations related to the preliminary injunction and 13 other motions. 14 132. Mr. Kim was also heavily involved in discovery and factual investigation, 15 especially evidence of Samsung’s copying of Apple’s products. He took multiple depositions of 16 Samsung executives and employees in both Korea and the U.S., including: Executive VP 17 Don Joo Lee, VP Seoggeun Kim, Principal Product Designer Yunjung Lee, Senior UX Designer 18 Seung Hun Yoo, and STA Director of UX Sang Hung. He helped prepare for the depositions of 19 numerous other Samsung witnesses, including the apex depositions of Samsung CEO 20 Geesung Choi and Executive VP Won Pyo Hong, as well as the depositions of Samsung expert 21 Michael Wagner and Samsung Senior VP Dong Hoon Chang and VP MinHyouk Lee. Mr. Kim’s 22 Korean-language skills were valuable during discovery. He also assisted the 2012 Trial Team in 23 preparing pre-trial filings, including Apple’s trial brief and motions in limine, and worked 24 extensively on post-trial motions. 25 133. JAMIE HARUKO KITANO. Ms. Kitano was an associate in the Litigation 26 Department of Morrison & Foerster’s Palo Alto office. Her practice focused on patent litigation, 27 primarily in the life sciences and technology industries. Ms. Kitano received her J.D. from the 28 University of California, Davis School of Law, in 2009, as well as her M.B.A. from the Graduate

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 47 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page50 of 87

1 School of Management. While at Davis, Ms. Kitano served as Managing Editor of the Business

2 Law Journal and as President of the King Hall Intellectual Property Law Association. She 3 received her B.S. in molecular biology from the University of California, San Diego in 2005. She 4 is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ms. Kitano started at 5 Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 6 134. Ms. Kitano was a member of the Discovery Team. She assisted with selecting the 7 English-language temporary attorney team, training temporary attorneys and Morrison & Foerster 8 associates for document review, and supervising review of Apple documents. She also helped 9 with preparing, coordinating and maintaining large document productions, and supervising 10 deposition summaries of Apple and Samsung witnesses. Additionally, Ms. Kitano helped prepare 11 for the deposition of Andre Boule. She also helped coordinate the deposition summaries project. 12 Ms. Kitano worked on substantive motions such as Apple’s Daubert motion, opposition to 13 Samsung’s motion for summary judgment, and various motions in limine. She was also involved 14 in overseeing the filings for numerous motions, including sealing documents. She prepared mock 15 trial presentations for Apple’s affirmative case, Samsung rebuttal case, opening statements, and 16 closing arguments. She also prepared deposition testimony for use in mock trial presentations. 17 Ms. Kitano was part of the trial team in San Jose and helped prepare trial exhibits list, trial proof 18 plan, evidentiary objections and responses, and deposition clips. Ms. Kitano also worked on post- 19 trial issues in 2012. 20 135. MINN CHUNG. Mr. Chung’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. 21 Mr. Chung has represented a number of high-technology clients in high-stakes, multi-patent, 22 multi-district, patent litigation matters involving wide-ranging areas of technology, including 23 cellular wireless telecommunications technologies, operating systems, plasma display panels, 24 CPU architecture, parallel processing computer technology, device drivers, and semiconductor 25 memory devices. Mr. Chung earned a bachelor’s of science degree in physics from M.I.T., 26 graduating at the top of his class with honors. He graduated from Loyola Law School in 2004 27 and started at Morrison & Foerster in 2006. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 48 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page51 of 87

1 136. Mr. Chung’s technical and Korean-language skills made him invaluable in

2 supporting Apple’s efforts in this litigation. His involvement began around the time Apple filed 3 its complaint, and included a substantive analysis of Apple’s intellectual property assets. He also 4 analyzed Samsung’s asserted assets relating, among other things, to potential invalidity. 5 Mr. Chung was involved with the selection of Apple’s testifying and non-testifying technical 6 experts. He was also involved in analyzing Samsung’s source code and preparation of expert 7 reports on infringement of Apple’s utility patents. 8 137. Mr. Chung was integrally involved in Apple’s discovery efforts. He helped 9 identify and select Samsung’s witnesses for deposition on industrial design, user interface design, 10 and software and hardware features of the accused products. He was also closely involved in 11 preparing interrogatories and 30(b)(6) notices relating to utility patents. Mr. Chung also helped 12 manage a large team of Korean-speaking reviewers and translators, whose efforts included 13 unofficial deposition preparation translations, translations for motions, and managing the creation 14 of official trial translations. He was closely involved in Apple’s extensive meeting and conferring 15 with Samsung on translation issues, both during discovery and as the 2012 trial approached. 16 Mr. Chung also helped prepare for the depositions of various Samsung employees, including: 17 Heon Seok Lee, Sungsik Lee, Wookyun Kho, Samsung CEO Gee Sung Choi, and Won Pyo 18 Hong. He took the deposition of Seung Hwan Cho. Mr. Chung assisted in the preparation for 19 numerous discovery motions, including Apple’s motion to compel testimony of Samsung’s so- 20 called apex employees, and its motion for sanctions due to Samsung’s deficient production. His 21 Korean-language skills also made Mr. Chung a valuable source of knowledge on Samsung’s 22 internal structure and organization based on his review of the relevant production materials. His 23 technical skills provided insight for the various Utility Team members working on both Apple’s 24 and Samsung’s asserted assets. 25 138. JULIA D. KRIPKE. Ms. Kripke is an associate in the Litigation Department of 26 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. She is involved in intellectual property litigation and 27 counseling, with an emphasis on trademark matters. Her practice focuses on domestic and 28 international trademark counseling, prosecution, and enforcement, including litigation

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 49 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page52 of 87

1 proceedings in federal court as well as opposition and cancellation proceedings before the

2 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Ms. Kripke received her B.A. in history from Yale College 3 in 2004, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her J.D. from Stanford Law 4 School in 2009, where she was a notes editor of the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the 5 Order of the Coif. Ms. Kripke started at Morrison & Foerster in 2009. 6 139. Ms. Kripke was a member of the Design Team from the commencement of the 7 case. She researched and analyzed trade dress and trademark legal standards and Apple’s trade 8 dress and trademark rights. She assisted with preparing the amended complaint. She drafted 9 sections of the preliminary injunction motion and reply and supporting declarations for Apple 10 employee Sissie Twiggs and expert Dr. Sanjay Sood. She also assisted in preparing 11 Sissie Twiggs for a preliminary injunction deposition. Ms. Kripke helped draft Apple’s discovery 12 requests and responses to Samsung’s discovery requests on trade dress and trademark issues. She 13 helped prepare the strategy for development and execution of surveys related to trade dress 14 claims. Ms. Kripke assisted in preparing Apple employees for deposition, including Phil Schiller, 15 Greg Joswiak, Stanley Ng, Art Rangel, Tamara Whiteside, and Suzanne Lindbergh. Ms. Kripke 16 also reviewed Apple documents for production. Ms. Kripke prepared for and took the deposition 17 of Samsung employee Junho Park, and she prepared for and attended the deposition of third-party 18 Asus employee Gwen Hsu. She also assisted with preparation for the depositions of Samsung 19 employees Justin Denison and Brian Rosenberg. She helped Drs. Alan Hedge, Sanjay Sood, and 20 Russell Winer with their expert reports, and also helped with deposition preparation for these 21 experts. Ms. Kripke assisted with deposition preparations for Samsung experts Drs. Mark Lehto 22 and Ramamirthan Sukumar. 23 140. Ms. Kripke assisted with analyzing and rebutting Samsung’s trade dress 24 defenses—functionality, lack of acquired distinctiveness, and lack of fame—and helped prepare 25 an evidentiary plan for trade dress issues for trial. Ms. Kripke prepared inserts for the opposition 26 to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment. Ms. Kripke drafted proposed jury instructions on 27 trade dress issues and prepared objections to Samsung’s proposed jury instructions on trade dress 28 issues. As part of the Trial Team in San Jose, Ms. Kripke drafted objections to Samsung’s

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 50 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page53 of 87

1 exhibits and demonstratives and responded to Samsung’s objections to Apple’s exhibits and

2 demonstratives. She also assisted with preparing witness outlines for direct and cross 3 examinations, exhibits, and demonstratives, and evidentiary objections and responses, as well as 4 preparing witnesses for testimony. 5 141. CHRISTOPHER L. ROBINSON. Mr. Robinson is an associate in Morrison & 6 Foerster’s Palo Alto and San Francisco offices. He has handled a variety of complex commercial 7 litigation matters, including patent and trade secrets litigation, Hatch-Waxman litigation, and 8 contract litigation. Mr. Robinson received his J.D. cum laude from Santa Clara University in 9 2008. In law school, he served as a judicial extern in the chambers of the Honorable James Ware 10 of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He also participated in the Giles 11 Rich Moot Court Competition, winning an award for Best Appellant Brief. Mr. Robinson started 12 at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 13 142. Mr. Robinson was a member of the Damages Team. Before the 2012 trial, he 14 reviewed and analyzed Samsung’s production of financial documents. He conducted legal 15 research on damages issues. He supervised Korean language contract attorneys’ review of 16 damages-related documents. He helped collect and produce Apple’s financial documents. He 17 assisted with propounding and responding to written discovery requests relating to damages and 18 with drafting correspondence to opposing counsel regarding deficiencies in Samsung’s financial 19 production. He also helped draft Apple’s motion for sanctions relating to damages documents, 20 apex motion relating to Joseph Cheong and Dale Il Sohn, motion to strike expert reports, 21 opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion, and trial brief. 22 143. Mr. Robinson helped prepare for and take the deposition of Samsung employee 23 Timothy Benner, and he helped prepare for the deposition of Apple witness Mark Buckley. He 24 assisted with deposition preparations for Samsung employees, including Jaehwang Sim, 25 Timothy Sheppard, Todd Pendleton, Justin Denison, Brian Rosenberg, Corey Kerstetter, 26 Joseph Cheong, and Dale Il Sohn as well as Samsung’s damages expert, Michael Wagner. 27 Mr. Robinson assisted Apple’s damages expert Terry Musika with his expert report. 28 Mr. Robinson was also a member of the Trial Team in San Jose where he helped prepare

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 51 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page54 of 87

1 objections to jury instructions on damages, witness examination outlines, summary trial exhibits,

2 and trial demonstratives. He also assisted with post-trial briefing and depositions, including 3 helping with preparing expert declarations in support of Apple’s post-trial requests for 4 supplemental damages, prejudgment interest, willfulness enhancements, and a permanent 5 injunction, and helping prepare for the deposition of Apple’s damages expert, Marylee Robinson. 6 144. TARYN S. RAWSON. Ms. Rawson is an associate in the Litigation Department 7 of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Ms. Rawson earned her J.D., cum laude, from 8 Harvard Law School, where she was articles editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties 9 Law Review and was a board member of the Harvard Defenders. During law school she interned 10 at the Massachusetts Department of Education’s General Counsel’s Office. Before joining 11 Morrison & Foerster, Ms. Rawson served as a law clerk to the Honorable Christopher F. Droney 12 of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 13 2011. 14 145. Ms. Rawson helped Apple’s survey experts Drs. Kent Van Liere and Hal Poret 15 with their reports, and assisted in preparing them for their depositions. Ms. Rawson assisted in 16 coordination between this litigation and related litigation around the world. Ms. Rawson also 17 helped prepare for the deposition of Samsung expert Michael Mazis. She also assisted in Apple’s 18 preliminary injunction appeal. Ms. Rawson was involved in many aspects of trial. She helped 19 draft briefs, objections, and motions, relating to, among other things, witness disclosures, 20 evidentiary issues, and Apple’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. In this role, she 21 conducted legal research and corresponded with Samsung’s counsel. She also prepared attorneys 22 and witnesses—in particular Apple’s survey experts—for direct and cross examinations. 23 146. FRANCIS C. HO. Mr. Ho was an associate at Morrison & Foerster’s San 24 Francisco office, where his practice focused on patent litigation. His cases involved digital rights 25 management, web search algorithms, portable computer hardware, converter circuits, and plasma 26 televisions. Mr. Ho received his J.D. from The University of Texas School of Law in 2006, 27 where he graduated with high honors and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He was also an 28 associate editor of the Texas Law Review and a member of the Legal Research Board. He

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 52 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page55 of 87

1 received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences from the University of

2 California, Berkeley. Mr. Ho started at Morrison & Foerster in 2006. 3 147. Mr. Ho was a member of the Design Team. He performed infringement, validity, 4 and enforceability analysis for the D’677, D’087, and D’889 patents. He reviewed the design 5 sketchbooks and CAD drawings of Apple inventors for production. He also reviewed Samsung 6 documents related to design patent issues. Mr. Ho prepared for and took the depositions of 7 Samsung witnesses, including Hyoung Shin Park, Sang Eun Lee, and Daewoon Myoung. In 8 addition, Mr. Ho assisted with preparations for the depositions of Samsung witnesses, including 9 Justin Denison, Ahyoung Kim, Jeeyeun Wang, Yungjung Lee, Sun Young Yi, Itay Sherman, and 10 Robert Anders. He assisted with the depositions of third-party witnesses, including Roger Fidler 11 and Douglas Satzger. He also assisted with the defense of depositions of Apple witnesses, 12 including Christopher Stringer, Jonathan Ive, Daniel Coster, Quin Hoellwarth, Peter Russell- 13 Clarke, Richard Howarth, Eugene Whang, and Rico Zorkendorfer. 14 148. Mr. Ho also helped draft interrogatories, requests for production, and responses to 15 interrogatories related to design patents. He worked with Apple expert Peter Bressler to prepare 16 expert declarations, opening and rebuttal expert reports, and deposition and trial testimony. 17 Mr. Ho was a member of the Trial Team in San Jose and assisted with trial preparations and trial, 18 including demonstratives and graphics, evidentiary objections and responses, direct and cross 19 examination witness outlines, and Apple’s opening statement and closing argument. 20 149. ESTHER KIM. Ms. Kim is a litigation associate in Morrison & Foerster’s 21 San Francisco office. Ms. Kim’s practice focuses on patent litigation. She graduated from the 22 George Washington University Law School in 2008, where she was elected to the Order of the 23 Coif. Ms. Kim is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. She started 24 at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 25 150. Ms. Kim was a member of the Discovery Team. She helped supervise and 26 coordinate review of Samsung’s document production. She assisted in training and supervising 27 Korean language contract attorneys to review Samsung’s documents. She attended meet and 28 confers with opposing counsel. She drafted discovery correspondence. She drafted and

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 53 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page56 of 87

1 coordinated discovery requests to be propounded on Samsung. She also drafted deposition

2 notices of Samsung employees. Ms. Kim also helped coordinate the scheduling and logistics for 3 depositions of Samsung witnesses, Samsung experts, Apple experts, and third parties. She 4 prepared materials for depositions of Samsung employees. She prepared for and took depositions 5 of Samsung employees, including H. Woo, H. Lee, and S. Lee. She helped prepare numerous 6 motions, including a motion to compel production of documents, motion to compel deposition of 7 Samsung witnesses, and motion and reply for adverse jury instructions based on spoliation of 8 evidence. 9 151. CHRISTOPHER J. WIENER. Mr. Wiener is an associate in the Litigation 10 Department of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He has handled a variety of 11 intellectual property disputes, including work for plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement 12 and trademark suits. Mr. Wiener earned his J.D., summa cum laude, from the University of 13 California, Hastings College of the Law in 2011, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. 14 While at Hastings, he was a senior articles editor for the Hastings Law Journal. Mr. Wiener 15 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 16 152. A member of the Copying Team, Mr. Wiener was involved in analyzing 17 Samsung’s productions and incorporating that evidence into the overall trial plan. Mr. Wiener 18 helped draft Apple’s motion to compel depositions of Samsung’s apex employees, a motion to 19 compel discovery responses, and Apple’s motion for sanctions for violations of the Court’s orders 20 relating to preliminary injunction discovery, and Apple’s motion regarding Samsung’s spoliation 21 of evidence. He also helped prepare for the depositions of Samsung employees, including 22 Gee Sung Choi, Won Pyo Hong, Dale Sohn, and Joon il Choi, and for third-party witnesses from 23 Gravitytank and Humancentric. More broadly, Mr. Wiener assisted in preparations and 24 coordination for many of the third-party deponents. Mr. Wiener also assisted in the preparation 25 of reports for Apple experts Peter Bressler, Russell Winer, and Terry Musika. He helped prepare 26 Apple’s mediation briefs and trial briefs, and assisted the Trial Team with motion drafting and 27 evidentiary issues. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 54 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page57 of 87

1 153. MARCELO O. GUERRA. Mr. Guerra was an associate in Morrison &

2 Foerster’s San Francisco office. His practice focused on complex commercial litigation, with 3 special emphasis on patent and other intellectual property disputes. He helped win trial verdicts 4 in favor of a major medical device manufacturer in a complex patent case. He also worked with 5 high technology companies in breach of contract, unfair competition, indemnity, and trademark 6 disputes. Mr. Guerra graduated from Harvard Law School in 2004. He started at Morrison & 7 Foerster in 2004. 8 154. Mr. Guerra assisted in drafting the preliminary injunction motion. Mr. Guerra 9 conducted research on legal issues, including claim construction, invalidity arguments, and 10 discovery privilege. He also conducted fact research into the accused Samsung products. 11 Mr. Guerra helped prepare for the deposition of Samsung expert Jeff Johnson, and helped Apple 12 expert Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan with his expert report. Mr. Guerra was also a member of the 13 Discovery Team. He reviewed Samsung-produced documents, assisted in drafting Apple’s 14 written discovery requests, responses, and Apple’s proposed protective order. Mr. Guerra also 15 helped draft motions for sanctions relating to untimely production and for spoliation, and helped 16 draft the motion to compel apex witness testimony. 17 155. KATIE RONEY. Ms. Roney is an associate in the Litigation Department of 18 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Ms. Roney received her J.D. from the University of 19 Pennsylvania Law School in May 2009, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the East Asia Law 20 Review. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 21 156. Ms. Roney was a member of the Discovery Team. Her primary responsibility was 22 to help oversee the review of documents, including Apple documents and third-party confidential 23 documents. She regularly updated the team on the status of document collection and review and 24 fielded questions from the team and contract attorney reviewers. She helped draft and maintain a 25 chart on the status of the document collection and review, and assisted with coordination of 26 discovery efforts with WilmerHale. She interfaced with the document processing and review 27 vendors. She prepared for and attended phone interviews with Apple’s inventors, including 28 John Elias, Brian Land, Wayne Westerman, Marcel van Os, Steve Lemay, Tang Tan,

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 55 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page58 of 87

1 Daniel Coster, Rico Zorkendorfer, Matthew Rohrbach, Chris Stringer, Peter Russell-Clarke, and

2 Bart Andre. She prepared for and attended the document collection for Apple employees, 3 including B.J. Hamel and Scott Herz. She reviewed documents for production and helped create 4 and revise the privilege log. She attended calls with Apple employees regarding evidence relating 5 to trade dress issues. Ms. Roney prepared exhibits for the mock trial and assisted with the mock 6 trial. She helped with the deposition preparation of Apple Chief Patent Counsel Richard Lutton. 7 She helped draft discovery letters to Judge Grewal and Samsung’s counsel. Ms. Roney also 8 helped prepare a chronology of Apple-Samsung negotiations. 9 157. BRITTANY DEPUY. Ms. DePuy is an associate in the Palo Alto office of 10 Morrison & Foerster, and a member of the Litigation Department. Ms. DePuy obtained her J.D., 11 Order of the Coif, in 2008 from the University of California, Davis School of Law, where she was 12 a member of the Moot Court Board. While in law school, Ms. DePuy served as a judicial extern 13 for the Honorable Frank C. Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 14 California. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 15 158. Ms. DePuy was a member of the Damages Team. Not only was Ms. DePuy 16 responsible for damages-related tasks, including discovery work, she reviewed Apple documents 17 for responsiveness and privilege, and assisted with deposition preparations for Apple witnesses 18 Eric Jue, Boris Teksler, Art Rangel, and BJ Watrous. She also assisted with deposition 19 preparation for Samsung witness Dae Il Sohn and Samsung expert Michael Wagner. She 20 reviewed Apple’s interrogatory responses for supplementation. She also assisted Apple’s experts 21 with their reports related to damages, including collecting underlying data, collecting license 22 agreements produced by Samsung, reviewing Apple’s licenses with third parties, and reviewing 23 deposition transcripts. Ms. DePuy conducted legal research on various topics such as lost profits 24 calculations, infringer’s profits calculations, and use of conjoint analysis as expert evidence. 25 Ms. DePuy helped with motion practice related to damages issues, particularly Apple’s Daubert 26 motion, opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion, and oppositions to Samsung’s motions in 27 limine. She reviewed deposition transcripts for trial, preparing designations, counterdesignations, 28 and objections to Samsung’s designations. Ms. DePuy also assisted with trial: drafted witness

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 56 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page59 of 87

1 examinations, prepared exhibits and demonstratives, drafted objections to Samsung’s exhibit

2 disclosures; and prepared a witness for trial. Ms. DePuy also worked on post-trial issues 3 including Apple’s motions for a permanent injunction and enhanced damages, Apple’s opposition 4 to Samsung’s post-trial motions, and preparation for post-trial depositions. 5 159. ERIC W. OW. Mr. Ow was an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco 6 office. His practice focused on intellectual property disputes, with an emphasis on patent 7 litigation. Mr. Ow represented clients in matters involving a wide range of technologies, 8 including wireless networking, digital rights management, digital video recording, and optical 9 communications. Mr. Ow rejoined Morrison & Foerster in 2010 after serving as a law clerk to 10 Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Prior to his 11 clerkship, Mr. Ow worked at Morrison & Foerster for two years. Mr. Ow earned his J.D. at the 12 University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2007, where he served as an executive editor 13 of the California Law Review. 14 160. Mr. Ow was a member of the Utility Team. Mr. Ow analyzed ’915 and ’002 15 utility patent infringement issues, including reviewing portions of Samsung source code. Mr. Ow 16 analyzed ’915 and ’002 validity issues including alleged prior art references. Mr. Ow assisted 17 Drs. Karan Singh and Alex Snoeren with preparing opening and rebuttal expert reports, and he 18 assisted with the preparation of these experts for deposition. In addition, he prepared for and 19 defended the third-party depositions of Microsoft and Dell. Mr. Ow helped draft several motions, 20 including an opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment, opposition to Samsung’s 21 motion to compel, opposition to Samsung’s motion to amend infringement contentions, and 22 opposition to Samsung’s motion to amend invalidity contentions. Mr. Ow was also a member of 23 the Trial Team in San Jose. During trial, he prepared direct and cross examination witness 24 outlines, exhibits, disclosures, high priority objections, and demonstratives. 25 161. NATHANIEL J. TORRES. Mr. Torres is a litigation associate in the San 26 Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster. Mr. Torres received his B.A. from the University of 27 California, Berkeley in 1999. He received his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 57 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page60 of 87

1 College of the Law in 2007, where he was Senior Articles Editor for the Hastings Race and

2 Poverty Law Journal. Mr. Torres started at Morrison & Foerster in 2007. 3 162. Mr. Torres assisted the Discovery Team and Design Team. He reviewed 4 documents for various Apple custodians for responsiveness and privilege. He also reviewed 5 Apple industrial design sketchbooks and documents for production. He helped prepare Apple 6 industrial designers and product designers for deposition, including Matthew Rohrbach, 7 Chris Prest, Mark Lee, and Fletcher Rothkopf. He prepared for and defended the deposition of 8 third-party Radio Shack. He helped prepare the opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary 9 judgment and supporting declaration of expert Peter Bressler. Mr. Torres assisted with the review 10 of deposition transcripts and prepared counter-designations for trial. He also helped prepare 11 summary exhibits and demonstratives for Apple experts and witnesses. 12 163. DANIELLE COLEMAN. Ms. Coleman is an associate in the litigation 13 department in Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. In 2006, she received her J.D. from 14 Georgetown University Law Center, where she was the senior editor for the Georgetown 15 International Environmental Law Review. After law school, Ms. Coleman was a law clerk for the 16 Honorable William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She 17 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 18 164. Ms. Coleman was a member of the Design Team. Ms. Coleman assisted 19 James Carmichael, Dr. Sanjay Sood, and Dr. Russell Winer with their expert reports. She 20 assisted in deposition preparation for Apple expert James Carmichael. She also helped with 21 deposition preparation for Samsung experts Samuel Lucente and Nicholas Godici. She helped 22 with the deposition preparation for Apple witnesses Daniele De Iuliis, Evans Hankey, 23 Jonathan Ive, Jared Gosler, and Stephen Zadesky. She assisted in deposition preparation for 24 third-party witnesses Bob Borchers and Stephen Beyer. She also assisted in deposition 25 preparation for Samsung witnesses Dong Hoon Chang, Sang Hung, Seoggeun Kim, Sang Eun 26 Lee, Yunjung Lee, GiYoung Lee, Dongseok Ryu, Hyoung Shin Park, Yong Seok Bang, and 27 Sun Young Yi. Ms. Coleman helped negotiate the scope of the Gravity Tank subpoena. She 28 prepared for and took the deposition of third-party Palm. Ms. Coleman drafted sections of the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 58 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page61 of 87

1 motion to strike and motion to exclude expert testimony, and she drafted sections of the

2 opposition to Samsung’s motion to strike and motion to exclude expert testimony of Apple 3 experts. Ms. Coleman prepared counter-designations for the deposition testimony of Apple’s 4 industrial designers and product designers. She also prepared design patent and trade dress 5 demonstratives and exhibit summaries for trial. Ms. Coleman was a member of the Trial Team in 6 San Jose where she assisted in trial preparation, including drafting witness outlines and high 7 priority objections and responses, and demonstratives. 8 165. DANIEL A. ZLATNIK. Mr. Zlatnik is an associate in the litigation department 9 of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He has handled a variety of complex commercial 10 litigation matters, including contract litigation, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, patent 11 infringement, and other intellectual property matters. Mr. Zlatnik graduated from the University 12 of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 2008. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 13 166. As a member of the Design Team, Mr. Zlatnik performed case analysis, such as 14 analyzing Apple CAD files to determine conception dates and identify alternative designs. He 15 also analyzed design patent rights and conferred with Apple expert Susan Kare regarding these 16 rights. He reviewed Apple industrial design sketchbooks and documents for production. 17 Mr. Zlatnik worked with experts Susan Kare and Henry Urbach to prepare their expert reports, 18 and also helped prepare Susan Kare for her depositions. Mr. Zlatnik assisted consultants with the 19 preparation of replicas of the Roger Fidler models. He also provided legal research support on a 20 number of issues and assisted in drafting the motion to strike expert reports, and motion to 21 exclude expert testimony, and oppositions to Samsung’s motion to exclude expert testimony, and 22 the motion for depositions of apex witnesses. Mr. Zlatnik assisted with deposition preparation for 23 Samsung expert Samuel Lucente and third-party iRiver. He prepared for and defended the 24 deposition of Fancy Models. Mr. Zlatnik helped with deposition preparation for Apple witnesses, 25 including Bart Andre, Freddy Anzures, Imran Chaudhri, Daniel Coster, Richard Howarth, 26 Duncan Kerr, Chris Stringer, and Eugene Whang. He also assisted with deposition preparation 27 for Samsung witnesses, including Jin-Soo Kim, MinHyouk Lee, and Junho Park. Mr. Zlatnik was 28 a member of the Trial Team in San Jose and his responsibilities included assisting in witness

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 59 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page62 of 87

1 preparation and preparation of proposed jury instructions, motions and briefs, exhibits, objections

2 to exhibits, and demonstratives. 3 167. RUCHIKA AGRAWAL. Ms. Agrawal was a litigation associate who focused on 4 intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright, and trade secret litigation for high- 5 stakes technology clients. She had experience in a broad range of technical industries, including 6 software, wireless communications, and semiconductors. Ms. Agrawal received her master’s 7 degree in computer science from Stanford University in 2002, where she specialized in systems. 8 Ms. Agrawal received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2006, where she 9 served on the Editorial Board and Submissions Review Board for the Virginia Journal of 10 International Law and as the President of the Virginia Society of Law & Technology.

11 Ms. Agrawal joined Morrison & Foerster LLP in 2008. 12 168. Ms. Agrawal was a member of the Utility Team. She assisted multiple experts 13 with their opening infringement expert reports relating to the utility patents, which included 14 reviewing source code, supervising tear-downs, and working with experts. She helped interview 15 the utility patent inventors on date of conception/reduction to practice. She helped with 16 deposition preparation for Samsung witnesses Dong Sub Kim, Heonseok Lee, and Jong Dae Park, 17 and third-party Atmel witnesses Samuel Brunet and Martin Simmons. Her other discovery- 18 related work included preparing interrogatory requests and requests for admission and assisting in 19 preparing discovery correspondence. She conducted legal research on a variety of discovery 20 issues. Ms. Agrawal also assisted with trial activities, including helping to prepare trial plans and

21 the verdict form. In addition, she assisted in preparing jury instructions, including providing 22 supporting authorities for same, meeting-and-conferring with Samsung’s counsel, and helping 23 with objections to Samsung’s proposed instructions. 24 169. RAYMOND M. HASU. Mr. Hasu’s practice focuses on securities litigation 25 matters, which encompass matters arising under the federal securities laws as well as matters such 26 as derivative actions and state law fraud actions that often accompany securities claims. 27 Mr. Hasu has significant experience in other areas of complex litigation, including intellectual 28 property, ERISA, Civil RICO, and antitrust law. Mr. Hasu graduated cum laude from the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 60 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page63 of 87

1 Georgetown University Law Center in 1998, where he was a member of the Georgetown Law

2 Journal. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2003. 3 170. Mr. Hasu was a member of the Briefing Team and involved in the drafting of 4 many of Apple’s discovery motions during this case. For example, he helped draft Apple’s 5 response to Samsung’s motion to compel during the preliminary injunction phase, Apple’s 6 motions to compel and for a protective order (and helped prepare related declarations), Apple’s 7 motion for sanctions regarding late-produced documents, and Apple’s Rule 37 motion relating to 8 source code. Mr. Hasu also helped with pre-trial motions, including motions relating to 9 interrogatory responses, motions in limine, Apple’s case management statements, and the parties’ 10 motions to strike expert reports. He also helped prepare attorneys for hearings, especially those 11 relating to sanctions motions. 12 171. RICK C. LIU. Mr. Liu is a litigation associate in Morrison & Foerster’s San 13 Diego office, where his practice focuses on securities litigation. Mr. Liu received his J.D. from 14 the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, where he was an associate editor of the Journal of Law 15 and Social Change. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 16 172. Mr. Liu was a member of the Discovery Team. He reviewed documents from 17 Apple custodians for responsiveness. He also performed a privilege review of documents 18 collected from various Apple custodians. Mr. Liu reviewed documents collected from various 19 third parties and he performed third-party confidentiality review of documents collected from 20 various Apple employees. He analyzed deposition transcripts for Apple and Samsung employees 21 and third parties and prepared deposition summaries. Mr. Liu also helped track the team’s 22 deposition summaries. Mr. Liu assisted with legal research on various topics, including expert 23 reports, expert testimony, and sanctions. He also helped research and draft sections of Apple’s 24 reply in support of its motion to strike as well as a motion in limine. 25 173. EMILY H. SHEFFIELD. Ms. Sheffield is an associate in the Litigation 26 Department of Morrison & Foerster’s Palo Alto office. She practices general commercial 27 litigation with a focus on intellectual property issues and securities. Ms. Sheffield received her 28 J.D. in 2009 from the University of Chicago. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 61 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page64 of 87

1 174. Ms. Sheffield was a member of the Damages Team. She worked on damages-

2 related tasks as well as broader tasks. She researched and drafted analyses on various topics, 3 including, among other things, the legal requirements for damages, trade dress damages, the 4 parameters of a hypothetical negotiation, legal requirements for noninfringing alternatives, and 5 various evidentiary issues. She also helped research and prepare several motions and supporting 6 documents: the damages and financial documents sanctions motion, reply, and supporting 7 declarations; the apex motion and reply; a Daubert motion regarding Samsung expert 8 Michael Wagner; and the opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion regarding Apple expert 9 Terry Musika. She also helped prepare for the oral arguments on the sanction motion, apex 10 motion, and motion in limine. She assisted with research for a motion to strike the expert report 11 of Michael Wagner. She assisted with deposition preparation for Samsung’s Rule 30(b)(6) 12 witness Jaehwang Sim, Apple expert Terry Musika, and Samsung expert Michael Wagner. She 13 also assisted with preparation and attended the depositions of Samsung apex witnesses Dae Il 14 Sohn and Joon Kyo Cheong. She helped review, summarize, and organize damages interrogatory 15 responses. Ms. Sheffield also provided trial assistance, including researching and drafting 16 damages-related jury instructions, identifying damages exhibits, preparing deposition 17 designations and counter-designations, drafting objections to Samsung’s jury instructions related 18 to damages, preparing objections and responses to objections regarding trial exhibits, and drafting 19 witness examination outlines. Ms. Sheffield also worked on post-trial issues in 2012. 20 175. JOSEPH K. KANADA. Mr. Kanada is an associate in the Litigation Department 21 of Morrison & Foerster’s Palo Alto office. His practice focuses on intellectual property and 22 securities, including class action lawsuits and patent infringement cases. He graduated from Yale 23 Law School in 2007. Mr. Kanada started at Morrison & Foerster in 2007. 24 176. Mr. Kanada was a member of the Utility Team. Mr. Kanada researched a number 25 of legal issues relating to discovery and expert issues. He helped analyze discovery for evidence 26 of conception, diligence, and reduction to practice dates for utility patents and amended 27 corresponding discovery responses. He also helped analyze evidence of secondary considerations 28 of non-obviousness. Mr. Kanada assisted with a number of tasks related to the ’607 and ’129

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 62 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page65 of 87

1 patents, including assisting experts with their infringement expert reports, finalizing Samsung

2 product teardown reports, and working with expert Michel Maharbiz to draft a validity report. He 3 prepared materials for Drs. Michel Maharbiz and Brian Von Herzen’s expert depositions. He also 4 assisted with researching and drafting sections of the mediation brief, motion to strike, opposition 5 to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment, opposition to Samsung’s motion to strike, and 6 oppositions to Samsung’s motions in limine. For the 2012 trial, Mr. Kanada researched and 7 drafted objections to jury instructions, designated deposition transcripts, drafted witness outlines, 8 and prepared trial graphics. 9 177. DINAH XIMENA ORTIZ. Ms. Ortiz is an associate in the Litigation Group in 10 the Palo Alto office of Morrison & Foerster. Ms. Ortiz received her J.D. in 2010 from the 11 University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. While at Berkeley, Ms. Ortiz was an 12 Executive Editor of the California Law Review and a volunteer at the California Asylum 13 Representation Clinic. She also served as a judicial extern in the chambers of Chief Justice 14 Ronald M. George of the Supreme Court of California. Ms. Ortiz started at Morrison & Foerster 15 in 2011. 16 178. Her initial role on the case was review of documents for responsiveness and 17 privilege. She helped prepare Apple’s privilege log. Ms. Ortiz later became a member of the 18 Damages Team. She later assisted Terry Musika with his expert report and she helped review and 19 select documents for damages trial exhibits. She assisted with preparation for the depositions of 20 Eric Jue, Tamara Whiteside, Art Rangel, B.J. Watrous, Timothy Benner, and Dale Il Sohn. She 21 assisted with deposition preparations for Apple expert Terry Musika and Samsung expert 22 Michael Wagner. Ms. Ortiz also conducted legal research to assist with a motion for sanctions, 23 Daubert motion, and opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion. She prepared deposition 24 designations for the 2012 trial. 25 179. TERESA N. BURLISON. Ms. Burlison was an associate in the Palo Alto office 26 of Morrison & Foerster, where she focused her practice on trade secret and labor and employment 27 law, including counseling, litigation, and transactional work. She represented clients in jury 28 trials, complex class actions, mediations, and arbitrations. Ms. Burlison received her law degree

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 63 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page66 of 87

1 from the University of Texas in 2001. In 1999, she served as a judicial extern to Chief Justice

2 Thomas R. Phillips of the Texas Supreme Court. From 2001-2002, Ms. Burlison served as the 3 briefing attorney for Justice Sue Walker of the Second District Court of Appeals in Texas. She 4 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2006. 5 180. Ms. Burlison was involved in early discovery strategy decisions, and helped 6 prepare Apple’s initial disclosures and written discovery responses. Ms. Burlison was 7 responsible for creating Apple’s initial discovery plan. She was also a client contact for 8 discovery, interviewing custodians and assisting in the collection of documents and other items. 9 She helped supervise Apple’s initial production of documents, and helped coordinate productions 10 of third-party confidential documents. She also helped coordinate inspections of Apple’s source 11 code, CAD files, and physical models. Additionally, Ms. Burlison helped prepare for the 12 depositions of Chris Stringer, Scott Forstall, and Mark Buckley. She was also heavily involved in 13 coordinating and scheduling depositions of most Apple witnesses. Ms. Burlison helped staff 14 partners and associates to defend depositions of Apple witnesses, coordinated deposition 15 preparation assignments and materials, and corresponded with Samsung’s counsel regarding 16 deposition scheduling. 17 181. KEVIN M. COLES. Mr. Coles is an associate in the Litigation Department of 18 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Mr. Coles received his J.D. from the University of 19 Pennsylvania Law School in 2010, where he served as Senior Editor of the Journal of 20 International Law. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 21 182. Mr. Coles was a member of the Discovery Team. He reviewed Apple documents 22 for production. He also summarized deposition transcripts of Apple employees and experts. He 23 conducted legal research on various topics, including expert discovery and other issues for motion 24 to strike Samsung’s expert reports, and other legal issues. He helped draft and review Apple’s 25 privilege log. 26 183. PAUL L. NAVARRO. Mr. Navarro is an associate in the Litigation Department 27 of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Mr. Navarro received his J.D. from Boston 28 College Law School in 2010, where he served as Co-Chair of the school’s Diversity Committee

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 64 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page67 of 87

1 and was a member of the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court team. While in law school, Mr. Navarro

2 was also an extern to the Honorable Carlos T. Bea of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 3 Circuit and an extern in the Government Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. 4 He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 5 184. Mr. Navarro worked on both the Discovery Team and the Utility Team. He 6 reviewed documents for relevance and privilege of numerous Apple custodians, including 7 marketing, industrial design, and product design custodians. He also helped review documents 8 responsive to specific discovery requests regarding Apple’s design. Mr. Navarro also reviewed 9 marketing materials for relevance and privilege and helped prepare them for production. He 10 assisted in redacting documents produced by Apple. He helped review and summarize 11 depositions, including the depositions of Glenn Kubota, Wayne Westerman, and 12 Gregory Weaver. Mr. Navarro helped with deposition preparations for Apple witnesses 13 Greg Joswiak, Suzanne Lindbergh, Art Rangel, and Jason Skinder. Mr. Navarro also assisted 14 with expert discovery, and helped review and prepare documents relating to Samsung’s design 15 efforts and assisted with the preparation of related sections of the utility expert reports. He 16 assisted with preparing infringement charts for the utility patents. He helped with research and 17 drafting of the expert reports for Drs. Michel Maharbiz, Karan Singh, and Alex Snoeren. He 18 assisted with preparing videos of accused Samsung phones infringing various Apple patents. 19 Mr. Navarro also conducted legal research on various topics. He also helped prepare 20 counterarguments to support Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s Daubert motion. 21 185. ARIEL F. RUIZ. Mr. Ruiz is an associate in the New York office of Morrison & 22 Foerster LLP. Mr. Ruiz received his J.D. in 2009 from Cornell Law School where he was 23 Articles Editor of the Cornell International Law Journal. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 24 2009. 25 186. Mr. Ruiz was primarily involved in discovery, including document review and 26 deposition preparation. He assisted with deposition preparation for current and former Apple 27 employees, including Bob Borchers, Chuck Pisula, Greg Novick, Myra Haggerty, 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 65 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page68 of 87

1 Patrick Coffman, and Richard Williamson. He also reviewed documents for production,

2 including Apple industrial design sketchbooks and documents. 3 187. ROBERT TRAVIS PETRAGLIA. Mr. Petraglia is an associate in the Litigation 4 Department of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He received his J.D. from Harvard 5 Law School in 2009, where he served as a Senior Editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public 6 Policy and an Editor of the Harvard Human Rights Journal. Mr. Petraglia started at Morrison & 7 Foerster in 2009. 8 188. His work on the case included review of design sketchbooks and documents for 9 production as well as inspection of Apple prototypes. He helped prepare for depositions of Apple 10 employees and former Apple employees, including Andre Boule, Imran Chaudhri, Wei Chen, 11 Steven Hotelling, and Michael Matas. He helped prepare for depositions of Samsung expert 12 Brian Von Herzen. He also assisted Dr. Balakrishnan and Dr. Karan Singh with their expert 13 reports. He helped prepare videos demonstrating patent infringement by Samsung products. He 14 assisted with discovery-related tasks, such as preparing responses to requests for admission, and 15 motion practice, including preparing declarations in support of Apple’s motion to strike. 16 Mr. Petraglia also helped analyze evidentiary issues in support of Apple’s motions in limine. 17 189. JOSHUA A. HARTMAN. Mr. Hartman is an associate with Morrison & 18 Foerster’s litigation department. He divides his practice between intellectual property litigation 19 and antitrust law. Mr. Hartman's intellectual property experience encompasses patent and 20 copyright litigation, as well as Section 337 disputes pending before the U.S. International Trade 21 Commission. Mr. Hartman received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2009. He received 22 his L.L.M. in Intellectual Property Law from the London School of Economics and Political 23 Science in 2008, graduating with distinction. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 24 190. Mr. Hartman was a member of the Trial Team in San Jose. He assisted with pre- 25 trial and trial tasks. He helped prepare motions to seal trial exhibits and pre-trial filings. He 26 helped brief Apple’s objections and responses to Samsung’s objections regarding trial exhibits 27 and demonstratives. He conducted research and drafted sections of the proposed jury instructions 28 and objections to Samsung’s proposed jury instructions. He also assisted with various motions,

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 66 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page69 of 87

1 including an opposition to a motion for an adverse inference jury instruction, motion for judgment

2 as a matter of law, and opposition to motion for judgment as a matter of law. Mr. Hartman 3 researched motions to strike. He helped prepare an offer of proof and memoranda regarding 4 evidentiary issues at the 2012 trial. He also performed legal research regarding injunctive relief. 5 191. CECILIA ZINITI. Ms. Ziniti was a litigation associate in the Palo Alto office of 6 Morrison & Foerster. Ms. Ziniti maintained a broad-based intellectual property and technology 7 law practice and handled matters in the software, Internet services, social media, consumer 8 products, biotechnology, and medical device industries. Ms. Ziniti received a J.D. and a 9 certificate in Law and Technology from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 10 2009, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif. She edited the Berkeley Technology Law 11 Journal and advised as an academic fellow of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. After 12 law school, Ms. Ziniti served as a law fellow in the chambers of the Honorable Carlos T. Bea of 13 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 14 192. Ms. Ziniti was a member of the Damages Team. She reviewed and analyzed 15 Samsung’s production of financial documents and helped draft correspondence to Samsung’s 16 counsel regarding deficiencies in Samsung’s financial production. She supervised Korean 17 language contract attorneys in review of Samsung documents. She propounded and responded to 18 written discovery requests relating to damages. She helped draft sections of motions, including 19 Apple’s Rule 37 motion for sanctions relating to damages documents, and Apple’s apex motion 20 relating to Joseph Cheong and Dale Sohn. Ms. Ziniti also helped prepare for depositions of 21 Samsung employees, including Jaehwang Sim, Timothy Sheppard, Justin Dennison, 22 Timothy Benner, Joseph Cheong, Corey Kerstetter, and Dale Il Sohn. She researched issues 23 regarding remedies to Apple stemming from Samsung’s intellectual property violations. In 24 addition, Ms. Ziniti helped Apple’s damages expert Terry Musika with his expert report and 25 helped research Samsung’s damages experts. She also helped prepare a collection of Samsung 26 strategic documents as to copying. 27 193. SUNNI J. YUEN. Ms. Yuen was an associate with the Litigation Department in 28 the New York office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Ms. Yuen earned her J.D. in 2008 from the

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 67 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page70 of 87

1 University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was symposium editor of the Journal of

2 International Law and an associate editor of the Journal of International Economic Law. She 3 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 4 194. Ms. Yuen was involved in the review of Apple documents for responsiveness and 5 privilege. She also helped prepare for the depositions of Erik Wang, Myra Haggerty, 6 Steve Hotelling, and Henri Lamiraux. She also assisted in the preparation of the expert report of 7 Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan. 8 195. JESSICA ANNE ROBERTS. Ms. Roberts is an associate in the Product 9 Liability and Litigation Practice Groups. Her practice focuses on the pharmaceutical and aviation 10 industries as well as intellectual property. She received her J.D. (magna cum laude, Order of the 11 Coif) from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2009, where she was the recipient of an 12 academic achievement scholarship. During law school, she was a member of the San Diego Law 13 Review. Ms. Roberts also worked as an extern for the Honorable Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. 14 District Court for the Southern District of California. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2009. 15 196. Ms. Roberts helped prepare and follow-up on offensive discovery requests to 16 Samsung and track outstanding discovery requests to Samsung. She assisted with motion 17 practice, including helping prepare an opposition to Samsung’s request to seal, motion to strike 18 expert theories not timely disclosed in contention interrogatories, and a Daubert motion. She 19 researched and prepared a legal memorandum relating to claim preclusion. She also assisted with 20 preparing sealing requests and tracking case deadlines. 21 197. DAVID S. BROWN. Mr. Brown is Of Counsel in the Litigation Department of 22 Morrison & Foerster’s New York office. He graduated from Fordham University School of Law 23 in 2001. 24 198. Mr. Brown primarily assisted the Discovery Team. He regularly met with the 25 Discovery Team to discuss discovery and case strategy. He substantively reviewed and analyzed 26 documents for numerous Apple custodians. He reviewed documents for responsiveness, 27 privilege, and unannounced product redactions. He also conducted second level review of 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 68 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page71 of 87

1 documents to identify and feed documents to multiple teams for deposition preparation. He

2 assisted multiple teams by analyzing depositions and exhibits and providing detailed summaries. 3 199. ANNABEL R. CHANG. Ms. Chang was an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s 4 Litigation Group in the San Francisco office. In law school, Ms. Chang served as an Articles 5 Editor for the Washington University Law Review. Ms. Chang interned at the U.S. Attorney’s 6 office for the Northern District of California, Missouri Public Defender’s office, and two leading 7 Taiwanese law firms. She also studied law at the University of Hong Kong and Mandarin 8 Chinese at National Taiwan University. Ms. Chang graduated from Washington University 9 School of Law in 2009. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 10 200. Ms. Chang was a member of the Discovery Team. She assisted with document 11 review, including review of documents for responsiveness and privilege. She analyzed and 12 summarized numerous Apple employee deposition transcripts. Ms. Chang also conducted legal 13 research on a range of legal topics that arose during the case. She also assisted with preparing 14 subpoenas. Ms. Chang helped coordinate the preparation of the Daubert motion and drafted 15 sections of the motion. She also attended to issues of confidentiality and redactions. 16 201. ROBERT L. CORTEZ WEBB. Mr. Webb is an associate in Morrison & 17 Foerster’s Litigation Group in the San Francisco office. He received his J.D., magna cum laude, 18 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 2010. While attending law 19 school, Mr. Webb served as a senior articles editor for the Hastings Race and Poverty Law 20 Journal. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 21 202. Mr. Webb is a member of the Discovery Team. He helped review Apple 22 documents and helped review Apple industrial design sketchbooks for production. He also 23 reviewed documents from numerous custodians, from several groups within Apple and from third 24 parties. He assisted with privilege review and helped prepare the privilege log. Mr. Webb also 25 analyzed and summarized depositions of Apple and Samsung witnesses. He conducted research 26 on legal and equitable issues. He also analyzed and prepared exhibits for the Daubert motion. 27 203. SHELLA L. SADOVNIK. Ms. Sadovnik was an associate in Morrison & 28 Foerster’s Litigation Group in the Los Angeles office. Her practice included unfair competition,

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 69 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page72 of 87

1 trade practices, FCPA, and securities litigation. Ms. Sadovnik received her J.D. from Loyola Law

2 School of Los Angeles in 2009. While attending law school, she participated in the Loyola Law 3 Review and was a member of the Loyola Student Bar Association. Ms. Sadovnik started at 4 Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 5 204. Ms. Sadovnik was a part of the Discovery Team. She reviewed documents on 6 Apple custodians for responsiveness and privilege. She also reviewed documents for third-party 7 confidentiality. Ms. Sadovnik also reviewed deposition transcripts and prepared summaries of 8 the depositions and exhibits for the team. She conducted legal research on issues, such as expert 9 witness qualifications and rules of evidence. 10 205. LYNN M. HUMPHREYS. Ms. Humphreys focuses her practice on intellectual 11 property counseling and litigation involving trademark, copyright, advertising, unfair 12 competition, and Internet issues. She regularly addresses these topics in a variety of industries, 13 including hospitality, computer hardware, computer software, medical devices, education, and 14 entertainment. Her practice includes counseling clients from start-ups to large corporations on 15 the selection, protection, registration, enforcement, and acquisition or disposition of trademarks 16 and copyrights in the U.S. and internationally. In advising clients, she draws on more than 17 15 years of intellectual property litigation experience, including the prosecution and defense of 18 trademark and copyright infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition claims. In 19 addition to federal court litigation, she has represented clients in Trademark Trial and Appeal 20 Board opposition and cancellation actions and ICANN domain name dispute proceedings. She 21 graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1993. Ms. Humphreys started at 22 Morrison & Foerster in 1996. 23 206. Ms. Humphreys assisted Apple’s Design Team with its work relating to consumer 24 surveys, helping to select survey experts and the types of surveys to conduct. Her work spanned 25 from Apple’s preliminary surveys through assisting with final survey reports. She conferred 26 regularly with both the Design Team and Apple’s experts, helping to shape the trademark and 27 trade dress strategy. She analyzed survey issues, methodologies, and results and provided 28 feedback to the internal team and the client.

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 70 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page73 of 87

1 207. JEFFREY M. DAVID. Mr. David is an associate in the Litigation Department of

2 Morrison & Foerster’s San Diego office. Mr. David received his J.D. from Duke University 3 School of Law in 2009, where he was the executive editor of the Alaska Law Review, and a 4 member of the Duke Law Moot Court Executive Board. While in law school, he served as a 5 judicial extern to the Honorable Richard Fybel, Associate Justice on the California Court of 6 Appeal. Mr. David started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 7 208. Mr. David was a member of the Discovery Team. He helped review Apple 8 documents for responsiveness and privilege and assisted with the privilege log. He also reviewed 9 and summarized depositions for the team. He conducted research on various topics including 10 expert, discovery, and trial issues. He also helped prepare attorney declarations and exhibits. 11 209. IRENE E. PERTSOVSKY. Ms. Pertsovsky was an associate in the Litigation 12 Department of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Ms. Pertsovsky had a broad-based 13 litigation practice, emphasizing in securities litigation and general commercial litigation. Her 14 experience crossed a wide range of industries, including telecommunications, semiconductor, and 15 financial services. She received her J.D. cum laude from U.C. Hastings College of the Law in 16 2006 and was a member of the Thurston Society. While at Hastings, she was awarded the 17 David E. Snodgrass Award for appellate advocacy. Ms. Pertsovsky started at Morrison & 18 Foerster in 2006. 19 210. Ms. Pertsovsky helped support the Design Team. She reviewed Apple design 20 sketchbooks and documents for production. She helped prepare for depositions of Apple 21 employees, including Michael Tchao, Tamara Whiteside, and Achim Pantfoerder. She assisted 22 with researching and selecting a rebuttal expert on the issue of ergonomics and helped Dr. Alan 23 Hedge with his expert report. 24 211. KIMBERLY R. GOSLING. Kimberly Gosling is a litigation associate in 25 Morrison & Foerster’s San Diego office. Ms. Gosling’s practice involves product liability, 26 aviation, pharmaceutical, and general commercial litigation matters. Ms. Gosling represents 27 clients in complex and multidistrict litigation. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 28 2006. While attending law school, she was a teaching fellow in American constitutional law, a

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 71 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page74 of 87

1 line editor of the Journal on Legislation, a member of the Board of Student Advisers, and a legal

2 writing instructor. Ms. Gosling started at Morrison & Foerster in 2006. From 2007-2008, she 3 served as a law clerk for the Honorable Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the 4 Southern District of California. Ms. Gosling returned to Morrison & Foerster after her clerkship 5 in 2008. 6 212. Ms. Gosling conducted research regarding numerous motions and issues. 7 Ms. Gosling helped prepare numerous motions and supporting documents, including a motion to 8 compel apex depositions and a supporting declaration and reply, a motion to file under seal, a 9 motion to compel discovery responses and a supporting declaration, a motion for attorney’s fees, 10 a motion to shorten time, a declaration for a reply in support of a motion for sanctions based on 11 Samsung’s violation of discovery orders, and a motion to strike Samsung’s expert witness 12 opinions regarding invalidity of utility patents and a supporting declaration. She performed legal 13 research to support several Apple briefs. She helped with preparation for oral argument on the 14 apex motions. Ms. Gosling also analyzed Samsung’s discovery responses and prepared Apple’s 15 responsive strategy. She helped draft numerous meet-and-confer letters regarding discovery 16 issues, including deposition, document production, and discovery response issues. Ms. Gosling 17 helped analyze grounds for post-discovery motions related to Samsung’s discovery misconduct. 18 She also helped draft jury instructions and assisted with jury instruction and verdict form 19 strategies. 20 213. LUKE T. BAGLEY. Mr. Bagley was a corporate associate in Morrison & 21 Foerster’s New York office. While earning his J.D. at Fordham University School of Law, 22 Mr. Bagley was a member of the Fordham Urban Law Journal. Mr. Bagley received his J.D. 23 from Fordham University School of Law in 2009, and his L.L.M. in Taxation from New York 24 University School of Law in 2010. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2010. 25 214. Mr. Bagley largely assisted with discovery and deposition preparation. He helped 26 prepare for the depositions of Apple industrial designers and product designers, including 27 Jonathan Ive, Eugene Whang, Daniel Coster, Daniele De Iuliis, Duncan Kerr, Matthew Rohrbach, 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 72 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page75 of 87

1 Evans Hankey, and Stephen Zadesky. He also reviewed Apple’s industrial design sketchbooks

2 and documents for production. 3 215. DEVON EDWARDS. Mr. Edwards is an associate in the Litigation Department 4 of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He graduated cum laude from the University of 5 Texas School of Law, where he served as associate editor of the Texas Law Review. Mr. Edwards 6 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 7 216. Mr. Edwards was a member of the Discovery Team. He reviewed Apple 8 documents for responsiveness and privilege. He analyzed and summarized deposition transcripts 9 and reviewed deposition testimony regarding potential prior art. He conducted legal research 10 regarding expert issues. He reviewed and analyzed models for use in the case. Mr. Edwards also 11 assisted the Design Team. He helped prepare for the deposition of Apple industrial designer 12 Shin Nishibori, including review and analysis of documents and sketchbooks. Mr. Edward also 13 assisted with Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion for summary judgment and Apple’s 14 responses to Samsung’s errata designations. 15 217. TED HASSE. Mr. Hasse was a litigation associate in Morrison & Foerster’s San 16 Francisco office. His practice involved a range of intellectual property matters, including 17 trademark and copyright litigation, proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 18 and trademark prosecution and enforcement. While serving in the U.S. Army, Mr. Hasse 19 graduated from the Mandarin Chinese program at the Defense Language Institute of Monterey, 20 California, with Highest Honors, and was awarded the Provost Award for highest academic 21 achievement in his class. He received his J.D. from University of Virginia School of Law in 22 2008. Mr. Hasse started at Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 23 218. Mr. Hasse was a member of the Discovery Team. In that role, he analyzed 24 discovery issues and drafted meet and confer correspondence to Samsung’s counsel. Mr. Hasse 25 also assisted in drafting responses to written discovery requests. He also reviewed and analyzed 26 Samsung documents, and helped interview Apple employees. In addition, Mr. Hasse interfaced 27 with Apple’s co-counsel at WilmerHale on discovery matters, and helped conduct research and 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 73 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page76 of 87

1 assisted with the drafting of Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction and a motion to compel.

2 He also helped prepare for the deposition of Omar Sharif Khan. 3 219. JINYOUNG CHOI. Ms. Choi is an associate in the Corporate Group of 4 Morrison & Foerster’s New York office. Her practice focuses on general corporate matters. 5 Ms. Choi earned her J.D. in 2009 from New York University School of Law, where she was 6 Production Editor of the Journal of International Law and Politics. She started at Morrison & 7 Foerster in 2010. 8 220. Ms. Choi was a member of the Discovery Team. She helped review Apple 9 documents for production. She reviewed documents for responsiveness and privilege and her 10 review covered numerous Apple custodians, including marketing, industrial designers, graphical 11 user interface designers, and product designers. Ms. Choi also assisted with deposition 12 preparations for Apple witnesses, including Steven Sinclair, Evans Hankey, Stephen Zadesky, 13 Erik Wang, and Patrick Coffman. 14 221. NATALIE R. RAM. Ms. Ram is an associate in the Litigation Department of 15 Morrison & Foerster’s Washington, D.C. office. Her practice focuses on Supreme Court and 16 appellate litigation, including patent infringement cases before the Federal Circuit. She graduated 17 from Yale Law School in 2008, and clerked for the Hon. Stephen G. Breyer of the United States 18 Supreme Court and for the Hon. Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the 19 Second Circuit. Ms. Ram started at Morrison & Foerster in 2011. 20 222. Ms. Ram researched a number of issues relating to the availability of a preliminary 21 injunction. She prepared several memoranda analyzing the affirmance, reversal, grant, or denial 22 of a preliminary injunction on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Ms. Ram also assisted in post-trial 23 briefing. She assembled, reviewed, and revised Apple’s post-trial motion pursuant to Rules 50 24 and 59. She drafted portions of that motion relating to a variety of patent and trade dress claims. 25 Ms. Ram also researched and drafted portions of Apple’s responses to Samsung’s post-trial 26 motions, including Apple’s response to Samsung’s assertion of juror misconduct. Ms. Ram 27 researched a number of issues relating to this Court’s resolution of the post-trial motions, 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 74 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page77 of 87

1 including issues of claim construction, damages calculations, and this Court’s grant of a new trial

2 on some damages. 3 223. JOHN K. BLAKE, JR. Mr. Blake is an associate in the Litigation Department in 4 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. His practice focuses on intellectual property and 5 antitrust litigation. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Cornell Law School in 2008. While in 6 law school, he served as an editor of the Cornell Law Review. Mr. Blake started at Morrison & 7 Foerster in 2011. 8 224. Mr. Blake primarily worked with the Discovery Team. Mr. Blake was involved in 9 the early phases of the case, including the preliminary injunction phase. During that phase, he 10 helped prepare a plan for document collection, performed legal research, assisted in drafting a 11 declaration, and reviewed Android source code. Mr. Blake also assisted with discovery later in 12 the case. He helped draft interrogatory responses, document request responses, the protective 13 order, and a stipulation regarding electronically stored information. He helped prepare for the 14 Rule 26(f) conference and case management conference. He helped draft the case management 15 conference statement and researched issues related to case severance and bifurcation. Mr. Blake 16 assisted with preparing various administrative motions to seal and supporting papers and 17 declarations, including Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion to exclude Cooper Woodring 18 testimony, motion and reply for a preliminary injunction, motion to supplement preliminary 19 injunction record; motion to compel Samsung’s discovery responses; objections to Samsung’s 20 untimely preliminary injunction evidence; motion for protective order regarding Michael Zeller; 21 and exhibit for Samsung’s preliminary injunction presentation. Mr. Blake also assisted in 2013 in 22 opposing Samsung’s motion for a new trial relating to the ’381 patent. 23 225. DIANA B. KRUZE. Ms. Kruze is an associate in the Litigation Department of 24 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. Her practice focuses on patent and copyright 25 litigation. Ms. Kruze also has extensive experience with licensing, ITC actions and 26 reexaminations. She represents clients in a wide range of technical disciplines including 27 software, medical devices, nano-drugs, user interfaces, cellular communications, satellite systems, 28 and semiconductor processing and packaging. Ms. Kruze clerked for Judge James Ware and

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 75 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page78 of 87

1 externed for Judge Saundra Armstrong, both of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

2 California. Ms. Kruze graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law 3 in 2006 and was elected Order of the Coif. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2005. 4 226. Ms. Kruze assisted with discovery in this case. She reviewed documents for a 5 Samsung 30(b)(6) deposition. She also prepared for and attended the 30(b)(6) deposition of 6 Samsung Chief Strategy Office Justin Denison as well as various thirdparty depositions, including 7 Barry Beith, Corina Proctor, and Daniel Mauney. Ms. Kruze drafted discovery letters to 8 Samsung’s counsel, motions to compel discovery, and oppositions to Samsung’s motions to 9 compel discovery from Apple. She also prepared for and attended meet and confers regarding 10 discovery disputes. 11 227. J. RYAN GILFOIL. Mr. Gilfoil is an associate in the Litigation Department of 12 Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office. He works primarily with technology companies in a 13 variety of sectors, including search engines, networking and operating system software, and e- 14 commerce fraud-screening services. Mr. Gilfoil has represented these companies as both 15 plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement suits, contract disputes, and other matters. 16 Mr. Gilfoil has also represented the former CEO of a major technology company in stock options 17 backdating lawsuits. Mr. Gilfoil received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley 18 School of Law (Boalt Hall) in 2006, where he was a member of the California Law Review and 19 was named to the Order of the Coif. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Gilfoil was an investment 20 banker and a software engineer designing and building web applications. 21 228. Mr. Gilfoil was involved with the case at the outset. He drafted discovery, in 22 particular expedited preliminary injunction discovery. He researched and analyzed materials 23 regarding brand loyalty in the smartphone market, which was relevant to damages issues. 24 Mr. Gilfoil also assisted with both Apple and third-party discovery, drafting subpoenas and 25 reviewing documents for production. He reviewed and analyzed source code for infringement 26 issues. Mr. Gilfoil analyzed case law regarding lost profits, irreparable harm, and injunctions, 27 and drafted briefing regarding those issues. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 76 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page79 of 87

1 229. JOI L. GARNER. Ms. Garner is an associate with the Corporate Group in

2 Morrison & Foerster’s New York office. Her practice focuses on general corporate governance, 3 mergers and acquisitions, and securities laws. Ms. Garner earned her J.D. in 2007 from the 4 Hastings College of the Law at the University of California, where she was Staff Editor of the 5 Hastings Business Law Journal. She started at Morrison & Foerster in 2007. 6 230. Ms. Garner was a member of the Discovery Team. She helped review Apple 7 documents for production. She reviewed documents for responsiveness and privilege and her 8 review covered numerous Apple custodians, including marketing, industrial designers, and 9 product designers. 10 231. PATRICIA SVILIK. Ms. Svilik is an associate in the Litigation Department of 11 the San Francisco office of Morrison & Foerster. Ms. Svilik focuses her practice on intellectual 12 property litigation, and has been a member of four trial teams at Morrison & Foerster. She has 13 experience litigating trademark, copyright, and patent infringement actions in federal court. She 14 earned her J.D. from Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 2005, where she served as a 15 member of the California Law Review and served as executive editor and articles editor of 16 the Ecology Law Quarterly. She was awarded the American Jurisprudence Award for the highest 17 academic achievement in Property Law. After law school, Ms. Svilik clerked for the Honorable 18 Paul C. Huck of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Svilik started at 19 Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 20 232. Ms. Svilik was a member of the Discovery Team. She drafted responses to over 21 200 requests for production after consulting with multiple team members across all of the 22 substantive teams. She researched and drafted responses to interrogatories and coordinated the 23 team responses to nearly 1000 requests for admission. Ms. Svilik also helped draft briefs, 24 including an opposition to Samsung’s motion to compel and Apple’s motion for administrative 25 relief. She assisted in drafting discovery correspondence to Samsung’s counsel. 26 233. MICHAEL V. SACHDEV. Mr. Sachdev was an associate in the Washington, 27 D.C. office of Morrison & Foerster. His practice focused on white-collar criminal and complex 28 commercial litigation. He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2004. While in law

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 77 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page80 of 87

1 school, Mr. Sachdev was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and served as Managing Editor for the

2 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. He started at Morrison & Foerster in 2006. 3 234. Mr. Sachdev reviewed Apple documents and design notebooks for privilege and 4 responsiveness. He also assisted in the scheduling of depositions, and helped prepare for the 5 deposition of J. Strickon. In addition, Mr. Sachdev helped review deposition transcripts relating 6 to confidentiality designations and de-designations. 7 235. RICHARD MILLS-ROBERTSON. Mr. Mills-Robertson was an associate in the 8 litigation department of the New York office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. His practice focused 9 on intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret matters. Mr. Mills- 10 Robertson received his J.D., in 2001, from Cornell Law School with a concentration in Business 11 Law and Regulation and was named an Olin Law & Economics Scholar. He started at 12 Morrison & Foerster in 2008. 13 236. Mr. Mills-Robertson reviewed and analyzed documents for production from 14 numerous Apple custodians. He analyzed marketing, advertising, design, research and 15 development documents to identify and feed documents to multiple teams for discovery and pre- 16 trial preparations, such as deposition preparation. He analyzed depositions and exhibits and 17 provided detailed summaries to assist the substantive teams with pre-trial and trial preparations. 18 In addition, he worked with the Utility Team and helped conduct an analysis of alleged prior art 19 references cited in Samsung’s invalidity contentions for Apple’s asserted utility patents. 20 237. Additional biographical information regarding most of these Morrison & Foerster 21 attorneys can be found on the firm’s website (www.mofo.com).

22 D. Paralegals and Other Employees 23 238. ROSAMARIA BARAJAS. Ms. Barajas is a senior litigation paralegal at 24 Morrison & Foerster. She has been with the firm since 2006. Ms. Barajas was involved in all 25 aspects of the litigation. She had a substantial role as lead paralegal on the team. She assisted 26 with the preparation of many of Apple’s motions, including fact and cite checking, drafting of 27 documents, and e-filing. She also coordinated Apple’s team of paralegals and supervised the 28 collection, review, and production of documents as well as the receipt and management of

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 78 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page81 of 87

1 documents produced by Samsung and third parties, and coordinated with various discovery

2 vendors. She also managed project requests from the Morrison & Foerster litigation team, 3 responding to and directing others to respond to inquiries from the attorneys on the team. 4 Ms. Barajas was a part of both the 2012 Trial Team and the November 2013 Retrial Team, where 5 she assisted with witness preparation, prepared documents for filing, e-filed motions and briefs, 6 managed logistics, and otherwise supported the trial effort. 7 239. EDWARD W. SITTLER. Mr. Sittler was a litigation paralegal at Morrison & 8 Foerster. He joined the firm in 2010 with several years of experience. Mr. Sittler assisted both 9 the Utility Team and Design Team. Mr. Sittler coordinated Apple’s extensive collection of 10 phones, tablets, and other devices, including locating, purchasing, tracking, maintaining and 11 providing support for the devices. He also supervised device inspections and photographing of 12 devices. Mr. Sittler helped research new Samsung products. He also assisted with preparations 13 of witness files, deposition materials, hearing materials, pleadings, declarations, and expert 14 reports. Mr. Sittler was also involved throughout the 2012 trial, where he provided in court 15 support for attorneys, assisted in preparation of witness files, witness disclosure and objection 16 materials, and trial exhibits. 17 240. THOMAS E. BEYER. Mr. Beyer is a senior litigation paralegal at Morrison & 18 Foerster. He has been with the firm since 2000. Mr. Beyer helped fact and cite check documents 19 throughout the case, and provided support to a number of Apple’s substantive teams. 20 Additionally, Mr. Beyer was the lead paralegal in the courtroom throughout the 2012 trial, and he 21 assisted in the creation of witness preparation materials and prepared documents for filing. 22 241. MOLLIE B. GABRYS. Ms. Gabrys was a litigation paralegal at Morrison & 23 Foerster. She joined the firm in 2010. Ms. Gabrys primarily worked with the Discovery Team. 24 She helped screen Apple’s non-searchable documents, assisted with redactions of documents for 25 production, and helped maintain document review decision and production logs. She also 26 assisted with deposition preparations, expert reports, and finalizing motions and supporting 27 papers for filing. Ms. Gabrys was part of the 2012 Trial Team in San Jose, where she assisted in 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 79 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page82 of 87

1 maintaining exhibits, helping with witness preparations, creating witness materials, and preparing

2 documents for filing. 3 242. KENNETH L. MACCARDLE. Mr. MacCardle is a litigation paralegal at 4 Morrison & Foerster. He has been with the firm since 2006. Mr. MacCardle primarily supported 5 the Design Team throughout the case, assisting with tasks such as preparation of expert reports. 6 He helped more broadly with discovery and pre-trial tasks, such as preparation of trial exhibits. 7 He was also involved throughout both the 2012 trial and the November 2013 damages retrial, 8 where he assisted in the creation of witness files, and he helped prepare daily disclosure and cross 9 disclosure materials for witnesses. 10 243. PRISCILLA R. OROPEZA. Ms. Oropeza is a litigation paralegal at Morrison & 11 Foerster and has been with the firm since 2009. Ms. Oropeza provided support for attorneys on 12 several of the substantive teams and Discovery Team, including assisting with deposition 13 preparation. She was also a member of both the 2012 Trial Team and the 2013 Retrial Team, 14 where she helped with various tasks, such as preparation of witnesses for trial, trial exhibits, and 15 closing materials. 16 244. JANELL E. GEHRKE. Ms. Gehrke is a litigation paralegal at Morrison & 17 Foerster and has been with the firm since 2012. She previously worked as a paralegal at another 18 law firm for five and a half years. Ms. Gehrke worked with various teams prior to trial by helping 19 to prepare materials for filings and depositions and assisting with the mediation brief and expert 20 reports. She was also a member of the Trial Team in San Jose, where she assisted with day-to- 21 day trial preparations, such as creating materials for witness binders, and preparing documents for 22 filing. 23 245. PRISCILLA H. MOON. Ms. Moon was a litigation paralegal at Morrison & 24 Foerster. She joined the firm in 2009. Ms. Moon provided support to several of the substantive 25 teams and Discovery Team prior to trial. She assisted with distribution of related media and blog 26 coverage, and she helped with deposition preparation. She also provided support for handling 27 Korean-language documents. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 80 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page83 of 87

1 246. JOYCE K. NG. Ms. Ng is a litigation paralegal at Morrison & Foerster. She has

2 been with the firm since 2003. She primarily worked with the Utility Team and helped that team 3 with opening and rebuttal expert reports. She also assisted the Design Team in handling 4 prototypes and CAD files. More broadly, she helped with director files and source code updates 5 for production by Apple, use by Apple experts, and inspections by opposing counsel. 6 247. ANNE LEPORE. Ms. LePore is a senior litigation paralegal at Morrison & 7 Foerster. She has been with the firm since 1997. Ms. LePore was heavily involved in Apple’s 8 post-trial motions and keeping track of Apple’s litigation costs. She had a substantial role in the 9 fact and cite checking of many of Apple’s motions. She coordinated with Apple’s costs team and 10 both reviewed and supervised others in the review of thousands of pages of vendor invoices in 11 connection with Apple’s bill of costs. 12 248. ERIC R. ROBERTS. Mr. Roberts is the Director of Morrison & Foerster’s 13 Forensic Accounting Services Group and specializes in cases involving the securities laws and in 14 providing assistance with internal investigations. He is a Certified Public Accountant, a Certified 15 Fraud Examiner, and is certified in financial forensics by the American Institute of CPAs. He 16 started at Morrison & Foerster in 2000. 17 249. Mr. Roberts worked with the Damages Team on a variety of tasks. He reviewed 18 and analyzed Apple and Samsung financial documents, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and 19 expert reports to consult and provide guidance to the team on damages-related issues. He also 20 helped with motion practice, including drafting sections of a motion for sanctions and a 21 supporting declaration. 22 250. A list of the above timekeepers with the total hours that each billed through 23 March 1, 2013; the total fees each billed through March 1, 2013; and the discounted effective rate 24 for each timekeeper across that time period, is attached as Exhibit A. To be conservative, the 25 time Ms. Tucher and Ms. Rawson billed in that time period is discounted by 25% to account for 26 the fact that each spent substantial time coordinating this litigation with related matters around the 27 world, and some of that time may have related more heavily to the issues in other matters. As 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 81 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page84 of 87

1 seen in Exhibit A, in total after accounting for that discount, these timekeepers billed

2 $47,210,976.52 through March 1, 2013.

3 IV. MORRISON & FOERSTER’S RATES ARE COMPARABLE TO PREVAILING RATES IN THE COMMUNITY FOR LIKE-SKILLED PROFESSIONALS. 4 5 251. Every other year, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (the 6 “AIPLA”) produces an Economic Survey that reports on, among other things, billing rates for 7 intellectual property services. I have reviewed the July 2013 edition of the AIPLA Economic 8 Survey Report and compared the rates charged by Morrison & Foerster’s attorneys. The AIPLA 9 Economic Survey indicates that the median billing rate for partners at private firms in the San 10 Francisco Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) was $680 in 2012, and the third 11 quartile (75%) was $825. The median billing rate for associates at private firms in the San 12 Francisco CMSA was $513 in 2012, and the third quartile (75%) was $576. 13 252. The median billing rates for partners, of counsel, and associates who billed more 14 than $100,000 in fees on this case, are consistent with the numbers reported in the AIPLA 15 Economic Survey, as seen in Exhibit A. 16 253. Morrison & Foerster’s rates are comparable to the rates charged by Samsung’s 17 counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. A filing in this case showed that Quinn 18 Emanuel has charged Samsung hourly rates of $730-1035 for partners and of counsel and $290- 19 620 for associates. (Dkt. No. 1951-1, Ex. 1 to the Decl. of Diane C. Hutnyan Identifying 20 Samsung’s Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Court’s August 24, 2012 Order.) For the 21 three motions at issue in that filing, Samsung charged an average rate of $821 for partners and 22 $448 for associates. (Id.) Indeed, a comparison of the rates in Samsung’s filing to the rates in 23 Exhibit A shows that Samsung paid higher rates to its counsel than Apple paid to its counsel with 24 comparable experience. (Compare Dkt. No. 1951-1, with Exhibit A.) 25 254. Similarly, a bankruptcy court filing shows that in 2009, “hourly rates for partners 26 and of counsel of Quinn Emanuel range from $970 to $580,” and “hourly rates for U.S. associates 27 range from $390 to $820.” (Dkt. No. 906-2 at 6 (Decl. of Andrew J. Rossman ISO Debtors’ 28 Appl. for Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(e) and 328(a) Approving the Emp., Retention, &

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 82 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page85 of 87

1 Subst. of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges as Special Litig. Counsel ¶ 17, In re G-I

2 Holdings Inc., Case Nos. 01-30135 and 01-38790 (Bankr. D. N.J. Nov. 19, 2009)).) 3 255. Morrison & Foerster’s fees for its paralegals are also comparable to those charged 4 in the community for similarly-skilled professionals. For example, the rate charged for 5 Ms. Barajas, a senior paralegal, was comparable to the rate Quinn Emanuel charged for paralegals 6 in 2009. Quinn Emanuel’s hourly billing rate for paralegals was $265-295. (Dkt. No. 906-2 7 at 6.) 8 256. Finally, the rates sought by Apple should be compared to the small number of 9 firms with the size, experience, and expertise to effectively and successfully litigate a case of this 10 scope and magnitude. In this regard, I note that Morrison & Foerster has a highly regarded 11 national intellectual properly litigation practice and has been recognized as one of the leading 12 practices in the country. In 2013, Chambers Global named Morrison & Foerster USA Law Firm 13 of the Year. Also in 2013, Chambers USA named Morrison & Foerster Intellectual Property Firm 14 of the Year. The firm was named by the National Law Journal on its 2012 Hot List of firms that 15 excel in providing patent, copyright, and trademark legal services and by the U.S. News & World 16 Report as the 2011-2012 “Law Firm of the Year” in the U.S. in Technology Law. As indicated 17 above, Apple’s Morrison & Foerster trial team of Harold J. McElhinny, Michael A. Jacobs, and 18 Rachel Krevans have been recognized as among the finest intellectual property trial lawyers in 19 the country.

20 V. DISCOUNTS, WRITE DOWNS, AND WRITE OFFS. 21 257. Apple is a long-standing client of Morrison & Foerster and has retained the firm 22 on numerous matters both large and small in a variety of substantive areas. For this reason and 23 because this matter was a very substantial undertaking, Apple received a significant discount 24 from the firm’s standard rates. 25 258. By providing monthly and quarterly budget estimates that must be approved by 26 Apple, and conducting internal invoice quality control reviews, the invoices submitted to and paid 27 by Apple have reflected legal fees that are both appropriate and reasonable. 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 83 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page86 of 87

1 259. Morrison & Foerster also conducts thorough reviews of each invoice before

2 sending it to Apple to confirm that each entry reflects time appropriately charged to Apple. In 3 instances where an entry reflects time that should not be charged to the client—whether due to a 4 special client arrangement, inefficiencies, or otherwise—the entry is removed from the invoice 5 and is not billed to the client. Some instances where entries are removed from an invoice and not 6 billed to the client include: (i) time spent by a new team member getting up-to-speed on case 7 basics; (ii) training on an e-discovery review tool; (iii) internal team and case administration; and 8 (iv) preparing case budgets. In the end, each invoice is reviewed by a team of individuals, 9 including attorneys, litigation support staff, and accounting support staff. Morrison & Foerster 10 and Apple have additional rigorous billing requirements, including: (i) no block billing—only 11 one task per timenote entry; (ii) the use of task codes; (iii) billing in 0.10 time increments, as 12 opposed to traditional 0.25 time increments; (iv) a specificity requirement for each timenote 13 entry; and (v) pre-approval by Apple of each person who bills time to a matter. In addition, 14 Apple requires budget estimates on a monthly and quarterly basis, and budget updates towards the 15 end of each month. 16 260. The precise amount of fees that Apple seeks from Samsung will be addressed 17 separately in the declaration of Rachel Krevans. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 19 December 5, 2013 at San Francisco, California. 20

21 /s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 84 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-4 Filed12/05/13 Page87 of 87

1 ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

2 I, Rachel Krevans, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Michael Jacobs has 4 concurred in this filing.

5 Dated: December 5, 2013 /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECL. OF MICHAEL JACOBS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG) 85 sf-3189895

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 6

1 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) WILLIAM F. LEE [email protected] [email protected] 2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING [email protected] HALE AND DORR LLP 3 RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) 60 State Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02109 4 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) Telephone: (617) 526-6000 [email protected] Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) Telephone: (415) 268-7000 [email protected] 7 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 8 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF RACHEL KREVANS 16 IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 18 Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 19 York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 20 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants.

24 25 26 27 28

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 6

1 I, RACHEL KREVANS, hereby declare as follows:

2 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for 3 Apple Inc. (“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal 4 knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from members of my 5 litigation team or other professionals within Morrison & Foerster. I make this declaration in 6 support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 7 2. Apple submits this declaration, the declaration of Michael Jacobs, and the 8 declaration of Mark Selwyn in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees. For the reasons set forth 9 in Apple’s brief, Apple is entitled to the reasonable attorneys’ fees that it requests.

10 I. STATUS OF BILLS, PAYMENTS, AND FEES 11 3. Apple is only seeking a portion of the amount billed by timekeepers who billed 12 more than $100,000 in fees on this matter. Exhibit A to Mr. Jacobs’s declaration sets out that, 13 discounted as described in the declaration, these individuals billed a total of $47,210,976.52 on 14 this case through March 1, 2013. 15 4. Many of these same individuals continued to work on this case after March 1, 16 2013, through multiple rounds of briefing, preparation for the November 2013 retrial including 17 expert depositions, and the November 2013 retrial itself. In total, the billers described in 18 Mr. Jacobs’s declaration who continued to work on the case after March 1, 2013, billed 19 approximately $6 million from March 2, 2013, through the end of November 2013, again 20 discounted as described in Mr. Jacobs’s declaration. 21 5. Apple has paid Morrison & Foerster approximately $56.5 million for fee invoices 22 covering work performed in this case between April 2011 and August 2013 (this number does not 23 include any costs). 24 6. For work performed in September, October, and November 2013, Morrison & 25 Foerster has submitted invoices to Apple, and the addition of those invoices brings Apple’s total 26 fees to Morrison & Foerster in prosecuting this case to approximately $60 million. 27 28

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 1 sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 6

1 II. TOTAL FEES REQUESTED

2 7. As described in Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, at this time, Apple seeks only 3 a portion of the fees that it has incurred in prosecuting its claims. In particular, Apple seeks a 4 portion reasonably allocated to its successful Lanham Act claims. 5 8. Broadly, Apple’s offensive case was split across three substantive areas—phone 6 designs, tablet designs, and utility patents. Apple’s phone designs are covered by multiple 7 intellectual property rights: trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. Apple’s tablet designs 8 are also covered by trade dress, trademarks, and design patents. The work Apple’s counsel 9 performed relating to designs was necessary to prosecute Apple’s claims to all of those types of 10 intellectual property. 11 9. The parties’ filings reveal a disproportionately large amount of attention to the 12 design portion of the case. Apple’s Complaint and Amended Complaint devoted a substantial 13 amount of attention to Samsung’s copying of Apple’s designs, including numerous side-by-side 14 design comparisons. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 75.) Many of the discovery disputes that the parties presented 15 to the Court related to design issues. Samsung’s 22-page trial brief devoted over four pages to 16 arguing it did not copy Apple’s designs and another five-and-a-half pages to discussing Apple’s 17 design patents; by contrast, Samsung spent just two-and-a-half pages on utility patents (with the 18 remainder discussing damages and Samsung’s patent claims). (Dkt. No. 1322 at 3-15.) 19 Similarly, Apple in its trial brief devoted the vast majority of its 14-page section discussing 20 Samsung’s violation of Apple’s intellectual property rights to Samsung’s infringement and/or 21 dilution of Apple’s designs, with only two pages on utility patents. (Dkt. No. 1323 at 3-16.) 22 10. The parties’ selection of experts further emphasizes how much both parties 23 focused on designs. In connection with Apple’s claims, Apple served reports from nine experts 24 discussing design/trade dress issues (Peter Bressler, Sanjay Sood, Henry Urbach, Alan Hedge, 25 Hal Poret, Kent Van Liere, Susan Kare, Russell Winer, and James Carmichael) and six experts 26 discussing utility patent issues (Ravin Balakrishnan, John Hauser, Alex Snoeren, 27 Michel Maharbiz, Karan Singh, and Jack Goldstein). Similarly, in connection with Apple’s 28 claims, Samsung served reports from eight experts discussing design/trade dress issues

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 2 sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page4 of 6

1 (Jacob Jacoby, Michael Kamins, Mark Lehto, Samuel Lucente, George Mantis, Michael Mazis,

2 Christopher Mount, and Itay Sherman) and five experts discussing utility patent issues 3 (Trevor Darrell, Stephen Gray, Jeffrey Johnson, Andries Van Dam, and Brian Von Herzen). 4 Samsung also served a report from Nicholas Godici with 30 pages on design patent issues and 5 5 pages on allegations of inequitable conduct for a utility patent that did not proceed to trial. 6 11. The parties’ choices on how to spend their time at the first trial reinforces the 7 heavy focus on design issues over utility patent issues. As the Court may recall, both parties 8 closely tracked time spent during trial. Apple retained its records. According to Apple’s records, 9 each party allocated the time it spent on Apple’s claims in the following percentages:

10  Design – Apple 56%, Samsung 52%

11 o Christopher Stringer (58 minutes Apple, 32 minutes Samsung) 12 o Philip Schiller (85 minutes Apple, 55 minutes Samsung) 13 o Peter Bressler (104 minutes Apple, 152 minutes Samsung) 14 o Susan Kare (91 minutes Apple, 72 minutes Samsung) 15 o Russell Winer (43 minutes Apple, 25 minutes Samsung) 16 o Hal Poret (19 minutes Apple, 64 minutes Samsung) 17 o Kent Van Liere (13 minutes Apple, 24 minutes Samsung) 18 o Jeeyeun Wang (14 minutes Apple, 52 minutes Samsung) 19 o Roger Fidler, including video (8 minutes Apple, 18 minutes Samsung) 20 o Itay Sherman (26 minutes Apple, 48 minutes Samsung) 21 o Jin Soo Kim (25 minutes Apple, 48 minutes Samsung) 22 o Susan Kare (Rebuttal) (12 minutes Apple, 3 minutes Samsung) 23 o Peter Bressler (Rebuttal) (24 minutes Apple, 6 minutes Samsung) 24  Utility – Apple 24%, Samsung 26%

25 o Scott Forstall (40 minutes Apple, 28 minutes Samsung) 26 o Ravin Balakrishnan (49 minutes Apple, 38 minutes Samsung) 27 o Karan Singh (48 minutes Apple, 56 minutes Samsung) 28 o John Hauser (4 minutes Apple, 36 minutes Samsung)

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 3 sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page5 of 6

1 o Benjamin Bederson (18 minutes Apple, 29 minutes Samsung) 2 o Adam Bogue (14 minutes Apple, 30 minutes Samsung) 3 o Clifton Forlines (1 minute Apple, 19 minutes Samsung) 4 o Andries Van Dam (9 minutes Apple, 34 minutes Samsung) 5 o Stephen Gray (12 minutes Apple, 32 minutes Samsung) 6 o Karan Singh (Rebuttal) (19 minutes Apple) 7 o Ravin Balakrishnan (Rebuttal) (9 minutes Apple) 8  Damages and other issues relevant to both design and utility – Apple 20%, 9 Samsung 21%

10 o Justin Denison (63 minutes Apple, 98 minutes Samsung) 11 o JunWon Lee (Deposition) (7 minutes Apple, 2 minutes Samsung) 12 o Dong Hoon Chang (Deposition) (4 minutes Apple) 13 o Timothy Benner (Deposition) (5 minutes Apple, 4 minutes Samsung) 14 o Timothy Sheppard (Deposition) (2 minutes Apple) 15 o Terry Musika (87 minutes Apple, 75 minutes Samsung) 16 o Richard Howarth (2 minutes Apple, 6 minutes Samsung) 17 o Timothy Sheppard (Live) (5 minutes Apple, 12 minutes Samsung) 18 o Michael Wagner (16 minutes Apple, 46 minutes Samsung) 19 12. Phone designs were a much larger portion of the case than tablet designs. Of the 20 28 accused products in the first trial, 19 were phones accused of infringing and/or diluting 21 Apple’s phone design rights (trade dress and/or design patent). By contrast, only 3 of the accused 22 products were tablets, each accused of infringing and/or diluting Apple’s tablet design rights. 23 Moreover, almost all of Apple’s damages request at the first trial was for infringement or dilution 24 by accused phones, not tablets. Of the $2.75 billion Apple requested, only $80.97 million—just 25 2.9%—was for Samsung’s tablets. (See PX25A1.4.) 26 13. In light of all of the facts above, 1/3 is a highly conservative allocation of Apple’s 27 attorneys’ fees to phone design issues, and therefore phone trade dress, through the first trial and 28 post-trial motions.

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 4 sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-5 Filed12/05/13 Page6 of 6

1 14. Apple seeks only a portion of its fees from inception through March 1, 2013, when

2 the parties’ focus shifted to the November retrial (which involved no trade dress rights) in light of 3 the Court’s Order Re: Damages. As set out in Mr. Jacobs’s declaration and as noted above, the 4 timekeepers who have each billed over $100,000 in fees on this matter, billed a total of 5 $47,210,976.52 in fees through March 1, 2013, discounted as described in Mr. Jacobs’s 6 declaration; 1/3 of that amount is $15,736,992.17. Apple therefore seeks in its motion to recover 7 $15,736,992 of its fees. 8 15. In my judgment, the requested amount is reasonable given the size, scope, and 9 complexity of this litigation, the jury verdict obtained for Apple, the significance of the case as 10 indicated by both legal and mainstream press coverage, and the considerable size of the total bills 11 in this case, reaching over $60 million when bills on Apple’s offensive claims from both firms are 12 combined. (See Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ 13 Fees, filed concurrently herewith.) 14 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th 15 day of December, 2013 at San Francisco, California. 16 /s/ Rachel Krevans 17 Rachel Krevans 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECL. OF RACHEL KREVANS ISO APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 5 sf-3359707

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-6 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 3

1 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) WILLIAM F. LEE [email protected] [email protected] 2 MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING [email protected] HALE AND DORR LLP 3 RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) 60 State Street [email protected] Boston, MA 02109 4 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) Telephone: (617) 526-6000 [email protected] Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) Telephone: (415) 268-7000 [email protected] 7 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 8 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN JOSE DIVISION 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN 16 SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 18 Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 19 York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 20 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants.

24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3361428

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-6 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 3

1 I, Nathan Sabri, hereby declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple 3 Inc. (“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal 4 knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true. I submit this declaration in 5 support of Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 6 2. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, I informed counsel for Samsung that Apple 7 would be filing a motion for attorneys’ fees on December 5. I indicated that we should meet and 8 confer early in the week of December 5. 9 3. The following week, on Tuesday, December 3, Morrison & Foerster partner 10 Ruth Borenstein and I conferred telephonically with counsel for Samsung. We informed 11 Samsung’s counsel of the basis for Apple’s request for fees. We explained that Apple planned to 12 conservatively allocate only one-third of its fees through March 1, 2013, as recoverable under the 13 Lanham Act, and that Apple also only planned to include top billers (individuals who had billed 14 over $100,000 hours to this case) in that calculation. We described the types of material that 15 Apple planned to submit in support of its motion. Samsung’s counsel asked what the 16 approximate request would be, and we informed Samsung’s counsel that it would likely be in the 17 range of $16 to 17 million. The total request set forth in Apple’s motion for attorneys’ fees is just 18 below that estimate at $15,736,992. 19 4. At the time of the telephonic conference, Samsung’s counsel could not stipulate to 20 Apple’s request, nor has Samsung since indicated that it will so stipulate. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th 22 day of December, 2013 in San Francisco, California. 23 /s/ Nathan Sabri 24 Nathan Sabri 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) 1 sf-3361428

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-6 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 3

1 ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

2 I, Rachel Krevans, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Nathan Sabri has 4 concurred in this filing.

5 Dated: December 5, 2013 /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) 2 sf-3361428

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-7 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 4

11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 APPLE INC., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 16 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARK D. SELWYN IN SUPPORT OF 17 v. APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG Date: January 30, 2014 19 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York Time: 1:30 p.m. corporation; SAMSUNG Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 20 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh Delaware limited liability company, 21 Defendants. 22

23 24 25 26 27

SELWYN DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES C ASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-7 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 4

1 2 I, MARK D. SELWYN, declare under the laws of the United States as follows: 3 1. I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 4 counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned action. I am licensed to practice law in 5 the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of New York, and am 6 admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. I make 7 this declaration in support of Apple’s Motion Regarding Attorneys’ Fees. I have knowledge of 8 the matters stated in this declaration, and I could and would testify competently thereto if called 9 to do so. 10 2. Apple submits this declaration in support of its attorneys’ fees claim. WilmerHale 11 has rendered bills to Apple for approximately $2.3 million in attorneys’ fees for approximately 12 3,349 hours of work performed by the eight WilmerHale attorneys listed below in connection 13 with the preparation for and conduct of the damages re-trial held from November 12 through 21, 14 2013: 15  Kevin Prussia, who billed 584 hours; 16  Lauren B. Fletcher, who billed 582 hours; 17  Andrew J. Danford, who billed 576 hours; 18  James Quarles, who billed 415 hours; 19  William F. Lee, who billed 402 hours; 20  Michael R. Heyison, who billed 352 hours; 21  Sarah Frazier, who billed 259 hours; and 22  Mark D. Selwyn, who billed 175 hours. 23 3. These WilmerHale attorneys, along with more than ten other WilmerHale 24 attorneys and staff worked extensively on every phase of the re-trial, including expert reports and 25 depositions, extensive pre-trial motion practice, a two-week trial, and post-trial motions. Among 26 other things, the WilmerHale team: 27  Identified and engaged Ms. Davis as an expert witness

28  Assisted in preparing Ms. Davis for her deposition

SELWYN DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-7 Filed12/05/13 Page3 of 4

1 2  Deposed Samsung’s damages expert Michael Wagner 3  Prepared jury instructions 4  Drafted Apple’s response to Samsung's emergency pre-trial motion 5  Drafted Apple’s briefs regarding high priority objections to witness disclosures 6  Prepared Apple witness Tony Blevins for direct and cross-examination 7  Prepared for and cross-examined Mr. Wagner 8  Assisted with preparing Apple witness Phil Schiller for trial 9  Prepared cross-examination demonstratives and outlines for potential Samsung 10 witnesses 11  Prepared deposition designation and counter-designations 12  Analyzed Samsung’s direct and cross examination disclosures and drafted 13 objections to those disclosures 14  Prepared direct examination disclosures for Apple witnesses and cross- 15 examination disclosures for Samsung witnesses and responded to Samsung’s 16 objections to those disclosures 17  Handling sealing issues relating to exhibits used at the re-trial 18  Prepared and delivered Apple’s closing argument 19 4. The fees set forth in paragraph 2 reflects WilmerHale’s discounted rate to Apple, 20 and excludes (1) all timekeepers who billed less than $100,000 and (2) all time written down as 21 part of WilmerHale’s billing judgment or to comply with Apple’s billing guidelines. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 24 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on December 5, 25 2013 (US PST) in Sydney, Australia. 26

27 /s/ Mark D. Selwyn Mark D. Selwyn 28

SELWYN DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 2 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-7 Filed12/05/13 Page4 of 4

1 2 ATTESTATION 3 I, Rachel Krevans, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 4 Declaration. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Mark D. Selwyn has 5 concurred in this filing. 6 Dated: December 5, 2013 /s/ Rachel Krevans Rachel Krevans 7

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SELWYN DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES 3 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-10 Filed12/05/13 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG 15 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG 16 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3361708

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2851-10 Filed12/05/13 Page2 of 2

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule 54 and based on Section 1117(a) of the Lanham Act, Apple filed

2 a motion for its attorneys’ fees in this action. Having considered the arguments of the parties and 3 the papers submitted, and GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS ORDERED that 4 Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED. 5 The Court hereby orders Samsung to pay Apple the attorneys’ fees requested in Apple’s 6 motion, totaling $15,736,992. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: ______9 Hon. Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 1 sf-3361708