2054 Samsung's Opp t.. - A Case study in patent litigation: apple v ...

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Docket No. 5:11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. Apr 15, 2011), Court Docket 

Multiple Documents 

Part Description 

1 44 pages 

2 Declaration of Tulin Erdem STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 

3 Declaration of Stephen Gray 

4 Declaration of R. Sukumar STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 

5 Declaration of Jerry Wind STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #2212 

6 Declaration of Andries Van Dam 

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see www.bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 

Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJBLEO82?documentName=2080.xml

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054 Filed10/19/12 Page1 of 44 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 

charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22 nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) 

kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com 

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) 

kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 

Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) 

victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 

555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 th Floor 

Redwood Shores, California 94065 

Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 

Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009) 

susanestrich@quinnemanuel.com 

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 

michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 

865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPLE INC., a California corporation, 

vs. 

Plaintiff, 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 

Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New 

York corporation; SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK 

SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S 

MOTION FOR A PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES 

ENHANCEMENT 

Date: December 6, 2012 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION 

02198.51855/5003337.14 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 

SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES 

ENHANCEMENT


1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 

Page 

3 

4 

5 

6 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 1 

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 1 

I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ............................ 1 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

A. 

Apple Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm From 

Samsung’s Use of Its Claimed Intellectual Property ................................................ 2 

1. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Design Patent 

Infringement .................................................................................................. 3 

(a) Apple Overstates The Importance Of Design In Purchasing ............ 4 

(b) 

Apple Has Not Shown That Its Patented Designs Drive 

Demand ............................................................................................. 5 

(c) Changes To Apple’s Offerings Defeat Irreparable Harm ................. 6 

2. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Trade Dress Dilution .......... 7 

3. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Utility Patent 

Infringement ................................................................................................ 10 

(a) 

Apple Has Not Shown That Its Features Patents Drive 

Consumer Demand .......................................................................... 10 

(b) “Copying” Does Not Demonstrate a Nexus .................................... 12 

(c) 

Dr. Hauser’s Survey Results Do Not Show Consumer 

Demand ........................................................................................... 13 

4. There Is No Basis For Apple’s Claimed Irreparable Harm ......................... 13 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

B. Apple Has Not Shown That Monetary Remedies Are Inadequate .......................... 15 

C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Samsung ........................................................... 17 

D. An Injunction Would Not Be In The Public Interest .............................................. 18 

E. Apple’s Proposed Injunction Is Vague, Overbroad And Otherwise Improper ....... 20 

F. Apple Should Post Security to Protect Samsung From A Wrongful 

Injunction ................................................................................................................ 21 

II. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ENHANCE THE JURY’S DAMAGES VERDICTS ....... 22 

A. 

Nearly $950 Million Of The Jury’s Award Represents Disgorgement Of 

Infringer’s Profits That Is Not Subject To Enhancement ........................................ 23 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents But Not Dilute Trade 

Dress ............................................................................................................ 23 

2. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents And Dilute Trade Dress ........ 24 

3. Products Found To Infringe Only Utility Patents ....................................... 27 

B. Apple’s Requested Enhancement Is Unavailable Under The Lanham Act............. 27 

C. 

1. Apple’s Claim Of Uncompensated Injury Is Unsupported ......................... 28 

2. Apple’s Calculation Is Flawed and Arbitrary ............................................. 28 

Apple Is Not Entitled To Enhancement Based On Utility Patent 

Infringement ............................................................................................................ 30 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


1 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

2 

Page 

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 

Cases 

Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 

2011 WL 7563039 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) ...........................................................................18 

ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 

___ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3636908 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) ...................................................2, 15 

Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 

551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................17 

Advanced Cardiovascular Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 

265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................32 

Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88892 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) ..........................................................17 

Aero Prods. Int’l, inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 

466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................26, 27 

AFL Telecommunications LLC v. SurplusEZ.com, Inc., 

2011 WL 5547855 (D. Ariz. 2011) ..............................................................................................7 

ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 

913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................27 

ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 

997 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................27 

Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 

__ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 2376664 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2012) ....................................... passim 

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 

678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................3, 5, 10, 12, 13 

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 

__ F.3d __, 2012 WL 4820601 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012) .................................................. passim 

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

No. 12-cv-630 ...............................................................................................................................3 

Arnott v. Am. Oil Co., 

609 F.2d 873 (8th Cir. 1979) ..........................................................................................24, 25, 26 

Automated Merch. Sys, Inc. v. Crace Co., 

357 F. App’x 297 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................15 

Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, , 

2007 WL 2790777 (W.D. Wash. 2007) .....................................................................................34 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 

682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................24, 31 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 

670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012), vacated in part on other grounds, 

682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................16 

Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Comms. LP, 

802 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D. Del. 2011) ...........................................................................................19 

Binder v. Disability Group, Inc., 

772 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................28 

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 

489 U.S. 141 (1989) ...............................................................................................................6, 21 

Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 

975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................................23, 27 

Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 

543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................19 

Brooktree Corp. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., 

977 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................................31 

Buddy Sys., Inc. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., 

545 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1976) ....................................................................................................21 

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 

295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................23, 26, 27 

Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 

No. 09-2280, 2012 WL 44064 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) ............................................................16 

Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc., 

689 F. Supp. 2d 858 ...................................................................................................................31 

Cybermedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 

19 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .......................................................................................22 

DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 

567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................34 

Dexter 345 Inc. v. Cuomo, 

663 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................................15 

eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 

547 U.S. 388 (2006) .....................................................................................................2, 5, 17, 18 

F.T.C. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 

548 F.3d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................9 

Ferrari S.p.A. Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili e Corse v. McBurnie, 

No. 86-1812, 11 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1843 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 1989) .....................................................9 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-iv- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


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 

Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax Pharms., Inc., 

501 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................20 

Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 

No. 6:09-cv-203, 2012 WL 2505741 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 012) .................................................19 

Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 

593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d 616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................31, 32 

Hako-Med USA, Inc. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 

2009 WL 3064800 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2009) ..........................................................................31 

High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 

49 F.3d 1551 (Fed Cir. 1995) ...........................................................................................7, 15, 17 

Hiland Potato Chip Co. v. Culbro Snack Foods, Inc., 

720 F.2d 981 (8th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................................9 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 

609 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................7, 14 

iLOR LLC v. Google, Inc., 

631 F.3d 1372 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................31 

I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 

163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................30 

Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 

512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................16 

Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n, 

389 U.S. 64 (1967) .....................................................................................................................20 

Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs, Inc., 

456 U.S. 844 (1982) .....................................................................................................................8 

Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 

704 F. Supp. 2d 470 (W.D. Pa. 2010) ............................................................................31, 32, 34 

Jurgens v. McKasy, 

927 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................27 

Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 

926 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................25 

Kowalski v. Mommy Gina Res., 

2009 WL 855976 (D. Haw. Mar. 30, 2011) .........................................................................33, 34 

Kusek v. Family Circle, 

894 F. Supp. 522 (D. Mass. 1995) ...............................................................................................9 

La Quinta Corp. v. Heartland Properties LLC, 

603 F.3d 327 (6th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................28 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-v- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


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 

Lee v. Dayton-Hudson, 

838 F.2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................6 

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 

995 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................8 

Magna-RX, Inc. v. Holley, 

No. 05-3545, 2008 WL 5068977 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2008) .........................................................7 

Mandile v. Clark Material Handling Co., 

303 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D.N.J. 2004) aff’d, 131 F. App’x 836 (3d Cir. 2005) ..............................24 

Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, 

663 F. Supp. 2d 361 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ...........................................................................32, 33, 35 

Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 

201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................................22 

Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Medical Device Alliance, Inc., 

244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................31 

Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group. Inc., 

917 F.2d 538 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................................31 

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 

2010 WL 583960 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2010) ..............................................................................24 

Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semi. Ltd., 

2008 WL 346416 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) ................................................................................14 

Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Dragon Pac. Int’l, 

40 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................29 

Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 

378 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................8 

Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 

504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................16 

Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61600 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006) .........................................................18 

Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna Graphics Corp., 

745 F.2d 11 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................................25 

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Inc., 

762 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2011) .....................................................................................33, 34 

Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 

723 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ..........................................................................15, 17, 19 

Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 

970 F.2d 816 (Fed Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................................31, 35 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-vi- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


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 

In re Renard, 

451 B.R. 12 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2011) .........................................................................................18 

Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 

597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................................6 

Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 

2010 WL 1607908 (W.D. Wis. April 19, 2010) ........................................................................16 

Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 

857 F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................25 

Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass N. Am., Inc., 

707 F. Supp. 2d 737 (N.D. Ohio 2010) ......................................................................................24 

Schmidt v. Lessard, 

414 U.S. 473 (1974) ...................................................................................................................20 

In re Seagate Techs., LLC., 

497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................31 

Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 

758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................................24 

Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 

673 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................27 

Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc, 

836 F. Supp. 2d 462 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .................................................................................16, 18 

Spine Solutions v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, 

620 F.3d 1305 .............................................................................................................................34 

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 

586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................18 

Taco Cabana Int’l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, 

932 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................................28 

Tate Access Floors v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 

132 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Md. 2001) ...........................................................................................19 

Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 

434 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .......................................................................................16 

Telecordia v. Cisco, 

592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009) ...........................................................................................34 

TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Corp., 

646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................14 

TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 

532 U.S. 23 (2001) .......................................................................................................................9 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-vii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Vanwyk Textile Sys., B.V. v. Zimmer Mach. Am., Inc., 

994 F. Supp. at 379-381 (W.D.N.C. 1997) ..........................................................................27, 28 

Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc., 

No. 06-2662, 2011 WL 4596043 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011) ..................................................26, 27 

Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 

645 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................................................7 

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 

461 U.S. 757 (1983) ...................................................................................................................21 

Wilson v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 

803 F.2d 563 (10th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................24 

Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc., 

2009 WL 113771 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................................32 

Statutes/Rules 

15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) ......................................................................................................................7, 21 

15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) ..........................................................................................................................28 

15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ......................................................................................................................7, 30 

35 U.S.C. § 283 ................................................................................................................................21 

35 U.S.C. § 284 ..........................................................................................................................23, 26 

35 U.S.C. § 289 ............................................................................................22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 .............................................................................................................................29 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1) ....................................................................................................................20 

Miscellaneous 

4 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 24:102 (4th ed.) ........................................30 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-viii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

Preliminary Statement 

Apple’s motion for an injunction attempts to convert the jury’s specific infringement 

findings into a broad injunction that it can use to bully Samsung and third parties in an effort to 

4 

stifle lawful, fair competition. 

The severe threats to fair competition created by Apple’s positions 

5 

in this case have been widely reported. 1 

Apple now seeks, through its requested injunction, to 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

deprive consumers not only of the products that Apple has accused but also unspecified other 

products that Apple will argue infringe or merely include “a feature or features not more than 

colorably different” from features that Apple accuses. Dkt. 1987 at 2. The Court should reject 

this effort to hinder competition and limit consumer choice. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

Ltd., __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 4820601, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012) (“Apple II”) (requiring courts 

to analyze whether “patentee seeks to leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which 

the inventive contribution and value of the patent warrant”). 

Likewise, Apple’s request for more than $500 million in additional damages as 

“enhancements” shows that Apple’s goal is not to protect innovation but to hinder competition. 

The enhancements that Apple seeks should not be awarded. 2 

Argument 

I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

1 

“For a permanent injunction to issue, the party requesting an injunction must demonstrate 

See, e.g., Cao, “Apple co-founder Wozniak says he hates Samsung patent verdict,” Financial 

Post, Sept. 14, 2012 (“‘I hate it,’ Wozniak said when asked about the patent fights between Apple 

and Samsung. ‘I don’t think the decision of California will hold. And I don’t agree with it — very 

small things I don’t really call that innovative.’”); Love, “Apple-Samsung patent fight: Fuzzy 

math,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 30, 2012; Nocera, “Has Apple Peaked?” New York Times, Sept. 

21, 2012; Duhigg and Lorr, “The Patent Used as a Sword” New York Times, Oct. 7, 2012 

(“Former Apple employees say senior executives made a deliberate decision . . . to use patents as 

leverage against competitors to the iPhone”); “The Colbert Report,” Sept. 18, 2012; Raustiala & 

Sprigman, “Apple vs. Samsung: Is Copying Theft or Innovation?”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 

2012 (“Does anyone own the rectangle? Should anyone own the rectangle?”); Editorial, 

“Apple’s Courtroom Win Reveals Deeper Woes in U.S. Patents,” Boston Globe, Sept. 4, 2012. 

All are attached as Exhibit 1 to the concurrently-filed Declaration of John Pierce (“Pierce Decl.”). 

2 

In violation of this Court’s Order (Dkt. 1945), Apple has submitted over 40 pages of 

declarations used “as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page limits.” Id. Pursuant to this 

Court’s October 9, 2012 Order (Dkt. 2038) and L.R. 7-3(a), Samsung thus moves to strike the 

following: Crouse Decl., 2 and 4 (from 1:13 to 1:14); Musika Decl. 7, 10-28, 31-60; 

Robinson Decl., 34-36, 38-40, and 42; Schiller Decl., 3-10, 13, 15 (from 5:21 to 5:26); and 

Winer Decl., 7-14. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 


ENHANCEMENT


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 

that: (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) legal remedies, such as money damages are 

inadequate compensation; (3) the balance of hardships warrants an injunction; and (4) the public 

interest would not be disserved by an injunction.” ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon 

Communications, Inc., ___ F.3d __, 2012 WL 3636908, at *21 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing 

eBay, 547 U.S. at 391). These factors should be applied with an awareness of the “danger that 

Apple’s goal in obtaining an injunction is harassment of its bitter rival” for anticompetitive 

purposes, Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., __ F.Supp.2d __, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20 (N.D. Ill. June 

22, 2012) (Posner, J.) (“Motorola”), and with the recognition that Apple has already benefitted 

from an enormous (and excessive) verdict and that Samsung has either redesigned or stopped 

selling virtually every product found to infringe. 

A. Apple Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm From Samsung’s 

Use of Its Claimed Intellectual Property 

Irreparable harm may not be presumed based on an infringement finding; instead, Apple 

“must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm, which entails showing a 

likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *2. 

“But in cases such as this—where the accused product includes many features of which only one 

(or a small minority) infringe—a finding that the patentee will be at risk of irreparable harm does 

not alone justify injunctive relief.” Id. “Rather, the patentee must also establish that the harm is 

sufficiently related to the infringement”—which requires a showing “that a sufficiently strong 

causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Id. “It is not enough for the 

patentee to establish some insubstantial connection between the alleged harm and the infringement 

and check the causal nexus requirement off the list.” Id. at *3. Nor is the requirement satisfied 

“simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, 

application, or device less valued or inoperable.” Id. at *4. “The patentee must rather show that 

the infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product.” Id. at *3. 

26 

27 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Apple must make this causal showing—which it fails even to acknowledge 3 —separately 

for each item of intellectual property at issue. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 678 

F.3d 1314, 1323-28 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (considering separately whether Apple had proved a causal 

nexus for ‘381 and D’677 patents); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-630, Dkt. 221, at 

78-93 (“Apple II Dkt. 221”) (considering separately whether Apple had proved a causal nexus for 

each of four patents); Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *19 (denying permanent injunction after 

considering patents individually where Apple did “not indicate that infringement of these claims” 

caused its claimed irreparable harms) (emphasis in original). Apple seeks a separately 

enforceable injunction against infringement of each feature of each individual claimed patent and 

right, but fails to justify that request as to each claimed patent and right individually, opting 

instead for a blunderbuss approach that relies on the alleged “combined effects of Samsung’s 

infringement and dilution” (Mot. at 9) and the sort of generalized arguments that the Federal 

13 

Circuit rejected in Apple II. 

This does not meet Apple’s burden. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Design Patent 

Infringement 

This Court held previously that Apple failed to demonstrate a nexus between Samsung’s 

alleged use of the D’677 patent and Apple’s claimed harms of lost customers and lost market 

share. Dkt. 452 at 34. The Federal Circuit upheld this finding and ruled it applies equally to the 

D’087 patent. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1324-27. Both this Court and the Federal Circuit placed 

weight on evidence that “design was not a determinative factor in consumer decisionmaking” for 

smartphones, id. at 1324, and this Court explained that “even if ‘design’ matters to a new 

smartphone purchaser,” Apple failed to show demand was tied to the D’677, which is limited to 

portions of a device’s front face. Dkt. 452 at 33-34; accord Apple, 678 F.3d at 1325-27. 

3 

Apple offers neither evidence nor argument to justify a different conclusion now. 

Apple states that “no authority in the permanent injunction context requir[es] a causal nexus” 

between the alleged wrongdoing and the claimed irreparable harm, Mot. at 2, but makes no 

argument that principles of causation that are fundamental when considering interim relief become 

irrelevant when permanent relief is sought. There is no support for any such position, and it is 

fundamentally inconsistent with eBay and Apple II. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Instead, it rehashes the same points this Court and the Federal Circuit already rejected. 

Compare, e.g., Mot. at 7 (arguing for permanent injunction because “80% of iPhone purchasers 

identify ‘attractive appearance and design’” as important and “up to 40% of customers” identified 

“exterior design” as a purchasing factor) with Dkt. 452 at 34 (this Court denying preliminary 

injunction as to design patent despite evidence that “design is one of six factors that influence a 

person’s decision to buy a particular smartphone” and “82% of iPhone purchasers find ‘attractive 

appearance/design’” important). For the same reasons as before, and for additional reasons, 

Apple has not established irreparable harm tied to the design patents asserted here. 

9 

(a) 

Apple Overstates The Importance Of Design In Purchasing 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

First, while Apple argues that it advertises the design of its products and customers care 

about the “style” of their smartphones, Mot. at 7, the evidence shows—as the Court found 

before—that sales of iPhones rise with the release of new products, suggesting “the driver in 

consumer demand may be the novelty of the product, and not necessarily the design.” Dkt. 452 

at 34. The success of the iPhone 5, which sold five million units in the first three days, confirms 

this (Pierce Decl., Ex. 2), as does the fact that sales spikes occur with new products even when 

their design does not change. Wagner Decl., Ex. 54. 

Survey evidence equally refutes Apple’s claims. Apple’s own survey demonstrated that 

only 1% of iPhone users and 4% of all respondents listed “design/color” as their reason for 

purchasing, DX 592.023, and appearance and design came in eighth when domestic iPhone buyers 

ranked features and attributes by importance, behind ease of use, service and support, trust Apple 

brand, quality of apps, battery life, value for price paid and quantity of apps. Pierce Decl. Ex. 5 

at APLNDC-Y0000027523; PX146.5. The same holds true for Android purchasing decisions; in 

a January 2011 study, Apple recognized that 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DX572.026; DX572.082 (top three reasons domestic 

consumers purchase Android phones are desire to stay with current cell provider, trust in Google 

brand, and preference for larger screens); RT 873:6-12 (consumers desire large screens for their 

functionality). Consumers purchase Android phones for many reasons unrelated to design, 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

DX572.027-28. Apple overlooks the non-design 

factors that affect consumer choice in these complex technology products. “In this light, the 

causal link between the alleged infringement and consumer demand for the [accused products] is 

too tenuous to support a finding of irreparable harm.” Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *5. 

5 

(b) 

Apple Has Not Shown That Its Patented Designs Drive Demand 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Having failed to establish that design even generally is a significant driver of purchasing 

decisions, Apple provides no evidence that the specific design patents at issue drive consumer 

demand, as required. Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *3 (“patentee must rather show that the 

infringing feature drives consumer demand for the accused product”) (emphasis added). Apple’s 

alleged proof that “design matters” says nothing about whether Samsung’s purported use of the 

patents in suit drives demand for Samsung’s products. As the Court has explained, mere proof 

that “‘design’ matters” does not establish a causal link between the use of a design patent and 

13 

claimed harms. 

Dkt. 452 at 34. Apple offers no evidence establishing that critical link. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Because Apple’s design patents cover only portions of the devices at issue, the need for 

patent-specific proof of causation is particularly crucial. See eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 

U.S. 388, 396-97 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“When the patented invention is but a small 

component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of injunction is employed 

simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for 

the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest.”). The D’677 patent covers 

only one exterior face, and does not claim even the entirety of that face (it excludes the home 

button, for example). Dkt. 1893 at 59 (Instruction No. 43). The D’087 adds a bezel, but like 

the D’677 covers far less than the complete design for any product. Id. The D’305 relates only 

to a single page of icons in a graphical user interface, which falls far short of the complete design 

for any Apple product, id. at 60, and even Apple concedes that Samsung did not use the D’305 as 

claimed since nearly every icon in Samsung’s phones differs substantially from the D’305 icons. 

RT 1426:14-1435:24 (Kare). As this Court has recognized, “even if ‘design’ matters to a new 

smartphone purchaser, it is not clear how much design of the front face of the phone matters to 

that same purchaser.” Dkt. 452 at 34; see also Apple, 678 F.3d at 1321 (noting this Court’s 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

reliance on “fact that Apple’s patents do not claim the entire article of manufacture”). Apple 

offers no evidence that Samsung’s alleged use of the designs at issue drives demand, and fails 

even to acknowledge the limited scope of the patents in suit. This is fatal under Apple II, 2012 

WL 4820601, at *3. 

In any case, even if there were proof of such a causal connection, there is no proof that 

Samsung’s infringement of protectable aspects of Apple’s designs had any effect on Apple’s 

market share. Functional and structural components of a design are not protectable, Richardson 

v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Lee v. Dayton-Hudson, 838 F.2d 

1186, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and Apple conceded at trial that many elements of its designs fall 

into these categories. Dkt. 1990-03 at 5 (non-ornamental features of D’677 and D’087 include 

form that is rectangular with curved corners; flat, clear, large screens; size that can be handheld; 

speakers near the top; opaque borders and bezel); id. at 6 (non-ornamental features of D’305 

include use of pictures and images as “visual shorthand” to communicate information, and 

14 

inclusion of sufficient space to allow for finger-operation). 4 

Samsung, like the rest of the world, 

15 

16 

17 

18 

is entitled to compete with Apple by incorporating unprotected features into its products. Bonito 

Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 159-60 (1989). To show that an 

injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm, however, Apple must but cannot show that 

Samsung’s infringement of protectable features of Apple’s designs is causing such harm. . 

19 

(c) 

Changes To Apple’s Offerings Defeat Irreparable Harm 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Apple admits it no longer sells the iPhone 3 and 3GS. Schiller Decl. 15. Because 

those are the only later-generation products that Apple has claimed embody the D’087 (RT 

1022:23-1024:10 (Bressler)), Apple no longer practices that patent. It is also clear that Apple is 

no longer practicing the D’305. While Apple has argued that the iPhone 4 also embodies the 

D’305 (RT 1369:1-14), the testimony that the D’305 was designed to have the appearance of a 

“missing row” of icons (Dkt. 1090-1 at 14; Pierce Decl. Ex. 42) and the undisputed fact that the 

4 

Indeed, at the announcement of the iPhone 5, and in subsequent television ads, Apple touted 

the dimensions of the user interface as being optimally designed for control by the user’s thumb— 

including the phone’s being only four icons wide, like the D’305 patent. See, e.g., Pierce Decl. 

Exs. 46-47. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

iPhone 4 does not incorporate such a “missing row” (JX1003) shows that the iPhone 4 does not 

practice the D’305 patent. And it is plain that Apple’s current screen differs from the D’305 in 

many other respects. 

That Apple no longer practices the patents undermines its claim of irreparable harm. See 

High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed Cir. 

1995) (failure to practice an invention is “a significant factor” in the irreparable harm calculus). 

Apple must show that ongoing infringement of these design patents will cause irreparable harm, 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2009), yet 

nowhere does it explain, let alone prove, how it purportedly is losing market share from 

infringement of patents it no longer practices. 

As Apple has not shown that any ongoing infringement of Apple’s design patents will 

cause irreparable harm, its motion as to these patents and the Samsung phones found to infringe 

them should be denied. 5 

2. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Trade Dress Dilution 

Apple’s trade dress arguments fare no better. Citing the dilution statute, Apple argues 

that it need not show irreparable harm to obtain an injunction for dilution. Mot. at 6. But the 

statute makes clear that injunctive relief is “subject to the principles of equity,” 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(c), and post-eBay authorities applying the similar provision for trademark infringement (15 

19 

20 

U.S.C. § 1116(a)) apply equitable principles when considering injunction motions. 6 

prove irreparable harm on its dilution claim, and fails to do so. 

Apple must 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

First, Apple’s claims of irreparable harm from dilution fail for the reasons shown above. 

Apple’s generic claim that “design matters” to consumers makes no showing that demand is 

5 

The Samsung products at issue here are: Capitvate; Continuum; Droid Charge; Epic 4G; 

Fascinate; Galaxy S i9000; Galaxy S 4G; Galaxy S II (AT&T); Galaxy S II (i9100); Galaxy S II 

(T-Mobile); Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch); Galaxy S II (Skyrocket); Galaxy S Showcase (i500); 

Gem; Indulge; Infuse 4G; Mesmerize; and Vibrant. 

6 

Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 33-34 (1st Cir. 

2011); AFL Telecommunications LLC v. SurplusEZ.com, Inc., 2011 WL 5547855, at *3 (D. Ariz. 

2011) (rejecting presumption of irreparable harm in post-eBay trademark case); Magna-RX, Inc. v. 

Holley, No. 05-3545, 2008 WL 5068977, at *4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 2008) (applying eBay to 

trademark case). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

driven by its claimed trade dress, which incorporates less than the entirety of its actual products. 

PDX 26.18; Dkt. 75 at 49, 59 & Ex. 16. Apple also has made no effort to show that the 

source-identifying attributes of its trade dress drive demand, yet those attributes are all that trade 

dress law protects. Inwood Labs, Inc. v. Ives Labs, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11 (1982). In 

short, Apple offers no evidence that there is a causal connection between the alleged dilution of 

the source-identifying attributes of its trade dress and its claimed harms. To the contrary, 

Apple’s expert Dr. Winer affirmatively conceded at trial that there was no actual harm to Apple 

stemming from Samsung’s alleged use of any Apple trade dress. 7 

Second, Apple no longer practices its claimed trade dress, which dooms its request for an 

injunction. The only products that Apple claims once practiced the trade dress at issue—the 

Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress and Registered iPhone Trade Dress—are the nowdiscontinued 

iPhone 3G and 3GS. Dkt. 75 at 58 & 60. Apple’s discontinuance of these 

products eliminates any possibility of irreparable harm from dilution, for dilution requires proof 

that “the capacity of the [plaintiff’s] mark to identify and distinguish goods or services sold by 

[plaintiff] has been lessened.” Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 378 F.3d 1002, 

1012 (9th Cir. 2004). Any future lessening of the capacity of Apple’s trade dress to identify 

goods that Apple sells will result from Apple’s decision to no longer sell goods that use its trade 

dress, not from Samsung’s purported use of a similar dress. That Apple has unilaterally decided 

not to sell products incorporating its trade dress is fatal to its request for prospective relief. 

Recognizing this, Apple argues that its current product offerings, like the iPhone 4S, 

“incorporate many elements of the trade dress found to be diluted.” Mot. at 6. This ignores that 

the jury found this “Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress” that Apple claims its current 

offerings embody is unprotectable. Dkt. 1931 at 10; Dkt. 75 at 62, 64. This finding is 

binding, Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 995 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th Cir. 1993) 

7 

While Winer now claims that Samsung’s “similar-looking smartphones . . . mudd[y] the 

distinctiveness cues,” “reduce[] the strength of Apple’s brand,” and will decrease Apple’s sales, 

Winer Decl., 7, 10, he admitted at trial that he has “no empirical evidence to show that 

Samsung’s actions have diluted Apple’s brand” or that “Apple has actually lost any market share,” 

and he could not “quantify the number of purchasers who bought a Samsung device in lieu of 

buying an Apple device.” RT 1534:14-23; see also 4/27/2012 Winer Depo. at 344 (same). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

(court sitting in equity bound by jury’s findings), and it means that this unprotected trade dress 

lawfully may be used by the world at large. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, 

Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 29 (2001) (“Trade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in 

many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products. In general, unless an 

intellectual property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to 

copying.”). Any similarities between the products Apple sells now and those it has discontinued 

are immaterial. No injunction can prohibit Samsung or anyone else from practicing that 

supposed trade dress. 

That Apple offers iPhone 3G or 3GS phones as replacements, or that such products remain 

available from third parties, does not establish that Apple will suffer irreparable harm as to a trade 

dress that it no longer uses in the marketplace. Apple offers no evidence and no authority that 

offering “replacement phones” supports draconian injunctive relief. Ferrari S.p.A. Esercizio 

Fabbriche Automobili e Corse v. McBurnie, No. 86-1812, 11 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1843, 1848-49 (S.D. 

Cal. May 26, 1989), on which Apple relies, addressed whether the defendant established the 

affirmative defense of abandonment. Apple thus erroneously conflates the substantive trademark 

issue of abandonment with the wholly different irreparable harm requirement for an injunction, 

17 

which is not met here even if Apple has not abandoned trade dress. 8 

Moreover, Ferrari continued 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to sell replacement parts for its discontinued line of cars and thus continued to commercially 

exploit the mark at issue, id. at 1848-49, which Apple does not claim here. Its expert, Dr. Winer, 

ignores that Apple no longer sells the iPhone 3G or 3GS, which further renders his newly found 

opinions both inconsistent with his prior testimony and simply not credible. F.T.C. v. Whole 

Foods Market, Inc., 548 F.3d 1028, 1040-41 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discrediting expert opinion 

inconsistent with prior report and testimony). 

8 

Finally, as explained below, Samsung has discontinued the only products the jury found 

While Samsung need not make any such showing, Apple’s discontinuance of its trade dress 

does constitute abandonment. See Hiland Potato Chip Co. v. Culbro Snack Foods, Inc., 720 F.2d 

981, 984 (8th Cir. 1983) (resale of returned potato chips held not sufficient use to avoid 

abandonment of trademark); Kusek v. Family Circle, 894 F. Supp. 522, 532-33 (D. Mass. 1995) 

(production and sale of back issues of magazine not sufficient to avoid abandonment). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

diluted Apple’s trade dress. This Court should not issue a permanent injunction on Apple’s 

product-configuration dilution claim after Apple has discontinued the trade dress and Samsung has 

discontinued the products found to infringe 

3. Apple Has Not Shown Irreparable Harm From Utility Patent 

Infringement 

Apple sought a preliminary injunction as to only one of the utility patents in this case, the 

‘381 patent. In rejecting that request, the Court recognized that “the fact that the ‘381 patent is 

but one patent utilized in the accused products . . . weighs against a finding of irreparable harm” 

because Apple failed to show that purchasing decisions were based on the snap-back feature 

claimed by that patent. Dkt. 452 at 63-64. The Federal Circuit affirmed this ruling, Apple, 678 

F.3d at 1327-28, and it continues to apply now. The Federal Circuit also recently held that Apple 

failed to establish the requisite causal nexus for the universal search apparatus claimed in the ‘604 

patent, Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *2-5, and the same reasoning likewise forecloses a finding 

of nexus for the two additional utility patents now at issue. Because a smartphone or tablet is 

“comprised of a multitude of different features,” Apple’s burden of proof is high. Apple II, Dkt. 

221 at 79; see Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *2; Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *21 (“The 

notion that these minor-seeming infringements have cost Apple market share and consumer 

goodwill is implausible”). As Apple offers no evidence that Samsung’s use of the discrete patent 

drives consumer demand, it has not met its burden. 

20 

21 

(a) 

Apple Has Not Shown That Its Features Patents Drive 

Consumer Demand 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Apple’s patents cover narrow features. Apple concedes that the ‘381 patent does not 

cover the general concept of bounce on a touchscreen, but is limited to a bounce effect occurring 

at the edge of the document. RT 1782:14-1783:20, 1746:3-1747:15 (Balakrishnan). The ‘163 

patent similarly does not cover double tapping to zoom or recentering generally, but requires a 

second gesture after the user is already zoomed in to recenter on another box of content. RT 

1840:4-14, 1878:22-1879:20 (Singh). This patent is so limited that Apple’s infringement 

analysis was restricted to a single program (browser) on a single web page (nytimes.com), and 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Apple’s expert admitted the patent does not apply at all to “mobile websites”—web pages 

specifically designed for viewing on a small screen device. RT 1904:17-1907:16. The ‘915 

patent similarly does not encompass the concepts of “scrolling” or “a gesture, a scale, a zoom, or 

detecting those.” RT 1855:25-1856:2, 1856:21-1857:1 (Singh). It is limited to source code that 

distinguishes between a single input point and multiple input points, and performing a scroll or 

zoom on that basis. RT 1857:13-24 (describing “all-important test in the claim”); 1818:10-22. 

Apple offers no evidence that these specific, narrow features cause consumers to purchase 

Samsung’s accused products. Instead, Apple conflates these features with general concepts like 

“ease of use” and “fun” and argues that ease of use drives demand. Mot. at 8. This approach is 

precisely what the Federal Circuit rejected in Apple II. Apple can claim no patent on “fun” and 

no monopoly over “ease of use,” which is why its burden is to show that the specific patent 

features at issue, and not their claimed overarching effects, are causally linked to Apple’s alleged 

harms. Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *4 (“To establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, 

Apple must show that consumers buy the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus 

claimed in the ‘604 patent – not because it can search in general, and not even because it has 

unified search”); Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *19 (similar: “The ‘263 patent in issue in this 

litigation is not a claim to a monopoly on streaming video!”). As this Court ruled in Apple II— 

rejecting Apple’s claims of irreparable harm from ostensible infringement of its ‘647 (links for 

structures), ‘721 (slide to unlock) and ‘172 (word recommendations)—Apple must “disaggregate 

what ‘ease of use’ features drive consumer decisions” and show that the patents in issue claim 

features that do so. Apple II, Dkt. 221 at 85-93. The iPhone has “innumerable” features, id. at 

87-88, which Apple claims all “contribute to ease of use.” Pierce Decl. Ex. 11 [4/4/12 Sinclair 

Tr. at 52:2-8]. Apple has made no showing that the specific features at issue here “would drive 

sales if sold by [themselves].” Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *5. 

Moreover, even Apple’s generalized evidence that “ease of use” drives demand shows no 

such thing. Schiller Decl., 12. In the survey Apple cites, ten out of thirteen factors were rated 

“important” by iPhone consumers, making the importance of any one factor indeterminate. PX 

146.5. When Apple studied what caused consumers to purchase Android devices instead of 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

iPhones, . Apple also cites a 

GravityTank study which states the iPhone is easy to use and describes zooming and scrolling as 

“fun” and “magic,” Mot. at 8 (citing PX36.24, PX36.21), but “zooming” and “scrolling” were in 

existence well before the ‘915 patent and are not exclusively owned by Apple. RT 1856:21- 

1857:12 (Singh). Once again, Apple misapprehends the limited nature of its monopoly under its 

patents, and fails to provide evidence linking Samsung’s purported infringement of that limited 

monopoly right to Apple’s claims of irreparable losses. 9 

8 

(b) 

“Copying” Does Not Demonstrate a Nexus 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Recognizing that it lacks proof of nexus, Apple claims that the accused features must drive 

demand because Samsung “copied” them. This Court has rejected this argument, previously 

holding that similar evidence is “probative of the fact that both Apple and Samsung value the 

functionality claimed by” the asserted patent, but does not “demonstrate that the [patented 

technology] drives consumer demand.” Apple II, Dkt. 221 at 86. And the Federal Circuit has 

explained that “the relevant inquiry focuses on the objective reasons as to why the patentee lost 

sales, not on the infringer’s subjective beliefs as to why it gained them (or would be likely to gain 

them).” Apple, 678 F.3d at 1328; see also Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601, at *4-5. 

Further, Apple’s “copying” argument has no evidentiary support. Apple cites PX46.66, 

but this document calls only for a “fun visual effect,” not one that is covered by ‘381. Likewise, 

PX57.15-20 relates to a multitude of visual effects that have no bearing on the ‘381 patent; 

PX195.1 indicates that Samsung “did not release” the bounce algorithm discussed in that 

document; Exhibit 31 to the Robinson Declaration contains repeated statements that “the Bounce 

effect has no emotional impact,” confirming that bouncing behavior does not inherently create 

“fun”; PX38.24 discusses double-tap to zoom and two-level zooming, not the recentering behavior 

covered by ‘163; and PX44.58 is ambiguous as to whether it even addresses the ‘163, and gives no 

9 

Apple also cites Mr. Schiller’s broad claim that “ease of use” is important to customers, 

which is immaterial here for the same reasons above, and Apple executive Scott Forstall’s 

speculation that “[the ‘163 patent], I think, enables you to have a, a dramatically better experience 

browsing the web,” Mot. at 8 (citing PDX10.2 and RT 751-759). Such speculation by an Apple 

executive does not support a request for a permanent injunction. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

support to the claim that this patent drives sales. Apple offers no “copying” evidence regarding 

‘915 at all. Apple’s evidence shows at most that Samsung engaged in the type of competitive 

analysis that Apple too routinely practices. RT 760:19-776:8 (Forstall); RT 532:8-536:25 

(Stringer); RT 2838:9-2842:11 (Howarth). It does not even begin to show that consumer 

purchases were driven by the patented features. 

6 

(c) 

Dr. Hauser’s Survey Results Do Not Show Consumer Demand 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Apple relies (Mot. at 9) on Dr. Hauser’s survey results to show consumer demand for the 

features claimed in its three utility patents. Yet these surveys do not address consumer demand 

for smartphones and tablets equipped with those features. See Wind Decl., 13-14, 40-45, 74; 

Sukumar Decl., 4-6, 19, filed concurrently. In the real world, consumers choose among several 

brands of smartphones and tablets and may ultimately choose to make no purchase at all; Dr. 

Hauser’s survey forced respondents to select a Samsung device and excluded the option of 

selecting another brand—or no device at all. Wind Decl. 14, 28-31, 33, 40-45, 66-67; Sukumar 

Decl., 6. By design, therefore, his survey could only produce estimates of intra-brand “price 

premiums,” i.e., amounts consumers would pay for additional features on a Samsung device, 

which says nothing about whether consumers buy Samsung devices because they have certain 

features. Wind Decl., 13-14, 32-45; Sukumar Decl., 4-6, 19. Moreover, fundamental flaws 

in methodology biased Dr. Hauser’s price premium estimates, rendering them unreliable. Wind 

Decl.15-17, 21-39, 46-74; Sukumar Decl. 3, 7-19. In the real world, consumers selecting 

between smartphones or tablets base their decisions on a subset of features, and those features do 

not include those claimed in the utility patents at issue here. See Erdem Decl., 16, 25-62. 

4. There Is No Basis For Apple’s Claimed Irreparable Harm 

Because “[t]his record does not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features 

of [the accused products] drive consumer demand[,]” there is no need for the Court to consider 

“Apple’s allegations of irreparable harm.” Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *5. But there is no 

basis for those allegations either, particularly given that Samsung has discontinued all but three of 

the 26 products that are the subject of Apple’s motion. By the time the Court hears this motion, 

Samsung will only be selling 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

Decl. of Hee-chan Choi at 2-9 and Exh. 1; Decl. of Corey Kerstetter, 

2-13 and Exh. 1; Decl. of David Kim, 2-4. None of these products was found to dilute 

3 

Apple’s trade dress, and none was found to infringe the D’087, D’305, or the ‘381 patent. 10 

And 

4 

5 

while the Galaxy SII (T-Mobile)—and only that product—was found to infringe the ‘163 and ‘915 

patents, Samsung has implemented non-infringing design-arounds. Gray Decl., 11-55; Choi 

6 

Decl., 13-19, 22; Decl. of Tim Rowden, 3-7. 11 

With respect to the design patents, the black 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

models of the three remaining Galaxy S II products were found to infringe only the D’677 

patent. Samsung is discontinuing the version of the Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) with a black front 

mask color 

which does not infringe D’677. Choi Decl., 20; Kerstetter Decl., 8, Lucente Decl., 12- 

21. Kerstetter Decl., 8. The 

discontinuance and redesign of the accused products defeats the claim that Apple will be 

irreparably harmed absent an injunction. Hynix Semi. Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 

968 (N.D. Cal. 2009); Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semi. Ltd., 2008 WL 346416, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

7, 2008); see also TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Corp., 646 F.3d 869, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

Apple’s claim of harm from lost market share, downstream sales, and impact on its 

ecosystem suffers from numerous additional flaws. Its attempt to extend its claim of harm to 

markets and products not covered by the patents or trade dress at issue here (Mot. at 4-5) is an 

improper effort to “leverage its patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive 

contribution and value of the patent warrant” (Apple II, 2012 WL 4820601 at *2), and cannot be 

squared with Apple II’s causal nexus requirements. Apple has not even attempted to (nor could 

10 

Samsung introduced a blue glow design-around to the ‘381 patent in early 2012. Van Dam 

Decl. 24-31; Choi Decl., 10-12. The parties’ experts agree that this design-around does not 

infringe. Van Dam Decl. 32-34. 

11 

The new source code no longer contains “instructions for, in response to detecting the second 

gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that the second box is substantially 

centered on the touch screen display” as required by claim 50 of the ‘163 patent. Gray Decl. 

51-55. Now the product either does nothing (single tap) or zooms out (double tap) in response 

to the second gesture. Id. 52. Likewise, the new code no longer performs the “quintessential 

test” of “distinguishing between a single input point . . . that is interpreted as the scroll operation 

and two or more input points . . . that are interpreted as the gesture operation” as required by claim 

8 of the ‘915 patent. Id. 31-44; RT 1822:22-1826:22 (Singh testimony). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

it) show that consumers’ purchase decisions in other markets or for other products are driven by 

the specific features of its patents or trade dress. Moreover, Apple and Samsung do not compete 

in a two-player smartphone or tablet market, but rather face competition from other manufacturers, 

which collectively enjoy a 43.4% share of the North American smartphone market. Wagner 

Decl., 146. Apple also overstates the competition between the parties by ignoring the fact that 

they use different operating systems, which is a critical factor for consumers, by relying on market 

share figures for all of Samsung’s products instead of the market share for the specific products 

Apple seeks to enjoin, and by wrongly assuming that the purchasing behavior of late adopters of 

smartphone technology will be the same as early adopters. Id., 120-23, 160-181. Apple’s 

strong iPad and iPhone 4, 4S, and 5 sales also refute any claim of lost market share due to the 

alleged infringement by the accused products. Id., 124-144. 

B. Apple Has Not Shown That Monetary Remedies Are Inadequate 

Apple bears the burden of providing at least “[s]ome evidence and reasoned analysis” to 

demonstrate the inadequacy of monetary damages to compensate its alleged harms. Apple II, 

Dkt. 221 at 73; see also Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 

1284, 1338 (S.D. Cal. 2010). There is no presumption that money damages would be inadequate. 

High Tech Med. Instrumentation, 49 F.3d at 1557. Neither lost market share nor damage to 

goodwill is necessarily irreparable. Automated Merch. Sys, Inc. v. Crace Co., 357 F. App’x 297, 

301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (lost market share not necessarily irreparable); Dexter 345 Inc. v. Cuomo, 663 

F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (same, loss of goodwill). Nevertheless, Apple has not shown that any 

injuries it will suffer cannot be fully compensated by monetary remedies, or that Samsung is 

unable to satisfy a money judgment. Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664 at *14 (“There is no question 

of collectability in this case, a common reason why a damages remedy is inadequate. Both 

parties have deep pockets”); ActiveVideo, 2012 WL 3636908, at *24 (similar). 

At Apple’s urging, the jury awarded Apple monetary remedies and calculated specific 

amounts. Because Apple has discontinued products embodying its patents and because Samsung 

will have ceased any infringing activity by the time that the Court rules on this motion, no further 

relief will be necessary. But even if further relief were proper, the jury’s award confirms that any 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

purported future harms can be remedied through a monetary award. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. 

Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (no irreparable harm where jury awarded 

damages requested by patentee); Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 09-2280, 2012 WL 44064 at 

* 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (jury damages award shows damages reparable). 

Apple has not shown, in particular, why any harm could not be compensated by an 

ongoing royalty, which courts increasingly have ordered “as a substitute for an injunction against 

infringement.” Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171, 

1192 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (proper to award ongoing royalty instead of permanent injunction), vacated 

in part on other grounds, 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *16 - 

17 (similar); Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 2010 WL 1607908, at *4 (W.D. Wis. April 19, 

2010) (“plaintiff has failed to show that the public interest would be better served through an 

injunction rather than a compulsory license.”). An ongoing royalty in lieu of injunction is 

especially appropriate in a case like this where the patented features are but a small component of 

the overall product. See Pierce Decl., Ex. 44 (“more than 250,000 active patents relevant to 

today’s smartphones”). This Court has previously “take[n] to heart Justice Kennedy’s 

admonition that ‘[w]hen the patented invention is but a small component of the product the 

companies seek to produce . . . legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the 

infringement,’” and should do so here as well. Apple II, Dkt. 221 at 98 (quoting eBay); see 

Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664 at *16-17 (discussing Justice Kennedy’s admonition as applied to 

20 

smartphone case). 12 

Rather than impose an injunction, the Court should, at most, direct the 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

parties to negotiate an ongoing royalty. See Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 

1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“In most cases, where the district court determines that a permanent 

injunction is not warranted, the district court may wish to allow the parties to negotiate a license 

amongst themselves regarding future use of a patented invention before imposing an ongoing 

royalty.”). 

12 

See also Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc, 836 F. Supp. 2d 462, 482 (E.D. Tex. 2010) 

(denying injunction where infringing feature was small part of defendant’s system); Techs., Inc. v. 

Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437, 441, 2006 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (similar). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Apple asserts that denial of an injunction would amount to a compulsory license (Mot. at 

10), but that is not true in light of Samsung’s discontinuance of its products and design-arounds. 

Moreover, an injunction may not issue merely because a patentee refuses to offer a license. 

Presidio, 723 F. Supp. 2d at 1338-39. And in any event, Apple has shown a willingness to 

license both utility and design patents in the past, including patents at issue in this litigation and 

similar ones. For example, 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Apple’s Boris Teksler confirmed that Apple licenses its intellectual property, including the 

technology and designs that Apple considers a “unique user experience I.P.” RT 1957: 3-9; 

1972:18-24. And prior to filing this suit, Apple offered Samsung a “royalty-bearing license” to 

manufacture the products that Apple said “embrace[d] and imitate[d] Apple’s iPhone archetype,” 

including “Android-based full touch screen devices” that Apple now seeks to enjoin. DX 586 at 

17; see RT 1971:4-1972:17 (Apple offered to “provide Samsung with a number of options for 

obtaining a cost-effective license to our patent portfolio,” without carving out any patents that it 

was refusing to license). This evidence weighs against any finding that monetary relief is 

inadequate, for it demonstrates that Apple is willing to forego exclusivity in exchange for 

monetary compensation. Apple II, Dkt. 221 at 96; Dkt. 452 at 64 (Apple’s licenses of ‘381 patent 

weigh against injunction); see Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 

2008), High Tech Med., 49 F.3d at 1557; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic, Inc., 2008 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88892 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008). 

C. The Balance Of Hardships Favors Samsung 

“An injunction that imposes greater costs on the defendant than it confers benefits on the 

plaintiff reduces net social welfare. That is the insight behind the ‘balance of hardships’ 

component of the eBay standard for injunctive relief in patent cases.” Motorola, 2012 WL 

2376664, at *21. Apple will not suffer in the absence of an injunction. It no longer offers the 

iPhone 3G and 3GS, and it does not argue that its recent sales of the iPhone 5 were negatively 

affected by Samsung’s limited sales of the accused products. To the extent that there is any 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ongoing infringement, the availability of a reasonable royalty weighs against Apple. See 

Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *19 (availability of royalty “is germane to the ‘balance of 

hardships’ component of eBay’s test for whether to grant an injunction”). 

In contrast, an injunction would impose severe hardship on Samsung by disrupting its 

relationships with carriers who may be selling pre-existing stock and with customers who may still 

be using the accused products, see Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

61600, at *16-17 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006) (“enjoining [defendant’s] sales will likely interrupt 

not only Defendants’ business but that of related businesses, such as dealers and suppliers . . . 

[and] will damage their reputation”), and by creating paralyzing uncertainty as to the future steps 

Apple might take seeking to enforce an injunction against as yet unaccused products and features. 

See Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20 (relying on possibility that “Apple will sue Motorola 

alleging that the redesigned phones still infringe its patents, just as it is [doing in the ITC]”); see 

also Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 2011 WL 7563039, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2011) (rejecting 

“position that an injunction should issue because [it] will have little negative impact on” the 

defendant if the defendant does not “infringe in the future” because eBay rejects such a ‘bettersafe-than-sorry’ 

approach.”). 13 In fact, Apple previously abused the short-lived Galaxy Tab 10.1 

preliminary injunction by falsely claiming without legal basis that third-party carriers were bound 

by it and that it extended to wholly unspecified tablet computer products. See Dkt. 1943 at 2. 

D. An Injunction Would Not Be In The Public Interest 

Apple bears the burden of showing that an injunction is in the public interest, Stormans, 

Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009), a burden that is especially great because the 

first three eBay factors favor Samsung. Soverain, 836 F. Supp. 2d at 482. Both “the harm that 

an injunction might cause to consumers who can no longer buy preferred products because their 

sales have been enjoined, and the cost to the judiciary as well as to the parties of administering an 

injunction” should be considered. Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20. The only public 

13 

Apple asserts that the jury’s finding of willful infringement obviates the need to balance 

hardships. Mot. at 10. It cites no post-eBay case that has so held. More recent decision are to 

the contrary. See, e.g., In re Renard, 451 B.R. 12, 23 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2011) (rejecting 

argument against balancing of hardships in case involving intentional conduct). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

interest cited by Apple—preserving rights of patent holders—cannot alone justify injunctive relief 

because such interests “are always present in a patent case!” Presidio, 723 F. Supp. 2d at 1339; 

Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Comms. LP, 802 F. Supp. 2d 555, 579 (D. Del. 2011) (same). 

While Apple identifies no compelling public interest favoring an injunction here, the 

public has an overwhelming interest in preventing one company from having a monopoly over 

basic elements of smartphone design such as a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Even 

though the patents at issue are but “small component[s] of the product” and Apple no longer 

practices the only trade dress the jury found protectable, an injunction would have a significant 

impact on competition in the smartphone market. Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20 (“the 

harm that an injunction might cause to consumers who can no longer buy preferred products 

because their sales have been enjoined” weighs against entry of injunction). This litigation is 

part of Apple’s campaign against makers of Android devices, which provide free, opensource 

mobile software that any developer can use to create applications for mobile devices and that any 

handset manufacturer can install on a device. Dkt. 179-44 at 5. This Court should not deprive 

consumers of choice by granting the broad, vague injunction that Apple seeks. 

An injunction would also be disruptive for third parties, such as suppliers, retailers, 

carriers, and their customers. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 704 (Fed. Cir. 

2008); Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 6:09-cv-203, 2012 WL 2505741 at *45 

(E.D. Tex. June 28, 012). Indeed, Apple’s inability to supply all consumers with the iPhone 

strongly weighs against the broad injunction it seeks. See Tate Access Floors v. Interface 

Architectural Res., Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 365, 377 (D. Md. 2001) (considering patentee’s 

manufacturing capacity). Demand for the iPhone 5 exceeded initial supply, and labor disputes at 

Foxconn, Apple’s supplier, caused at least two production stoppages in September and October. 14 

These shortages are likely to continue as Apple releases the iPhone 5 to additional countries 

(including 70 in December alone) and carriers around the world; and the Wall Street Journal 

14 

See Poonima Gupta & Jennifer Saba, Apple Sells Over 5 Million iPhone 5, Supply 

Constraints Loom, Reuters, Sept. 24, 2012 (Pierce Decl., Ex. 16); Foxconn Labor Disputes 

Disrupt iPhone Output for 2nd Time, Bloomberg News, Oct. 7, 2012 (Pierce Decl., Ex. 17). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

reports that NAND memory shortages may lead to further constraints on Apple’s output. 15 

The 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

public interest will be harmed by diminishing consumer access to competing smartphones under 

these circumstances. 

Finally, the broad and vaguely worded injunction that Apple requests would also impose a 

significant administrative burden on this Court, for there can be no doubt that Apple will 

aggressively seek to extend it to non-accused products. This further weighs against Apple’s 

7 

motion. 

See Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20 (denying motion for permanent injunction in 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

part based on “the cost to the judiciary as well as to the parties of administering an injunction”). 

E. Apple’s Proposed Injunction Is Vague, Overbroad And Otherwise Improper 

No injunction should issue; if any will, the language that Apple seeks should be rejected. 

Rule 65(d) requires that an injunction “(A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms 

specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail—not by referring to the complaint or other 

document—the act or acts restrained or required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1); Schmidt v. Lessard, 

414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974). Apple’s broad, vague injunction violates these principles. 

First, the language of Apple’s proposed injunction is improper because it extends generally 

to unspecified violations of the law and would broadly and vaguely cover unidentified “other 

17 

products.” Dkt. 1987 at 2. 16 

This language is an invitation to endless litigation, against the 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

backdrop of the “deadly” threat of the contempt power, as well as to overbroad, anti-competitive 

threats by Apple against third parties as Apple sought to do in the past. Int’l Longshoremen’s 

Ass’n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967); see Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax 

Pharms., Inc., 501 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding injunction overbroad and modifying 

it “to delete the language ‘any products that infringe the ‘712 patent, including . . . .’”). 

Second, the injunction proposed by Apple wrongly extends to a “feature or features not 

more than colorably different” from “any of the infringing feature or features in any of the 

15 

Yun-Hee Kim, Why There May Be an iPhone 5 Shortage, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2012 

(Pierce Decl., Ex. 18). 

16 

Apple’s proposed injunction improperly lists the “Galaxy S,” the “Galaxy S II (i9000)” and 

the “Infuse,” when the correct product names are Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II (i9100) and Infuse 

4G respectively. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Infringing Products.” Dkt. 1987 at 2. Apple’s focus on specific “features” of its design patents 

ignores that many of those features are functional and structural, and therefore are not protectable. 

See supra Section I.A; Dkt. 1990-3 at 7-10. Apple cannot obtain an injunction against use of 

features that are free for the world to use. Bonito Boats, 489 U.S. at 159-60. Moreover, 

Apple’s demand that Samsung be prohibited from using undefined “features” is inconsistent with 

Apple’s refrain during trial that the test is whether an accused product shares the same overall 

visual impression as the patented designs. RT 1348:8-17; 1374:6-1375:15; 1376:19-1377:8. 

The jury made particular findings, rejecting, for example, Apple’s allegations that specific 

products infringed the D’087 and D’677 patents or else diluted Apple’s trade dress. Dkt. 1931. 

The “colorably different” standard that Apple seeks to rely on would allow Apple to seek 

contempt violations for the very sorts of “features,” or equivalent ones, that the jury itself found to 

be non-infringing or non-diluting. Apple’s request for a broad injunction against unspecified 

products and unprotected features should be denied. See Motorola, 2012 WL 2376664, at *20 

(“The danger that Apple’s goal in obtaining an injunction is harassment of its bitter rival, requiring 

particularly watchful supervision by the court should it issue an injunction, is suggested by the fact 

that . . . it wants to forego [a royalty revenue stream] in favor of imposing costs and litigation 

burdens on its adversary”). 

F. Apple Should Post Security to Protect Samsung From A Wrongful Injunction 

Apple should be required to post a bond to protect Samsung’s interests if any injunction is 

overturned on appeal. The Court has power to grant an injunction upon “the principles of equity 

and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), 35 U.S.C. § 283. 

An injunction bond is necessary to protect Samsung from the financial consequences of Apple’s 

sweeping proposed injunction, should Samsung be wrongfully enjoined. If a bond does not issue 

now, Samsung may have no recourse for the damages it sustains from a wrongful injunction, 

making the requirement of a substantial bond critical. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 

461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983); Buddy Sys., Inc. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., 545 F.2d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 

1976). 

When setting the amount of an injunction bond, district courts should err on the high side. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Apple II, Dkt. 221 at 100 (citing Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 201 F.3d 883, 888 (7th Cir. 

2000)). Courts may consider (1) lost profits, (2) out-of pocket expenses related to promotion of 

the defendant’s infringing products; (3) damage to the defendant’s reputation; and (4) expenses 

associated with the recall of the infringing products. Cybermedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 19 F. 

Supp. 2d 1070, 1079-80 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Samsung estimates that over the course of roughly 

11.2 months—the median time from docketing to disposition in 2011 in the Federal Circuit-- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

(http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/thecourt/statistics/Median_Disp_Time_table_02-11.pdf). 

Accordingly, in the event the court issues 

an injunction covering these non-infringing products, a bond of at least $32,550,725 should be 

required. Wagner Decl., 229-232. 

13 

14 

II. 

THE COURT SHOULD NOT ENHANCE THE JURY’S DAMAGES VERDICTS 

As Samsung explained in its JMOL, the jury’s damages award already goes too far; that 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

award should be reduced, not enhanced—much less by the $535 million Apple seeks. There is 

no dispute that an award of infringer’s profits under Section 289 cannot be enhanced, and it is 

apparent that the vast bulk of the jury’s award—a full $948,278,061—reflects disgorgement of 

Samsung’s profits (whether from products found to infringe Apple’s design patents, or in the case 

of the Galaxy Prevail, a utility patent that cannot be the basis for such an award). See Dkt. 1990- 

20 (Wagner JMOL Decl.) at 17. Thus, only $101,145,479 of the total award could even 

conceivably be subject to enhancement, making Apple’s request for more than five times that 

plainly excessive. 

As a matter of law, Apple has failed to establish the prerequisites for enhancement: 

Apple has not offered clear and convincing evidence of willfulness, as required, nor demonstrated 

that additional damages would recompense Apple for any actual harm not accounted for by the 

jury. To the extent enhancement is a matter of discretion, the Court should exercise its discretion 

not to enhance the jury’s award any further. 

28 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

A. Nearly $950 Million Of The Jury’s Award Represents Disgorgement Of 

Infringer’s Profits That Is Not Subject To Enhancement 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 289, infringement of a design patent is subject to a special measure of 

damages—infringer’s profits—not otherwise available in a patent case. The trade-off for a 

plaintiff’s claiming infringer’s profits is relinquishing any right to seek enhancements. 35 U.S.C. 

§ 289 (patentee “shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement”); Catalina 

Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1290-92 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (election to recover 

defendant’s profits under Section 289 bars any further recovery on same sales); Braun Inc. v. 

Dynamics Corp. of America, 975 F.2d 815, 283-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Section 289 “insure[s] that a 

patentee not recover both the profit of an infringer and some additional damage remedy from the 

same infringer”). Apple concedes that the Court “cannot treble amounts for which the sole basis 

for the award was disgorgement of Samsung’s profits under section 289.” Mot. at 28. In this 

case, fully $948,278,061 of the award represents supposed infringer’s profits, awarded per Apple’s 

14 

15 

requested jury instruction and verdict form. 

17-18. 

Dkt. 1694 at 147; Dkt. 1903 at 72; Dkt. 1990-3 at 

16 

17 

1. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents But Not Dilute Trade Dress 

The jury found that 11 Samsung products infringe one or more design patents and do not 

18 

dilute Apple’s trade dress. 17 

As to each of these, the jury awarded exactly 40% of Apple’s 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

calculation of Samsung’s profits, which shows that the jury’s awards for these products were made 

under Section 289. See Dkt. 1990-20, 20. Indeed, the jury could have arrived at these awards 

only pursuant to Section 289, for the jury’s awards for these products – which together total 

$599,859,395 (id.)—exceed the amount Apple requested under Section 284 for its own alleged 

lost profits. See PX25A1.4 (seeking $333,365,673 in lost profits for the 11 products found to 

infringe only Apple’s design patents). Therefore, $599,859,395 of the jury’s award cannot be 

enhanced as a matter of law—a fact that Apple appears not to dispute. 

26 

27 

28 

17 

The Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy S II (T- 

Mobile), Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch), Galaxy S II (Skyrocket), Gem, Indulge, and Infuse 4G. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

2. Products Found To Infringe Design Patents And Dilute Trade Dress 

The jury awarded damages on five products found to infringe one or more design patents 

3 

and also dilute Apple’s trade dress. 18 

As to each, the jury awarded Apple the same 40% of 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Apple’s calculation of Samsung’s profits (a total of $290,551,283), plus the amount of lost profits 

claimed by Apple (a total of $91,132,279), for a total award of $381,683,562. Dkt. 1990-20, 13. 

Apple argues for enhancement of the total award on these products by positing that the jury 

awarded these damages under the Lanham Act. Mot. at 25. But none of these damages, and 

certainly not the $290,551,283 representing infringer’s profits, may be enhanced. 

First, Apple is wrong that Samsung “bear[s] the burden of any uncertainty” as to whether 

the jury’s award was made under Section 289 or the Lanham Act. Mot. at 30. “The 

jurisprudence . . . uniformly requires clear and convincing evidence in support of increased 

damages,” and it is the moving party that must produce such evidence. Shatterproof Glass Corp. 

v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 628 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 682 F.3d 1003, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. 

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 2010 WL 583960 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2010); Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. 

v. Xinyi Glass N. Am., Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 737, 753 (N.D. Ohio 2010), as corrected (Apr. 13, 

2010). Apple offers no authority for its claim that ambiguity in a jury verdict permits special 

judicial enhancement, and the law is to the contrary. See Arnott v. Am. Oil Co., 609 F.2d 873, 

888-89 (8th Cir. 1979) (“[i]t would be purely speculative to assume that the entire general verdict 

of $100,000 was awarded as damages resulting from violation of the antitrust laws” that were 

subject to trebling rather that other violations that were not); Wilson v. Burlington Northern 

Railroad, 803 F.2d 563, 567–68 (10th Cir. 1986) (McKay, J., concurring) (“Since we are here 

faced with a general verdict not properly segregated into its component parts [of actual economic 

loss and non-economic damages], that task is now impossible. Plaintiff failed to timely present 

the matter based on sound testimony and proper instructions or interrogatories and must bear the 

burden of that failure.”); Mandile v. Clark Material Handling Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 531, 536 

27 

28 

18 

The Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Mesmerize, and Vibrant. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

(D.N.J. 2004) aff’d, 131 F. App’x 836 (3d Cir. 2005) (rejecting prejudgment interest where 

plaintiff did not request discrete verdicts segregating losses). 19 

Second, Apple alone is to blame for any ambiguity in the jury’s verdict. Samsung 

requested a verdict form that would have required more specificity in the jury’s findings; Apple 

tactically resisted Samsung’s proposed verdict form as “way too specific” and requested a single 

damages figure for each product. RT 3852:24-3856:10; see also RT 3764:1-6, 3813:14-3814:25 

(noting Apple’s failure to elect a single damages theory). As the party bearing the burden here, 

and having created the claimed ambiguity, Apple cannot now use that claimed ambiguity to 

circumvent the statutory bar against enhancements of infringer’s profits. 

Third, there in fact is no ambiguity here, as the jury uniformly awarded 40% of Samsung’s 

profits as calculated by Mr. Musika as to every product found to infringe a design patent, whether 

those products were found only to infringe design patents or both infringe design patents and also 

dilute trade dress. As to the products that diluted trade dress, the jury then added sums reflecting 

14 

Apple’s lost profits. 

See Dkt. 1990-20, 12-13. Only that $91,132,279 consisting of Apple’s 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

profits might under any circumstances (and not these) fall outside Section 289’s ban on 

enhancement for infringers’ profits. 

Finally, having elected to seek parallel recoveries on the same bucket of products pursuant 

to Section 289 and the Lanham Act, Apple cannot seek enhancement of any portion of the 

resulting award, including the $91,132,279. The Federal Circuit has rebuffed efforts by patentholders 

who try to recover beyond the limits of Section 289 by claiming parallel intellectual 

19 Ignoring on point authority, Apple cites three cases that address uncertainty in the dollar 

amount of the underlying damages award, not whether the award is eligible for enhancement. 

E.g., Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Any doubts 

regarding the calculatory precision of the damage amount must be resolved against the infringer.”) 

(emphasis added); see also Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 1428 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(damages award cannot be “speculative” but need not be calculated with “unerring precision”). 

Such cases speak to a district court’s exercise of discretion in arriving at statutorily authorized 

damages “as a matter of just and reasonable inference,” without resort to “mere speculation or 

guess,” Paper Converting Machine Co. v. Magna Graphics Corp., 745 F.2d 11, 22 (Fed. Cir. 

1984). None of these cases even purports to address the distinct legal issues involved in 

enforcing the statutory line separating those damages eligible for special enhancement from those 

that are ineligible, let alone ambiguity that was sown by the party seeking enhancement. Cf. 

Arnott, 609 F.2d at 888-89 (reversing trebling where general verdict did not differentiate antitrust 

theory from others that might have grounded the award). 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

property rights have been violated based on “the same set of operative facts.” Aero Prods. Int’l, 

Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (plaintiff who recovers 

under the Patent Act cannot further recover under the Lanham Act); see Catalina Lighting, 295 

F.3d at 1290-1292 (profits recovery under Section 289 bars further recovery on the same sales 

despite overlapping protection of utility as well as design patents). Catalina Lighting and Aero 

Products prohibit Apple from obtaining any enhancement atop the award it has collected under 

Section 289 by pursuing parallel recovery under the Lanham Act based on the same core of 

8 

operative facts. 20 

Although Apple protests that Samsung’s “infringement caused more than one 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

type of harm to Apple” (Mot. at 30), the same was true in both Catalina Lighting and Aero 

Products. 

The only case Apple cites in support of its demand for parallel enhancement is an 

unpublished district court decision, enhancing a Lanham Act award that ostensibly overlapped 

with a far smaller amount of profits separately awarded under Section 289. Victor Stanley Inc. v. 

Creative Pipe Inc., No. 06-2662, 2011 WL 4596043 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2011). After a bench trial, 

the court awarded $1,150,750 in Lanham Act profits for “reverse passing off,” which the court 

enhanced by 50%. Id. at *11-12. The court also awarded, but did not enhance, $35,137 in 

profits under Section 289 for design patent infringement. Id. at *20. Notably, the Lanham Act 

violation and design patent infringement in Victor Stanley involved entirely distinct facts— 

defendant’s passing off plaintiff’s technical drawings as its own, and defendant’s sale of a product 

infringing plaintiff’s design patent. Thus, the theories of recovery in Victor Stanley were not 

20 

Still more unsupportable is Apple’s suggestion that its same requested enhancement might 

follow under the Patent Act, Section 284. Despite its plain statement specifying that it “requests 

an enhancement of $135 million under the Patent Act and $400 million under the Lanham Act,” 

(Mot. at 11), with the former computation limited to products found to infringe utility patents not 

subject to Section 289, Apple then shifts gears to argue the Court could “justify the full $535 

million enhancement based on the Patent Act alone.” (Mot. at 29.) Without offering any 

explanation, much less plausible explanation, of how more than $10 million of the amount the jury 

awarded for infringement of Apple’s patents might arise outside Section 289, Apple is barreling 

headlong into Section 289’s prohibition against enhancement. Moreover, assuming arguendo 

that overlapping theories of recovery pose ambiguity in the verdict form, that alone would rule out 

enhancement. See Arnott. 609 F.2d at 888-89. Finally, Apple is at best attempting to do 

precisely what Catalina Lighting and Aero Products foreclose—namely, to circumvent the limits 

Section 289 imposes upon recovery by invoking Section 284 and separate intellectual property 

rights in parallel. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


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 

coextensive and interchangeable, as is true here and was true in Catalina Lighting and Aero 

Products. Perhaps as a result, Victor Stanley addressed no objection and offered no analysis with 

respect to Section 289’s prohibition, Braun, Catalina Lighting, or Aero Products. In sum, Victor 

Stanley does not illuminate, much less commend, a path towards Apple’s requested enhancement. 

3. Products Found To Infringe Only Utility Patents 

The jury found that seven Samsung products infringe only utility patents. For one of 

those, the Galaxy Prevail, the jury awarded $57,867,383—exactly 40% of Samsung’s profits for 

that product, as calculated by Mr. Musika. Dkt. 1990-3 at 18, 26; PX25A1.4; Dkt. 1990-20 at 

15. This award (comprising all but some $10 million of the total award for products found to 

infringe utility patents) undoubtedly represents Samsung’s profits, because Apple’s claimed lost 

profits for the Prevail as calculated by Mr. Musika were limited to $8.5 million. PX25A1.4. 

But disgorgement of an infringer’s profits is peculiar to Section 289; the award must be remitted, 

and it certainly is not subject to enhancement. 

B. Apple’s Requested Enhancement Is Unavailable Under The Lanham Act 

Even apart from the bar on Apple’s efforts at dual recovery, the award of $91,132,279 in 

Apple’s lost profits (for trade dress dilution) under the Lanham Act should be further reduced by 

$70,034,295 (see Dkt. 1990-3 at 17-18), leaving $20,097,984 in Apple’s lost profits as the 

maximum potentially eligible for enhancement under the Lanham Act. Even this amount, 

however, should not be enhanced. Because the Lanham Act “expressly forbid[s] the award of 

damages to punish an infringer,” any enhancement must be limited “to ensur[ing] that the plaintiff 

receives compensation.” Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2012) (citation omitted); see also Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 

ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958, 970 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Only if the 

requested enhancement serves to compensate Apple for actual harm in excess of the jury’s award 

might it be permissible. ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 997 F.2d 949, 955 (D.C. 

Cir. 1993); Vanwyk Textile Sys., B.V. v. Zimmer Mach. Am., Inc., 994 F. Supp. at 379-81 

27 

28 

(W.D.N.C. 1997). 

Here, Apple makes no such showing. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

1. Apple’s Claim Of Uncompensated Injury Is Unsupported 

Apple maintains that the jury’s award is too parsimonious to compensate it for what it 

characterizes as incalculable injuries to its brand image and lost downstream sales of later 

generation iPhones and tag-along products. Mot. at 6, 26. As to brand dilution, Apple 

5 

identifies no evidence that would justify finding the jury’s calculation inadequate. 21 

See Vanwyk, 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

994 F. Supp. at 380-381. As to any lost sales, Apple argues those “cannot be quantified with 

reasonable certainty,” Mot. at 5, and does not even try to quantify them, for instance, by 

specifying what its claimed profit margins would have been. See id. In fact, far from 

undercompensating, the jury’s award already gives Apple a windfall, as discussed in Samsung’s 

JMOL. First, the jury awarded all of Samsung’s profits, without apportionment, although there 

was no evidence suggesting that the entire sales value of Samsung’s products is attributable to 

their outer casings and GUI. See Dkt. 1990-3 at 18. Second, the jury failed to deduct 

Samsung’s expenses, resulting in an award that exceeds the actual profits Samsung derived from 

its allegedly diluting sales. Id. at 19. Third, the jury based its award on an incorrect notice 

15 

date. 22 

It follows that the award of damages for trade-dress dilution should be reduced rather 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

than enhanced. 

21 

2. Apple’s Calculation Is Flawed and Arbitrary 

Even if the verdict had not properly compensated Apple, Apple makes no showing that its 

This absence of proof distinguishes this case from those cited by Apple, where a plaintiff 

provided substantial, concrete evidence of its actual harm, thereby enabling determination that 

such harm exceeded the damages awarded. See Binder v. Disability Group, 772 F. Supp. 2d 

1172, 1181-84 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (surveys and testimony from consumers showing deception); 

Taco Cabana, 932 F.2d at 1126-1127 (expert’s damages model valuing preempted competition at 

$4.4 million). Similarly, in La Quinta Corp. v. Heartland Properties LLC, 603 F.3d 327, 343 

(6th Cir. 2010), the award of royalties was limited by the parties’ license agreement, affording no 

prospect of recompense for the plaintiff’s lost “ability to control its brand image.” By contrast, 

Apple’s expert expressly disclaimed any evidence that Samsung’s conduct actually harmed 

Apple’s brand or caused any other loss to Apple, RT 1534:14-17; 1534:22-1535:11, and his posttrial 

declaration identifies harm merely “[a]s a conceptual matter” at best. Dkt. 1986, 8. 

22 As discussed in Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, the record does not show 

that Samsung had actual notice of Apple’s trade dress or selected its designs in order to willfully 

trade on its goodwill. See Dkt. 2013 at 15-16, 23-25. Because willfulness is prerequisite to any 

recovery for dilution under Section 1117(a), enhancement requires a heightened showing of 

willfulness—otherwise, there would be no distinction between the proof required to award regular 

damages and that required to enhance them. Samsung has already submitted, and respectfully 

reiterates, that requisite proof of willfulness is lacking. See id. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


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 

requested enhancements are calibrated to accomplish that purpose. Apple’s new expert, Ms. 

Robinson, opines that, but for Samsung’s unlawful conduct, Apple would have sold 2.1 million 

additional units, but neither Apple nor Ms. Robinson attempts to show that these units were not 

already accounted for in the jury’s verdict awarding damages for the 13.9 million units that 

Robinson says Samsung would not have sold absent the infringement or dilution. Just as Mr. 

Musika acknowledged the need to ensure against any double counting (RT 2048:21-2050:15), the 

Lanham Act bars “double recovery” of “both plaintiff’s lost profits and disgorgement of 

defendant’s profits” on the same sale. Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Dragon Pac. Int’l, 40 F.3d 1007, 

1010 (9th Cir. 1994). Yet Apple’s new expert does not even attempt to account for this problem. 

In addition, Ms. Robinson’s request for additional lost profits further compounds the flaws 

identified in Samsung’s Rule 50 motion. Dkt. 1990-3 at 20-25. First, Ms. Robinson arrived at 

her calculations using IDC market-share data that includes all Samsung smartphones, without 

attempting to identify what percentage of Samsung’s increased market share is attributable 

specifically to the diluting products. Robinson Decl. at 27. Second, Ms. Robinson simply 

assumes that, but for the diluting phones, Samsung’s market share would have remained at 5%, 

without addressing—much less denying—that non-infringing products could predictably make 

their own contributions to Samsung’s increase in market share. Compare id. at 26 with, e.g., 

Dkt. 1931 at 5-7, 10-11 (products found non-infringing). Third, Ms. Robinson calculates that 

Apple would have made an additional 2.1 million sales based on the quantity sold of all 

“infringing and diluting” products, not just the diluting phones, see Robinson Decl. at 27, but 

fails to explain why lost sales caused by other products—including 11 products explicitly found 

not to dilute Apple trade dress—should support Lanham Act enhancement for these five. 

Finally, Ms. Robinson ignores key factors that Mr. Musika recognized as critical to proper 

analysis. She does not account for constraints on Apple’s capacity to make additional sales. Cf. 

RT 2085:10-2086:3. Her Mor-Flo analysis does not account for consumer’s carrier preferences 

and the unavailability of Apple’s products through numerous carriers during the relevant time 

27 

period. 

Cf. RT 2096:24-2097:5; 2123:5-18. Nor does she heed Federal Circuit precedent 

28 

requiring that she account for the possibility of design-arounds. Cf. RT 2123:17-24; PX25.2 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(limiting lost-profits analysis to 8 months). 23 

As numerous courts and commentators have observed, proper application of the Lanham 

Act “becomes complicated when the concept of blurring is applied to competing similar products.” 

I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27, 49 (1st Cir. 1998); 4 McCarthy on Trademarks 

and Unfair Competition § 24:102 (4th ed.) (noting complications “if antidilution law was applied 

to give exclusive rights to a product shape”). Contrary to Apple’s assertion that its alleged injury 

“is exactly why Congress authorized judicial enhancement for trade dress dilution,” see Dkt. 1982- 

1 at 26, there is “doubt that Congress intended the reach of the dilution concept under the FTDA to 

extend this far . . .” I.P. Lund, 163 F.3d at 50. Product design is particularly far removed from 

the purpose of anti-dilution laws, especially where a direct competitor allegedly diluted without 

creating likelihood of confusion. Id. at 48. To enhance a monetary award for trade-dress 

dilution of such magnitude and novelty, atop a parallel monetary award for design-patent 

infringement, based on little more than pure speculation, would exceed anything Congress 

contemplated in Section 1125(c). 

C. Apple Is Not Entitled To Enhancement Based On Utility Patent Infringement 

Although Apple claims some $68 million as the baseline for potential utility patent 

enhancement, most of this consists of the $57,867,383 that the jury awarded specifically for the 

Galaxy Prevail, which represents Samsung’s profits and is not subject to enhancement. Of the 

jury’s award for the products found to infringe only utility patents, $10,013,200 might arguably be 

subject to enhancement under Section 284—$9,180,124 of which represents Apple’s royalties for 

the Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform, and $833,076 of which 

represents the award for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi). See Dkt. 1931 at 16. Samsung has 

already noted the absence of record support for finding willfulness that is prerequisite to any 

23 In an effort to find some alternative basis for its request, Apple conjures other amounts totaling 

$400 million. Mot. at 26-27. For example, $400 million represents 40% of Mr. Denison’s 

estimation of STA’s total annual advertising budget; and $400 million roughly approximates 

Apple’s advertising expenditures over four arbitrarily chosen years. Neither fact has anything to 

do with the proper measure of any allegedly uncompensated harm to Apple, nor does Apple’s 

reference to Samsung’s gross profits and revenues—across all Samsung subsidiaries and all 

Samsung products, many of which are not in any way implicated here. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

enhancement. See Dkt 1988 at 8-10; Dkt. 1990-3 at 15-16. This includes a threshold showing 

that Samsung’s infringement was objectively willful, In re Seagate Techs., LLC., 497 F.3d 1360, 

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007), a demanding standard that excludes instances where “a ‘reasonable litigant 

could realistically expect’ [its] defenses to succeed.” Bard Peripheral Vascular v. WL Gore & 

Associates, 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see iLOR LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, Apple fails to show that Samsung’s defenses to Apple’s patents, 

particularly as to the utility patents’ likely invalidity, were unreasonable. 

Moreover, because Section 284 speaks in discretionary terms, finding willfulness is 

necessary but not sufficient to enhance. See Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Medical Device Alliance, Inc., 

244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826 (Fed Cir. 

1992) (finding of willfulness “does not mandate that damages be enhanced, much less mandate 

treble damages.”); Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group. Inc., 917 F.2d 538, 543 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, courts frequently deny enhancement despite finding willfulness. See, e.g., Funai 

Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d 616 F.3d 

1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Brooktree Corp. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1581-82 (Fed. 

Cir. 1992); Modine Mfg, 917 F.2d at 543. The “paramount determination” is the “egregiousness 

of the defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances.” Read, 970 F.2d at 826. 

Supposed Evidence of Copying. Apple’s purported evidence of deliberate copying 

amounts to far less than it claims. See Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc., 689 F. 

Supp. 2d 858, 863-64. (E.D. Tex. 2010) (evidence supporting strong inference of copying still did 

not demonstrate deliberate copying under Read); Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 704 F. 

Supp. 2d 470 (W.D. Pa. 2010); Hako-Med USA, Inc. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 2009 WL 

3064800, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2009). Most of the documents cited by Apple show 

comparative analysis or benchmarking of competitor products that is typical of all companies, 

including Apple. See, e.g., DX687; DX717. Certain documents, like PX34, are not even from 

the business unit that designs and develops Samsung’s products; rather, they come from the 

division that manufactures components for Apple, and merely identify iPhone-related issues that 

may affect manufacturing trends. And much of what Apple cites as evidence of alleged copying 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

relates to Apple’s hardware and GUI design patents (Mot. at 16-17 (citing PX3, PX6, PX40, RT 

2530:10-2531)); awards relating to these patents are not subject to enhancement. Finally, to the 

extent design-related documents may be relevant, whereas the jury was not permitted to consider 

evidence that Samsung’s smartphone designs date back to 2006, before the iPhone’s 

announcement and release (Dkt. 1970 at 11-18 (detailing Samsung’s prior smartphone 

development efforts); Dkt. 1970-26 (Samsung’s Korean Patent No. 30-0452985, covering 

independently developed designs)), the Court should account for these documents as undermining 

the copying allegations. See Advanced Cardiovascular Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 

1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Judkins, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 483. 

Absence of Notice/Bad Faith. With the possible exception of the ‘381 patent, Samsung 

did not receive any specific notice of the patents and accused products before Apple filed suit. 

PX52; RT 1964:20-1968:11 (Mr. Teksler admitting that other utility and design patents and trade 

dress were not identified or mentioned in Apple’s 2010 presentation to Samsung). Even as to the 

‘381 patent, the parties’ first meeting took place months—–not years–—before suit was initiated. 

These facts differentiate this case from those enhancing damages against infringers who were 

“repeatedly notified that their products infringed on Plaintiff’s patents” but “continued to engage 

in their tortious conduct over the course of a number of years.” Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated 

Network Solutions, Inc., 2009 WL 113771, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 

Apple is wrong to accuse Samsung of litigation misconduct as a basis for enhancement. 

Mot. at 19-22. The alleged copying documents Apple cites did not correlate with the patents and 

features at issue here, and were produced beginning in December 2011 and all turned over before 

discovery closed. See Dkt. 1992 at 7. Apple’s argument that Samsung was sanctioned ignores 

this Court’s finding that “discovery sanctions are litigation related conduct, which does not serve 

as the main basis for a willful infringement finding.” Dkt. 1267 at 5. Apple also ignores that 

Judge Grewal made no finding that Samsung acted in bad faith, and in two instances expressly 

found that Apple failed to show bad faith. Dkt. 880 at 15; Dkt. 898 at 6. Prior imposition of 

sanctions, unadorned by any finding of bad faith, should not be “double counted” as grounds for 

still more and harsher sanctions. See Funai, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 1115; Mass Engineered Design, 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Inc. v. Ergotron, 663 F. Supp. 2d 361, 391-92 (E.D. Tex. 2009). Similarly, in relying on 

Samsung’s release of excluded evidence, Apple ignores that (i) the Court has already denied 

Apple’s motion for sanctions based on this very conduct (RT 574:4-9); (ii) the Court polled the 

jurors and concluded that the publication of evidence had no effect (RT 578:10-590:16); and (iii) 

in all events, the evidence in question had previously been publicly filed and discussed at length in 

open court and resulting media coverage. Dkt. 1533. 24 

Apple also ignores the many instances where it was found to have delayed and obstructed 

Samsung’s discovery, necessitating multiple successful motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 233, 292, 

398, 536, 673 at 15-23, 821), motions to enforce (Dkt. Nos. 673 at 23-28, 867, 1213), and motions 

for sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 1144, 1213). Kowalski, 2009 WL 855976, at *2 (factor is neutral where 

both parties were responsible for impeding discovery). Indeed, this Court on multiple occasions 

criticized Apple for litigation misconduct. See, e.g., Dkt 404, Tr. 63:13-22 (Court criticizing 

Apple counsel’s instructions to witnesses during depositions); Dkt. 1164, Tr. 145:7-146:15; 147:4- 

20 (expressing frustration with Apple’s refusal to schedule depositions requested by Samsung); 

148:3-10 (expressing frustration at how Apple “stiffed [Samsung] on transcripts”)). In addition, 

Apple obstructed discovery by 

17 

18 

19 

See Pierce Decl. Exs. 22-44; Dkt. 2042 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

at 3, n.1. 

Samsung’s Finances Do Not Warrant Enhancement. While a company’s finances can 

be mitigating to avoid crippling its business, the opposite is not true. Power Integrations, Inc. v. 

Fairchild Semiconductor Inc., 762 F. Supp. 2d 710, 722 (D. Del. 2011) (citing cases). 

24 

Samsung Had Reasonable Defenses. This Court repeatedly noted that neither party was 

As to witness lists, the Court ordered both parties, not just Samsung, to reduce the number of 

witnesses on their respective lists to 50 live witnesses and 45 deposition designations. Dkt. 1267 

at 2; Dkt. 1272 (July 18 Tr.) at 18:13-23 (describing both parties’ lists as “not realistic”). Nor 

was Samsung’s Appendix to its revised witness list improper. The document’s title makes clear 

that it was intended simply to preserve appellate recourse. Dkt. 1278 at 20. 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

assured of victory and both faced exposure. See RT 2660:25-2661:15 (Court noting there were 

“risks here for both sides”). This Court similarly recognized that Samsung’s infringement of the 

D’087 and D’677 patents was a “close question.” Dkt. 452, at 26, 27, 37, 38. The jury found 

that a claimed Apple trade dress was not protectable, two of Apple’s four asserted trade dresses 

were not diluted or infringed, the D’889 patent was not infringed; and the majority of accused 

Samsung products did not infringe the D’087. Dkt. 1931 at 6, 7, 10. The persistence of 

substantial questions of validity, infringement and enforceability through trial indicates closeness 

that weighs against enhancement. See Judkins, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 481; Telecordia v. Cisco, 592 

F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009). Nor do the jury’s ultimate findings of infringement make 

Samsung’s defenses unreasonable. See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 

Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The mere fact that the jury ultimately found 

equivalence does not diminish the difficulty of their task . . . .”); Spine Solutions v. Medtronic 

Sofamor Danek USA, 620 F.3d 1305, 1319-20 (granting JMOL of no willfulness based on a 

“reasonable” obviousness defense, despite “substantial evidence to support the jury’s implicit 

finding” of nonobviousness). 

16 

The Duration Of Infringement Does Not Support Enhancement. 

Apple argues that 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Samsung has been infringing for “more than two years since being notified of its infringement” 

(Mot. at 22), but that claim is based solely on the ‘381 patent, which was first presented some 

months (August 2010), not years, before suit was filed. PX 52.14. And as Apple is aware, 

Samsung has long since designed around the ‘381 and ‘163 patents. Apple’s other patents were 

not asserted until this litigation began in April 2011. Moreover, Apple did not accuse the Galaxy 

SII devices of infringing Apple’s design patents until March 4, 2012. See Dkt. 1185-3, at 10-13. 

Samsung’s Intent and Remedial Action Weigh Against Enhancement. Samsung will by 

the time of the hearing have either designed around or discontinued the products found to infringe. 

Prior to the verdict, Samsung believed in good faith that Apple’s patents were invalid and not 

26 

infringed. 

See Kowalski, 2009 WL 855976, at *3. Only a specific intent to harm Apple, 

27 

28 

beyond simply gaining market share through vigorous competition, would support enhancement. 

See Power Integrations, 762 F. Supp. 2d at 724; Baden Sports, Inc. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten, 

02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

2007 WL 2790777 (W.D. Wash. 2007), at *5. This requires showing that Samsung had a 

“specific intent to steal” from Apple as opposed to a “sincere belief” in “a legitimate argument that 

[it] was acting lawfully.” Mass Engineered, 633 F. Supp. 2d at 391. Yet the documents Apple 

cites show nothing more than robust competition or, as even Apple puts it, desire to “go head to 

head with Apple in [the smartphone] market.” Mot. at 23. 

6 

Samsung Has Not Attempted To Conceal Misconduct. 

Apple’s claim that Samsung 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

attempted to conceal its misconduct does not square with its repeated claims that Samsung has 

“flooded the market” with “millions” of copycat products. Mot. at 13, 25. Moreover, Samsung 

obtained its own smartphone and tablet-design patents in full public view, citing certain Apple 

patents in applying for its design patents and obtaining patents over them. Dkt. 1970 at 8-10. 

Whatever Apple’s complaints about Samsung’s conduct, that conduct was anything but concealed. 

In sum, the Read factors, if reached, weigh against any enhancement as to the $10,013,200 

that is even arguably eligible for enhancement under the Patent Act. And the remaining 

$91,132,279 of the award that Apple might try to spotlight as an eligible baseline for 

enhancement, specifically under the Lanham Act, is of a piece—either insusceptible to or else 

undeserving of any enhancement for the reasons stated above. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DATED: October 19, 2012 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN, LLP 

By /s/ Susan R. Estrich 

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Kathleen M. Sullivan 

Kevin P.B. Johnson 

Victoria F. Maroulis 

Susan R. Estrich 

Michael T. Zeller 

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., 

LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., and SAMSUNG 


02198.51855/5003337.14 



ENHANCEMENT

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054-1 Filed10/19/12 Page1 of 37 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 







Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


vs. 








Defendants. 


DECLARATION OF TÜLIN ERDEM IN 

SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION 

TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

HIGHLY PUBLIC CONFIDENTIAL- REDACTED 

ATTORNEYS’ VERSION EYES ONLY 

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 

DECLARATION OF TÜLIN ERDEM

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Highly Document2054-1 Confidential – Attorneys’ Filed10/19/12 Eyes Only Page2 of 37 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I, TÜLIN ERDEM, declare as follows: 

I. QUALIFICATIONS AND STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT 

A. Qualifications 

1. I am the Leonard N. Stern Professor of Business Administration and Professor of 

Marketing at the Stern School of Business, New York University. I previously served as the Co- 

Director of the Center for Digital Economy Research and the Director of the Stern Center for 

Measurable Marketing. 

2. Before joining the Stern School of Business in 2006, I was the E.T. Grether 

Professor of Business Administration and Marketing at the Haas School of Business, University of 

California at Berkeley. I joined the Haas School of Business in 1993 and served as the Associate 

Dean for Academic Affairs and the Marketing Group Chair, the Ph.D. Director at the Haas School 

of Business and the Chair of the campus-wide Committee on Research (COR) at the University of 

California, Berkeley. I was also the Berkeley representative at the University of California 

system-wide Committee on Research. 

3. I hold a BA from 

Business Administration, with a major in marketing and minors in economics and statistics, from 

the University of Alberta. My research interests include advertising, brand management and 

equity, consumer behavior and choice, decision-making under uncertainty, econometric modeling, 

marketing mix effectiveness, marketing research and pricing. I have published several papers in 

top field journals and have received best paper awards, as well as major research grants, including 

two major National Science Foundation (NSF) grants. 

4. I served as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Marketing Research, the preeminent 

academic journal of the American Marketing Association, which publishes work on consumer 

behavior, marketing science models, marketing strategy and marketing research methodologies. I 

also served as an Area Editor at Marketing Science and Associate Editor at Quantitative Marketing 

and Economics and the Journal of Consumer Research. I serve as an editorial board member of 

many scholarly journals, including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marketing Science, Marketing Letters and International Journal of Research in Marketing. I also 

was the President of the INFORMS Marketing Society (ISMS). 

5. As a professor, I have taught branding, brand and product management, marketing 

management and international marketing in undergraduate, MBA and executive education 

programs. I also have taught doctoral seminars on consumer choice modeling and empirical 

modeling. 

6. From 2008 to 2012, I was an Academic Partner at Prophet, a branding and 

marketing consultancy firm. 

7. A complete list of my publications, honors, awards and professional activities is 

provided in my CV, attached in Exhibit 1. 

B. Assignment 

8. I have been retained by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on behalf of 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung 

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) in this matter to provide this 

declaration and, if needed, testimony relating to Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) request for a permanent 

injunction that would exclude a number of Samsung smartphones and tablets from the U.S. market 

due, in part, to the alleged infringement of three utility patents owned by Apple. The three utility 

patents at issue in this proceeding are: (1) United States Patent No. 7,844,915 (“the ’915 patent”); 

(2) United States Patent No. 7,864,163 (“the ’163 patent”); and (3) United States Patent No. 

7,469,381 (“the ’381 patent”). 

9. My assignment is to explain, based on my expertise and the materials that I have 

reviewed, consumer decision-making in connection with the purchase of complex devices 

containing numerous, multi-level features/attributes (e.g., a smartphone or tablet). I will explain, 

based on my expertise and the materials I have reviewed, the kinds of features/attributes that drive 

consumer demand in the smartphone and tablet markets. Specifically, I have been asked to focus 

on whether the Apple utility patents at issue in its permanent injunction motion (the ‘915, the ‘163 

and the ‘381 patents) drive consumer demand for Samsung smartphones and tablets when 

compared to non-infringing alternatives to those patents. 




1 

10. Counsel has provided me with the descriptions/animations of Apple’s three utility 

 

patents used by Professor John R. Hauser in his conjoint analysis. 1 

Counsel also has provided me 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with a Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch device so that I can examine the design-arounds on the ‘381 and 

‘163 patents. Based on this and the other materials provided, I was asked to determine what 

conclusions I can reach regarding the likely effect (if any) on consumer decision-making of 

products being offered with the functionalities included in Prof. Hauser’s survey as opposed to the 

design-around functionalities. 

11. In connection with the assignment, I will assume that Prof. Hauser’s representation 

of the Apple patents in his survey is accurate (although I understand that Samsung disputes this). I 

will rely on the information and descriptions contained in the declarations of Mr. Stephen Gray 

and Dr. Andries van Dam as accurate reflections of Samsung’s preferred non-infringing 

alternatives. 

12. In preparing this report, I have reviewed documents produced by both Samsung and 

Apple, as well as the testimony of certain Apple witnesses. A list of materials that I relied upon in 

reaching my conclusions is provided in Exhibit 2. 

13. At any hearing on this motion, I expect to use exhibits in support of my testimony 

consisting of documents produced during discovery of this case, or excerpts or enlargements of 

them. I also expect to prepare and use demonstrative exhibits to help me to explain opinions that 

are contained in this declaration. In the event I am provided with additional relevant materials, I 

reserve the right to supplement this declaration with additional conclusions, bases, and/or 

supporting material. 

14. I am compensated at my standard rate of $900 per hour, plus expenses, for my 

work in this case. The opinions I express in no way are contingent on the compensation I will 

receive. 

 

 

II. 

OVERVIEW OF OPINION 

15. In forming my opinions, 

 

 

 

1 

Expert Report of John R. Hauser, March 22, 2012 (“Hauser Report”). 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. I have applied well-accepted and published theories and conceptual 

frameworks in marketing (such as conceptual frameworks of consumer 

decision-making). 

b. I have relied upon Apple and Samsung internal marketing research 

documents, other marketing materials produced in this case, as well as my 

own background research about the industry and industry reports, to apply 

these frameworks to the facts at issue in the case. 

16. Based on my expertise in consumer decision-making and choice, as well as the 

materials I reviewed, my opinions can be outlined as follows: 

i. Smartphones and tablets incorporate numerous features/attributes, each of 

which consists of many sub-features and/or contributing elements. 

 

ii. 

In making purchase decisions concerning smartphones and tablets, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consumers base their decisions on only a subset of all of the available 

features/attributes (rather than the set of all features/attributes and sub-features). 

The relevant set of determinative features/attributes and the manner in which they 

are weighed vary across consumers. In considering the purchase of a smartphone 

or tablet, consumers do not separately evaluate each sub-feature. 

iii. Apple’s utility patents at issue in its motion (the ‘915, the ‘163 and the ‘381 

patents) relate to three functionalities that are properly considered a subset (or “subfeature”) 

of a main feature/attribute of a smartphone or tablet. 

 

iv. 

The functionalities embodied in these three patents are not independently or 

 

 

separately considered in consumer purchase decisions and do not drive consumer 

demand for Samsung smartphones and tablets. 

 

iv. 

 

 

 

 

 

From the consumer’s perspective, the functionalities provided by designarounds 

that are available to Samsung for the functionalities embodied by the 

patents at issue perform the relevant functions in ways that are indiscernible or 

minimally discernible to the end consumer compared to the use of the patents at 

issue. Given that these three functionalities do not drive consumer demand, 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

III. 

different (and minor) variations of how these functionalities are offered (i.e., as 

implemented through available design-arounds) cannot be expected drive consumer 

demand either. 

PATENTS-AT-ISSUE 

A. ’915 Patent 

17. Issued on November 30, 2010, the ‘915 patent is entitled “Application 

 

Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations.” 2 

Based on my review of the Declaration of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Gray dated October 18, 2012, I understand that the ‘915 patent covers a specific 

technique for distinguishing between scrolling and zooming operations on a touchscreen device, 

and the technique requires a specific test to be performed in the Android software. For example, 

scrolling moves the content on the touchscreen the same direction the user moves her finger, and 

zooming makes the content smaller or larger depending on whether a user moves her fingers 

closer together or farther apart. It is my understanding that Apple has accused the Web Browser 

application in Samsung’s smartphones/tablets of infringement. 

18. It is my understanding that Samsung’s software has been modified to remove the 

specific test required by the ’915 patent. The design-around software uses a different technique to 

allow for scrolling and zooming operations. Although the software has been changed, I 

understand from the Gray Declaration that the user experience remains essentially the same. That 

is, a user will still be able to scroll with a single finger and zoom with two fingers using the 

design-around software. 

B. ’163 Patent 

19. Issued on January 4, 2011, the ‘163 patent is entitled, “Portable Electronic Device, 

Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Structured Electronic Documents.” 3 

20. Based on my review of the Gray Declaration, I understand that the ‘163 patent 

covers the following two steps. First, a user taps (or double taps) on a first box of content on a 

 

 

 

 

2 

3 

U.S. Patent 7,844,915. 

U.S. Patent 7,864,163. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

touchscreen (e.g., an article on the New York Times webpage). In response, the first box of 

content is enlarged and substantially centered on the touchscreen. Second, after the first box of 

content has been enlarged and centered, the user taps (or double taps) on a second box of content 

(e.g., a second article that appears below the first article on the New York Times webpage). In 

response, the second box of content is substantially centered on the touchscreen. It is my 

understanding that Apple has accused the Web Browser application in Samsung’s 

smartphones/tablets of infringement. 

21. I understand from the Gray Declaration that Samsung has implemented a designaround 

to avoid the practice of the ‘163 patent. Under the design-around, when a user single taps 

on the second box, nothing happens. If the user double taps on the second box, the entire webpage 

zooms out. In both cases, the second box is not substantially centered on the touchscreen as a 

result of the second tap/double tap. In preparing this declaration, I used a smartphone that 

included this design-around functionality. 

C. ’381 Patent 

22. Issued on December 23, 2008, the ‘381 patent is entitled, “List Scrolling and 

Document Translation, Scaling, and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display.” 4 

23. Based on my review of the Declaration of Andries van Dam dated October 18, 

2012, I understand that '381 patent claims a snap-back functionality where, if the user translates an 

electronic document beyond the edge of that document, an area beyond that edge will be 

displayed. When the user lifts her finger from the touch screen, the document will snap back, such 

that no area beyond the edge of the document remains in view. It is my understanding that Apple 

has accused the Gallery, Web Browser and Contacts applications in Samsung’s 

smartphones/tablets of infringement. 

24. I understand from the van Dam Declaration that the “blue glow” feature designs 

around the ‘381 patent. Under this design-around, when the user scrolls to the edge of a 

document, the document comes to a stop and a blue glow animation appears near the edge of the 

 

 

 

4 

U.S. Patent 7,469,381. 




1 

 

 

document. An area beyond the edge of the document never appears. When the user lifts her 

finger, the blue glow disappears. In preparing this declaration, I used a smartphone that included 

this design-around functionality. 

 

 

 

IV. 

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

A. Product Features, Attributes and Benefits 

25. Products can be conceptualized as bundles of attributes (alternately called features) 

 

that provide benefits or costs (such as price) to consumers. 5 

Benefits associated with those 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

attributes sought by consumers could be functional (e.g., acceleration in a car), 

emotional/experiential (e.g., how driving a certain brand of car can make the driver feel excited 

and exhilarated) and/or self-expressive/symbolic (e.g., one consumer may express her frugality or 

patriotism by owning a Saturn; another consumer may express her being hip and well-to-do by 

owning a BMW). 6 

26. Some attributes (such as quality) are vertically differentiated rather than being 

horizontally differentiated. Vertical attributes of products are ones that consumers would prefer 

more of, ceteris paribus (that is, keeping everything else constant). For example, keeping 

everything else including price constant, people would prefer higher quality over lower quality. 

This is not true for horizontally differentiated product attributes. Some people may prefer butter 

with popcorn, some may not; some may prefer one color over another. 7 

27. A “brand” is defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of 

them, which is intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to 

 

 

differentiate them from those of competitors.” 8 

Brand franchise 9 refers to consumer loyalty 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

Lancaster, Kelvin (1966), “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political 

Economy, 74, 132-157. 

6 

Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press. 

7 

Tirole, J. (1990). The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

8 

Kotler, Philip (1997). Marketing Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p.443. 

9 

Franchise also has a specific meaning in channels and distribution. It refers to the 

arrangement between a brand name manufacturer and a wholesaler or retailer that gives the 

wholesaler or retailer the exclusive right to sell the brand manufacturer's product in a specific 

territory. This arrangement is usually established by contractual agreement over a period of time. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

toward a brand. All the products sold under the same brand name, that is, products that share the 

same “umbrella brand,” 10 are part of a brand’s franchise since consumer loyalty is geared towards 

all the products under the same brand name. 

B. Consumer Decision Processes & Purchase Behavior 

28. Consumer decision processes in regard to consumer purchases or choices are 

typically conceptualized to have five steps: need arousal, information search, evaluation, purchase 

 

and post-purchase. 11 

Factors such as the degree of involvement, the type of product, and past 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

experience affect whether certain steps are skipped or how important each step is in the 

decision-making process. To give an extreme example, in impulse purchases, a consumer may 

jump from need arousal to purchase. 

29. Consumers may use multiple information sources: individual marketing mix 

elements of a firm (e.g., advertising), brands, their own past experiences, word of mouth, 

salespeople, third-party information providers, etc. 

30. Consumers evaluate products to form perceptions about product attributes and 

benefits, as well as to formulate their preferences. Consumers develop perceptions about the 

levels of attributes, which are weighted according to their preferences (that is, importance weights 

attached to perceived attribute levels). For example, a consumer may attach a higher importance 

weight to the cavity-fighting attribute of a toothpaste than to the teeth whitening attribute. 

Likewise, some consumers may attach a high importance weight to (i.e., have a preference for) the 

“organic” attribute of food products, while other consumers may not. The evaluation of the choice 

alternative, or the utility consumers derive from that choice alternative, is the sum of these 

perceptions weighted by their relative importance (importance weights). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

For example, Gucci (e.g., hand bags, fashion eye glasses, watches), Dove (soap, 

moisturizer, liquid dishwashing detergent), and Oral-B (toothpaste, toothbrush, mouthwash, dental 

floss) are umbrella brands. See Erdem, Tülin (1998), “An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella 

Branding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3), 339-351. 

11 

Lilien, Gary L. Philip Kotler and K. Sridhar Moorthy (1992), Marketing Models, New 

Jersey: Prentice Hall. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31. Consumers face multiple decisions in the purchase process. Besides the general 

decisions of whether to buy, when to buy, and where to buy, there are also decisions such as how 

much to buy (in frequently purchased product categories), which platform to buy (Windows vs. 

Apple in PCs, or Apple IOS vs. Android in smartphones), and which features/attributes to consider 

in forming overall evaluations about options. As a practical matter, some of these decisions can be 

made simultaneously and others sequentially. 

32. Not all consumers approach purchase decisions in the same manner, and different 

consumers may follow different sequences in making purchase decisions. For example, a 

Samsung marketing research document indicates that 55 percent of Samsung consumers and 35 

percent of Apple consumers select the wireless service provider first and the mobile phone model 

second, while 32 percent of Samsung consumers and 24 percent of Apple consumers select the 

provider and phone simultaneously, and the remaining select the phone first and the provider 

second. 12 

33. In practice, consumers facing complex decision tasks often use heuristics to save on 

 

costs of thinking (information processing costs). 13 

For example, if there are many choices to 

 

 

 

 

 

consider, they may first eliminate options using disjunctive rules (e.g., to exclude from 

consideration any tablet that costs more than $300). Furthermore, if a product has multiple 

features/attributes, consumers may focus only on a subset of features/attributes to evaluate and 

compare options, and research has shown that consumers may consider a smaller subset of options 

when the number of choices increases. For example, in one leading article, Payne (1976) asked 

 

his subjects to choose among two, six or twelve hypothetical apartments. 14 

Information was 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

available about each apartment with respect to either four, eight or twelve features/attributes of the 

apartments such as rent, cleanliness, landlord attitude, noise level, etc. As the number of 

12 

“Attitudes and Usage of Smartphone owners,” Hall & Partners (SAMNDCA00252685- 

775, at 760). 

13 

Shugan, Steven (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 

7(2), 99-111. 

14 

Payne, J.W. (1976), ”Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision-Making: An 

Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 

16, 366-387. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alternatives and/or the number of features/attributes increased, the subjects were progressively less 

thorough in their inspections. Payne’s results illustrate a commonly observed characteristic of 

representation and evaluation of alternatives. They appear to include remarkably few of the 

alternatives’ aspects and features/attributes. One explanation of this phenomenon is that people 

have limited cognitive capacity, and the use of heuristics and selective consideration of 

features/attributes simplifies decision-making processes. 15 

V. ANALYSIS OF SMARTPHONE AND TABLET PURCHASE DECISION-MAKING 

34. Both smartphones and tablets are used in different contexts such as text messaging, 

e-mailing, viewing/editing documents, and listening to music. For example, the Yankee Group 

Samsung Strategy Session document 16 identified “key” usage contexts for smartphones to be: 

performing banking transactions, transferring money to friends or family, receiving or redeeming 

coupons, mobile internet shopping, downloading graphics/logos/wallpapers, downloading ring 

backs, downloading ring tones, receiving text alerts, posting/uploading photos to web, accessing 

online community or social networking, locating points of interest, obtaining driving directions 

(Location-based/GPS services), accessing and browsing of the internet, watching live TV, 

watching video clips, listening to downloaded or sideloaded music, listening to streaming music, 

downloading music, playing games, downloading games, taking pictures, participating/voting in 

contests or polls, using “push to talk” (walkie talkie), instant messaging, accessing e-mail, video 

messaging, picture messaging/MMS and text messaging/SMS. 

35. Similarly, there are many activities corresponding to different usage contexts in 

tablets, including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 

16 

Yates, Frank, J. (1990). Judgment and Decision-Making. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Yankee Group Samsung Strategy Session (SAMNDCA00250503-557, at 519). 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36. Given the wide variety of uses, smartphones and tablets incorporate a very large set 

of features/attributes to deliver the benefits and functionalities consumers seek. 

A. Main Features/Attributes of Smartphones and Tablets 

37. Both Apple and Samsung internal documents identify many main 

features/attributes that may play a role in consumer decision-making concerning smartphones and 

tablets. 

38. With regard to smartphones, a recent iPhone Buyer Survey identified the following 

features/attributes that are considered by consumers when choosing an iPhone: 

. 17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 18 A Hall & Partners Study conducted for Samsung likewise 

lists many features/attributes, each with multiple levels or sub-features such as voice features 

(including speakerphone, voice dialing, memo), digital photography capabilities (including digital 

camcorder, live TV, video call, video share...), MP3 player functionality (including direct 

download, sideload), text messaging options (including multimedia, IM, Voice, T9 function), and 

many others. 19 

39. Similarly, many features/attributes contribute to consumer purchase decisions for 

tablets. According to Apple’s iPad Tracking Study, the list of top features/attributes prompting 

acquisition of tablets in the US include 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 


775, at 719-746). 

20 

“Q1 FY11 iPad Tracking Study” (APLNDC-Y0000023730-907, at 816). 




1 

Another Apple document reported that 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Defining and Identifying Main Features/Attributes 

40. The identification and definition of the full set of features/attributes for 

smartphones and tablets are subject to some degree of ambiguity and subjectivity, because there is 

no objective or universal set of features/attributes against which all smartphones and tablets are 

evaluated. Given the ambiguities inherent in delineating relevant features/attributes, it can be 

difficult to even provide a comprehensive list of features/attributes considered by consumers in 

making purchase decisions. 

41. Thus, even if one could compile a comprehensive list of features/attributes, it is 

likely that the various features/attribute descriptions would be ambiguous and have different 

meanings to different individuals or in different contexts. For example, the term “ease of use” 

refers to the ease of use associated with keyboard and buttons in some documents, 23 and the ease 

 

 

of use associated with Internet features in others. 24 

likely have ambiguities. 

As a result, even a comprehensive list will 

 

 

 

 

 

42. A further complication in evaluating the importance of specific features/attributes 

to consumer decision-making concerning smartphones and tablets is the fact that the complexity 

and sheer number of features/attributes incorporated into smartphones and tablets mean it is not 

uncommon for consumers to not even know whether they have a certain feature/attribute. For 

example, the same smartphone survey conducted for Samsung referenced above notes that 30 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 


775, at 750). 

24 

“2009 Wireless Consumer Smartphone Satisfaction Study Volume 1,” J.D. Power and 

Associates (SAMNDCA00190144-243, at 195). 




1 

percent of consumers surveyed did not know if their smartphone had a T9 function (a type of 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

predictive texting). 25 2. Main Features/Attributes Consist of Many Sub-Features and 

Functionalities 

43. One of the main reasons that defining and characterizing the main 

features/attributes of smartphones and tablets are difficult stems from the fact that each main 

feature/attribute is really a combination of multiple sub-features and capabilities. 

44. For example, Apple’s iPhone Product Marketing Manager Steven Sinclair testified 

at his deposition that “[t]here are a lot of features that contribute to ease of use, and if not done 

correctly, those features can detract from ease of use;” 26 “I don’t believe we’ve broken down 

features in a way that tie directly to ease of use;” 27 and “All of the features contribute to ease of 

use.” 28 45. 

Due to these circumstances, companies selling complex devices such as 

smartphones and tablets use general descriptions to refer to groups of features/attributes, and the 

combination of sub-features therein, in most of their consumer research. Apple, for example, uses 

the following as descriptions of groups of attributes in its surveys and research of consumer 

preferences for iPhone attributes: easy to use, service and support, (Trust) Apple brand, quality of 

apps, battery life, value for price paid, quantity of apps, attractive appearance and design, ability to 

sync iPhone content, camera with LED flash, retina display, HD video recording and FaceTime 

video calling. 29 

46. Consequently, the consumer research available from Apple and Samsung has been 

conducted in such a manner that it will rarely (if ever) be possible to link a specific patent of the 

types at issue here to a feature/attribute contained in their consumer research, especially in a 

25 


775, at 729). 

26 

Deposition of Steven Sinclair, April 4, 2012 (“Sinclair Deposition”), at p. 59. 

27 

Sinclair Deposition, at p. 47. 

28 

Sinclair Deposition, at p. 52. 

29 

“iPhone Buyer Survey Q3 FY11” (APLNDC-Y0000027506-599, at 523). 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

manner that would reasonably permit one to conclude that the patent was having an impact on 

consumer demand. 

B. Consumers Do Not Consider All Main Features/Attributes in Making 

Purchase Decisions 

47. Academic literature recognizes that in complex decision environments consumers’ 

focus on a limited set of attributes for comparative purposes when making purchase decisions. 

For example, consumers cannot take into consideration all features/attributes when they are so 

numerous, as they are in smartphones and tablets (as described above). 

48. Given the many features/attributes of smartphones and tablets, main purchase 

drivers are often centered on main benefit groups. For example, Apple internal consumer research 

suggests that the reasons for purchasing an iPhone are focused on 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49. Apple’s documents reflect Apple’s recognition that consumers ignore the majority 

of features/attributes. Indeed, Apple’s surveys do not even test a majority of them. For example, 

when comparing consumer preferences for different attributes of the iPhone 4, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Nor should they be mentioned because, as discussed 

above (and as implicitly recognized by Apple’s market research), they will have no impact on 

consumer decision-making. 

 

 

 

 

 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50. Surveys also reflect that there are differences in importance weights (preferences 

for) attached to features/attributes among different phone users. For example, one Samsung 

survey notes that iPhone owners put more importance on the brand of the smartphone than owners 

of other brands of smartphones. 33 

C. Consumers Do Not Base Purchase Decisions on Functionalities 

Associated with the Patents at Issue 

51. The utility functions covered by the ‘915, the ‘163 and the ‘381 patents are very 

specific and do not belong to the main set of features/attributes that I describe above as driving 

consumer decision-making. They may be a part of a main feature/attribute such as “ease of use,” 

along with numerous other sub-features, but there are simply too many sub-features in these 

complex devices for consumers to evaluate each one separately and consider them as a factor in 

their decision-making. 

52. The Apple and Samsung internal materials I have reviewed do not attempt to 

directly study the effect of such narrowly defined utility functions on consumer choice (and, 

hence, demand). I have reviewed the conjoint study conducted by Apple’s expert witness Dr. 

Hauser, which purports to be directed at the functions at issue here. I understand that Samsung 

retained Dr. Yoram (“Jerry”) Wind to comment specifically on the conjoint study conducted by 

Dr. Hauser. I have reviewed Dr. Wind’s declaration. I do not believe that Dr. Hauser’s reported 

results accurately reflect consumer decision-making in the selection of smartphones or tablets. 

53. I understand that Apple’s expert witness Terry Musika cited the “Browser Zooming 

Methods UX Exploration Study” 34 as evidence of the importance of the features embodied by the 

‘915, ‘163 and ‘381 user interface patents (which are only a few of the many sub-features of 

features or attributes like ease of use or touchscreen). 35 

However, Mr. Musika’s reliance on this 

evidence is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, this document is only even arguably relevant 

33 


775, at 760). 

34 

PX38 (“Browser Zooming Methods UX Exploration Study”, April 17, 2009, 

SAMNDCA11104115-139 at 133). 

35 

Declaration of Terry Musika in Support of Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction, 

August 29, 2012. 




1 

 

 

to the ‘163 patent—it does not relate to the other two patents. Second, these were very small 

sample size studies (e.g., 8 out of 9 respondents preferred the double-tap zooming). Third, the 

Browser Zooming Methods UX Exploration Study explicitly noted that the data and 

 

interpretations were qualitative and no statistical analysis was done. 36 

“Impromptu” samples were 

 

used, and these samples were drawn from messaging device usability studies that did not 

 

correspond to mobile internet users. 37 

Fourth, there were no working prototypes (“[p]aper 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prototyping has limitation on expression of dynamic interaction of zooming concepts” 38 ). Finally, 

it is my understanding, based on the Gray Declaration, that the ‘163 patent is narrower than 

“double tap to zoom.” 

54. Mr. Musika also cited the 2010 “Behold3 Usability Evaluation Results Report” 

that found “iPhone: Generates fun for the user with a visual element that seems to bounce… 

Direction for improvement: Provide a fun visual effect when dragging a web page.” 39 This report 

identified 75 issues associated with different features/sub-features. This particular “visual fun 

element” was one of the 75+ issues noted. 40 

55. In his declaration, Mr. Musika refers to third-party reports that note a better 

browsing experience on the iPhone compared to Samsung. Mr. Musika, for example, quotes a 

Gravity Tank report saying that the iPhone is “sexy to use….[Consumers’] experience is almost 

cinematic. Fun. Gestures like two fingered pinch and flick add a game-like quality to 

interaction… Whimsical. Lists bounce, icons flitter….” 41 

56. “Having fun” while using a device could be one of the experiential attributes of a 

product (although none of the consumer studies looked at a “fun” attribute in smartphones). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 

PX38 (“Browser Zooming Methods UX Exploration Study,” April 17, 2009 

(SAMNDCA11104115-139, at 120). 

37 


(SAMNDCA11104115-139, at 120). 

38 


(SAMNDCA11104115-139, at 120). 

39 

PX46 (“Behold3 Usability Evaluation Results,” at SAMNDCA00508336-441, at 383). 

40 

41 

PX46 (“Behold3 Usability Evaluation Results,” at SAMNDCA00508336-441). 

Musika Declaration, at Exhibit 51. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, any such attribute, especially in categories that involve complex devices, is, for practical 

purposes, composed of so many dimensions that it is impossible to talk about the individual subdimensions 

of “Apple iPhone is fun” or “Apple is fun” or to meaningfully link any of the 

functionalities covered by the patents at issue to this experience. Apple may have a “fun” 

association with consumers due to many different influences, including advertising campaigns. 

57. In light of the foregoing, none of the evidence cited by Mr. Musika provides a 

meaningful link between the practice of the specific patents at issue and consumer purchase 

decisions. 

58. Based on all the materials I reviewed, I do not find any credible evidence that the 

Apple utility patents at issue here drive consumer demand for Samsung smartphones and tablets. 

Indeed, these patents do not even qualify to be a “feature/attribute” (such as “size/weight,” 

“connectivity,” etc.) upon which consumers evaluate these products in purchase decisions. These 

are only three of the innumerable sub-features that are associated with the broader attributes, such 

as ease of use or ease of navigation using a touchscreen, that market research tests. I conclude that 

consumers base their decisions on a subset of main features/attributes (rather than the set of all 

features and sub-features) in smartphone and tablet markets, and that the utility patents at issue in 

Apple’s permanent injunction motion (the ‘915, the ‘163 and the ‘381 patents) do not drive 

consumer demand for Samsung smartphones or tablets. 

D. Samsung Design-Around for the Patented Inventions Would Effectively 

Neutralize Any Demand Effects Relating to the Patents-at-Issue 

59. As explained above, smartphones and tablets have too many sub-features such as 

the ones embodied by the ‘915, ‘163 and ‘381 user interface patents for the functionality covered 

by these specific patents to be drivers of consumer demand. However, for purposes of discussion, 

let us assume that consumers are aware of and distinctly form perceptions of these three subfeatures. 

If these sub-features did significantly contribute to, for example, overall ease of use 

perceptions, we would expect to observe higher ratings of features/attributes such as ease of 

navigating the phone using touchscreen associated with Samsung phones accused of infringing 




1 

 

 

versus those that are not accused of infringing. Third-party research 42 shows that the ease of 

touchscreen navigation, as well as overall ease of use, was rated by consumers slightly better for 

Samsung Behold II, Moment and Instinct models, which were not accused of infringing, than for 

 

 

Epic 4G, which was accused of infringing the ’163, ’381 and ’915 patents. 43 

with the idea that these patents drive demand for the accused products. 

This is inconsistent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60. As described above, I have reviewed information regarding the design-arounds for 

the products accused of infringing the ’163, ’381 and ’915 patents. As part of my assignment, I 

was provided a Samsung Galaxy II Epic 4G Touch (Sprint) that allowed me to “experience” any 

potential differences between a Samsung smartphone with ’163 and ’381 design-around 

functionalities versus the functionalities depicted in the videos used by Dr. Hauser. I also own an 

iPhone 4S. 

61. Based on my review of the Gray and van Dam Declarations, I understand that the 

design-arounds are aimed to fulfill the functions performed by the utility patents at issue. In the 

case of the ’915 patent, I understand a user will still be able to scroll using a single finger and 

zoom using two fingers using the design-around software. In the case of the ’163 and ’381 

patents, the differences in user experience between the design-arounds (as described in paragraphs 

21 and 24, respectively) and the patented attributes are minor. I am unaware of any consumer 

studies aiming to measure consumer sentiments in regard to different ways of providing the same 

type of these functionalities, that is, “snap-back” vs. “blue glow” and “double tap to zoom (and 

center)” vs. “double tap to zoom out the whole page, without the second box being centered 

substantially.” However, as described above these three functionalities do not drive consumer 

demand; different variations of how these functionalities are offered cannot drive consumer 

demand either. 

42 

“2011 Wireless Smartphone Satisfaction Study,” J.D. Powers and Associates 

(SAMNDCA10246338-445 at 445). 

43 

The model that faired best among the eight listed in the study was the Vibrant. The 

Vibrant was accused of infringing all three patents at issue, but I understand that it was found not 

to infringe the ’163 patent at trial. It is worth noting that this model rated better on many nontouchscreen 

related features, too. 




1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

62. As I have previously described in paragraph 25 of this report, features/attributes 

offer benefits (or costs as in the case of price) to consumers. The patented functionalities and the 

Samsung design-arounds are geared towards providing consumers essentially the same benefits 

and similarly contribute to the overall user experience. Because the patents at issue (and their 

associated design-arounds) are a tiny set of all features/attributes that contribute to the benefit of a 

desirable user experience, whatever minor differences exist between them are highly unlikely to 

affect any consumer’s decision-making. 

 

 

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

 

 

Executed on October 19, 2012 at New York, New York. 

 

 

 

 

By 

Tülin Erdem 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




EDUCATION 

EXHIBIT 1 

CURRICULUM VITAE 

Tülin Erdem 

Leonard N. Stern Professor of Business and Professor of Marketing 

Leonard N. Stern School of Business 

New York University 

913 Tisch Hall, 40 West Fourth Street 

New York, New York 10012-1126 

Tel: 212 998 0404, Fax: 212 995 4006 

E-mail: terdem@stern.nyu.edu 

1993 Ph.D. Business Administration (major: Marketing), University of Alberta 

1989 ABD Economics, University of Alberta 

1987 M.A. Economics, University of Alberta 

1986 B.A. 

ACADEMIC POSITIONS 

2006-present Leonard N. Stern Professor of Business and Professor of Marketing 

Stern School of Business, New York University 

2003-2006 E.T. Grether Professor of Business Administration and Marketing 

Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley 

1998-2003 Associate Professor (with tenure) 


1993-1998 Assistant Professor 


1989-1993 Graduate Assistant 

Faculty of Business, University of Alberta 

1986-1989 Research/ Teaching Assistant 

Department of Economics, University of Alberta 

AWARDS, HONORS, GRANTS 

2008 Finalist, John D.C. Little Best Paper Award 

2007-8 Outstanding Reviewer Award, Journal of Marketing 

2003 Finalist, William O’Dell Best Paper Award 

1998-2002 National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, SBR-9812067, $ 178,000.00 

1998 AMA Doctoral Consortium Faculty Fellow (also in 2000, 2007-12) 

1998 Finalist, Paul Green Best Paper Award 

1996 Winner of John D.C. Little Best Paper Award 

1996 Winner of Frank M. Bass Best Dissertation Paper Award 

1995-7 National Science Foundation (NSF) grant SBR-9511280, $ 100,000.00


1994-5 Junior Faculty Research Grant, University of California, Berkeley 

1994 Regents' Junior Faculty Fellowship, University of California, Berkeley 

1993 Co-winner of the AMA John A. Howard Doctoral Dissertation Award 

1993 Recipient of the Gold Medal of the Governor General of Canada, awarded for 

academic excellence at the graduate level at Canadian Universities 

1992 AMA Doctoral Consortium Fellow 

1990-2 Domtar Ph.D. Fellowship, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta 

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES 

Affiliations: American Economic Association, American Marketing Association, 

Association for Consumer Research, Econometric Society, Institute for 

Operations Research and the Management Sciences, Minnesota Supercomputer 

Institute 

Advisory Council: Journal of Marketing Research (2012-present) 

Editor-in-Chief: Journal of Marketing Research (2009-2012) 

Area Editor: Marketing Science (2002-2009) 

Associate Editor: Quantitative Marketing and Economics (2003-present) 

Associate Editor: Journal of Consumer Research (2005-2009) 

Editorial Board Member: Academy of Marketing Science (2006-present), International 

Journal of Research in Marketing (1996-present), Journal of Consumer Research 

(2011-present), Journal of Marketing (2003-present), Journal of Marketing 

Research (1998-2009), Marketing Letters (1996-present), Marketing Science 

(1997-2009) 

Ad-hoc Reviewer: ACR, AMA John A. Howard Doctoral Dissertation, American 

Economic Review, Association for Consumer Research, California Management 

Review, International Economic Review, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 

Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Econometrics, Journal of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal 

of Retailing and Consumer Services, OMEGA, Management Science, Marketing 

Science Institute, NSF, Psychometrica, Review of Economics and Statistics 

President-Elect: ISMS, INFORMS Society of Marketing Science (2004, 2005) 

President: ISMS, INFORMS Society of Marketing Science (2006, 2007) 

Past-President: ISMS, INFORMS Society of Marketing Science (2008, 2009) 

2


RESEARCH 

Interests 

Conference Organizations: 

Co-Cahir, 2013 Marketing Science Conference 

Co-Chair, 2010 Marketing Dynamics Conference 

Co-Chair of Program Committee, Cheung Kong GSB Marketing Research 

Forum, Beijing China, June 2009 

Co-Chair, 2003 and 2008 QME (Quantitative Marketing and Economics) 

Conference 

Chair, Marketing Track, 2003 INFORMS International Meetings 

Co-Chair, 2001 Tri-Annual Invitational Choice Symposium 

Co-Chair, 1997 Marketing Science Conference 

Member of the Steering Committee, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 Tri-Annual 

Invitational Choice Symposium 

Member of Advisory Committee, 2011 Marketing Dynamics 

Conference 

Member of Program Committee, 2006 Marketing Dynamics 

Conference 

Member of Program Committee, 2004, 2005, 2009 QME (Quantitative 

Marketing and Economics) Conference 

Member of Program Committee, 2005 ACR (Association for Consumer 

Research) Conference 

Advertising and Pricing, Brand Equity, Branding Strategies, Econometric Modeling, 

Individual Decision-Making and Choice, Marketing Science Models of Consumer 

Behavior and Marketing Mix Strategy, Product Management and Strategy. 

Refereed Publications 

Erdem, Tülin and Sue Ryung Chang (2012), “A Cross-Category and Cross-Country 

Analysis of Umbrella Branding for National and Store Brands,” Special 40 th 

Anniversary issue of Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (1), 86-101. 

Shachar, Ron, Tülin Erdem, Gavan Fitzsimons, Keisha Wells (2011), “Brands: The 

Opiate of the Non-Religious Masses?“ Marketing Science 30, 92-110. 

Erdem, Tülin, Michael Katz and Baohong Sun (2010) “A Simple Test for Distinguishing 

between Internal Reference Price Theories,” Quantitative Marketing and 

Economics 8, 303-332. 

3


Yang, Sha, Yi Zhao, Tülin Erdem, Ying Zhao (2010), “Modeling the Intra-Household 

Behavioral Interaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 470-484. 

Ching, Andrew, Tülin Erdem and Michael Keane (2009), “The Price Consideration 

Model of Brand Choice,” Journal of Applied Econometrics 24, 3 (March-April), 

393-420. 

Erdem, Tülin, Michael Keane and Baohong Sun (2008), “A Dynamic Model of Brand 

Choice When Price and Advertising Signal Product Quality,” Marketing Science, 

27 (6), 1111-1125. (Finalist for the Little Best Paper award). 

Erdem, Tülin, Michael Keane and Baohong Sun (2008), “Advertising and Consumer 

Price Sensitivity in Experience Goods Markets,” Quantitative Marketing and 

Economics, 6 (2), 139-176. 

Bronnenberg, Bart, Jean Pierre Dubé, Carl Mela, Paulo Albuquerque, Tülin Erdem, 

Brett Gordon, Dominique Hanssens, Guenter Hitsch, Han Hong, Baohong Sun 

(2008), “Measuring Long Run Marketing Effects and their Implications for Long 

Run Marketing Decisions,” Marketing Letters, 19(3), 367-82. 

Swait, Joffre and Tülin Erdem (2007) “Characterizing Brand Effects on Choice Set 

Formation and Preference Discrimination under Uncertainty,” Marketing Science 

26 (5), 679-697. 

Chintagunta, Pradeep, Tülin Erdem, Peter Rossi and Michel Wedel (2006), “Structural 

Modeling In Marketing: Review and Assessment,” Marketing Science, 25 (6) 

604-616. 

Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait and Ana Valenzuela (2006), “Brands as Signals: A Cross- 

Country Validation Study,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 34-49. 

Erdem, Tülin, Kannan Srinivasan, Wilfred Amaldoss, Patrick Bajari, Hai Che, Teck 

Ho, Wes Hutchinson, Michael Katz, Michael Keane, Bob Meyer and Peter Reiss 

(2005), “Theory Driven Choice Models,” Marketing Letters, 16 (3), 225-237. 

Erdem, Tülin, Michael P. Keane, T. Sabri Öncü and Judi Strebel (2005), “Learning 

About Computers: An Analysis of Information Search and Technology Choice,” 

Quantitative Marketing and Economics 3 (3), 207-246. 

Strebel, Judi, Tülin Erdem and Joffre Swait (2004), “Consumer Search in High 

Technology Markets: Exploring the Use of Traditional Information Channels,” 

Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, 96-103. 

4


Erdem, Tülin and Joffre Swait (2004), “Brand Credibility and its Role in Brand 

Choice and Consideration,” Journal of Consumer Research 31 (1), 191-199. 

Erdem, Tülin, Ying Zhao and Ana Valenzuela (2004), “Performance of Store Brands: 

A Cross-Country Analysis of Consumer Store Brand Preferences, Perceptions and 

Risk,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (1), 86-100. 

Erdem, Tülin, Susumu Imai and Michael Keane (2003), “A Model of Consumer 

Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics under Price Uncertainty,” Quantitative 

Marketing and Economics, 1 (1), 5-64. (Lead article.) 

Erdem, Tülin and Baohong Sun (2002), “An Empirical Investigation of Spillover 

Effects of Marketing Mix Strategy in Umbrella Branding,” Journal of Marketing 

Research, 39 (4), 408-420. 

Swait, Joffre and Tülin Erdem (2002), “The Effects of Temporal Consistency of Sales 

Promotions and Availability on Consumer Choice Behavior,” Journal of 

Marketing Research, 34 (3), 304-320. 

Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait and Jordan Louviere (2002), “The Impact of Brand Credibility 

on Consumer Price Sensitivities across Multiple Product Categories,” 

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (1), 1-19 (lead article). 

Erdem, Tülin, Glenn Mayhew and Baohong Sun (2001), “Understanding the 

Reference Price Sensitive Shopper: A Within and Cross-Category Analysis,” 

Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (4), 445-457. 

Erdem, Tülin and Baohong Sun (2001), “Testing for Choice Dynamics in Panel 

Data,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19 (2), 142-152. 

Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait, Susan Broniarczyk, Dipankar Chakravarti, Jean-Noel 

Kapferer, Michael Keane, John Roberts, Jan-Benedict Steenkamp and Florian 

Zettelmeyer (1999), “Brand Equity, Consumer Learning and Choice,” Marketing 

Letters, 10 (3) 301-318. 

Erdem, Tülin and Russell Winer (1999), “Econometric Modeling of Competition: A 

Multi-Category Choice-Based Mapping Approach,” Journal of Econometrics, 

89, 159-175. 

Erdem, Tülin, Michael P. Keane and Baohong Sun (1999), “Missing Price and 

Coupon Availability Data in Scanner Panels: Correcting for the Self-Selection 

Bias in he Choice Model Parameters,” Journal of Econometrics, 89, 177-196. 

5


Erdem, Tülin (1998), “An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding,” Journal of 

Marketing Research, 35 (3), 339-351 (finalist for Paul Green best paper award). 

Erdem, Tülin and Joffre Swait (1998), “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon,” 

Journal of Consumer Psychology,7 (2), 131-157. 

Meyer, Bob, Tülin Erdem, Fred Feinberg, Itzhak Gilboa, Wes Hutchinson, Aradhna 

Krishna, Steve Lippman, Carl Mela, Amit Pazgal, Drazen Prelec and Joel Steckel 

(1997), “Dynamic Influences on Individual Choice Behavior,” Marketing 

Letters,8 (3), 349-360. 

Erdem, Tülin (1996), “A Dynamic Analysis of Market Structure based on Panel 

Data,” Marketing Science, 15 (4), 359-378. 

Erdem, Tülin and Michael P. Keane (1996), “Decision-Making under Uncertainty: 

Capturing Dynamic Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets,” 

Marketing Science, 15 (1), 1-20 (lead article). 

Finn, Adam and Tülin Erdem (1995), “Economic Impact of Tourists Visiting a Mega- 

Multi Mall,” Tourism Management, 16 (5), 367-373. 

Winer, Russell, Randolph E. Bucklin, John Deighton, Tülin Erdem, Peter Fader, J. 

Jeffrey Inman, Hotaka Katahira, Katherine N. Lemon and Andrew Mitchell 

(1994), “When Worlds Collide: The Implications of Panel Data-based Choice 

Models for Consumer Behavior,” Marketing Letters, 5 (4), 383-394. 

Swait, Joffre, Tülin Erdem, Jordan J. Louviere and Chris Dubelaar (1993), "The 

Equalization Price: A Measure of Consumer-perceived Brand Equity,” 

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (special issue on Brand 

Equity), 23-45. 

Other Publications 

Erdem, Tülin and Joffre Swait, “Branding and Brand Equity Models,” in The History of 

Marketing Science, eds. Scott Neslin and Russell Winer. Now Publishers Inc., 

forthcoming. 

Erdem, Tülin (2010), “State of the Journal”, Editorial in Journal of Marketing Research, 

47 (6), 997. 

Erdem, Tülin (2010), “Spanning the Boundaries”, Editorial in Journal of Marketing 

Research, 47 (1), 1-2. 

6


Erdem, Tülin and Joffre Swait (2010), “Utility-Based Models of Brand Equity,” in 

Brands and Brand Management: Contemporary Research, 207-229, eds. Rohini 

Ahluwalia, Mike Houston and Barbara Loken. Routledge, New York. 

Rangaswamy, Arvind, James J. Cochran, Tülin Erdem, John R. Hauser, Robert J. 

Meyer (2008), “Editor-in-Chief Search Committee Report: The Digital Future 

is Now,” Marketing Science, Editorial, 27,1, 1-3. 

Erdem, Tülin and Russell Winer (2002), “A Brief History of Choice Modeling in 

Marketing,” Marketing Letters, 13 (3), 157-162 (special issue based on the 5 th 

Invitational Choice Symposium, guest editors T. Erdem and R. Winer). 

Working Papers 

Cutright, Keisha, Tülin Erdem, Gavan Fitzsimmons and Ron Shachar (2012), 

“Finding Brands and Losing your Religion?” 

Ching, Andrew, Tülin Erdem and Michael Keane (2012), “Learning Models: An 

Assessment of Progress, Challenges and New Developments.” 

Che, Hai, Tülin Erdem and Sabri Öncü (2012), “Consumer Learning and 

Evolution of Consumer Brand Preferences.” 

Yang, Sha, Yi Zhao, Tülin Erdem and Daeyoung Koh (2012), "Modeling Consumer 

Choice with Dyadic Learning and Information Sharing: An Intra-household 

Analysis." 

Swait, Joffre, Tülin Erdem and Tom Peters (2011), “Shocks to Brand Equity: An 

Information Economics Perspective on the US Auto Industry 2006-2010.” 

Shacham, Rachel, Peter Golder and Tülin Erdem (2011), “A Cigarette, a Six Pack or 

Porn? The Complementarity of Vices.” 

Ching, Andrew, Tülin Erdem and Michael Keane (2010), “How Much Do Consumers 

Know About the Quality of Products? Evidence from the Diaper Market.” 

Erdem, Tülin , Joffre Swait and Ana Valenzuela (2010) “Economic Development and 

Brand Credibility.” 

Guo, Liang and Tülin Erdem (2005) “Measuring Usage Flexibility in Wireless Tariff 

Choice.” 

7


Invited Presentations 

Istanbul, Turkey, July 2012. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium and Marketing Science Conference, Boston, MA, 

June 2012. 

Research Seminar, School of Business, Rutgers, Newark, April 2012. 

Distinguished Speaker Series, Isenberg School of Management, UMASS, Amherst, 

March 2012. 

Distinguished Speaker Series, School of Business, George Washington University, 

March 2012. 

Marketing Workshop, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, 

November 2011. 

Marketing Workshop, Marshall School of Business, USC, August 2011. 

Keynote Speaker, Marketing Dynamics Conference, Jaipur, India, July 2011. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium and Marketing Science Conference, Houston, TX, 

June 2011. 

Research Seminar, Department of Economics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 

May, 2011. 

Marketing Workshop, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey, March 2011. 

Speaker Series, Carey School of Business, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, January 

2011. 

Marketing Workshop, School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, 


Marketing Workshop, School of Management, Yale University, November 2010. 

Marketing Speaker Series, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, October 2010. 

London Business School Marketing Research Camp, London, England, July 2010. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium and Marketing Science Conference, Cologne, Germany, 

June 2010. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, Texas Christian University, TX, June 2010 

Invitational Choice Symposium, hosted by University of Miami and University of 

Technology Sydney, May 2010. 

Marketing Workshop, Fordham University, NY, May 2010. 

Marketing Workshop, HBS, Boston, MA, March 2010. 

Marketing Workshop, Baruch College, NY, December 2009. 

Keynote Speaker, Marketing Dynamics Conference, NY, NY, August 2009. 

AMA Summer Educators’ Conference, Chicago, IL, August 2009. 

Marketing Workshop, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, July 2009. 

Cheung Kong GSB Marketing Research Forum, Beijing, China, June 2009. 

Marketing Science Conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, June 2009. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, June 2009. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium and Marketing Science Conference, University of Michigan, 

Ann Arbor, MI, June 2009. 

Marketing Workshop, University of Rochester, April 2009. 

Marketing Research Camp, Pennsylvania State University, April 2009. 

8


Advertising Research Foundation, Marketing Modelers’ Seminar Series, NY, NY, 

March 2009. 

AMA Winter Educators Conference, Tampa, Florida, February 2009. 

iversity Public Lecture Series, Istanbul, Turkey, December 2008. 

Bilkent Research Camp, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, June 2008. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium, University British Columbia, June 2008. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, University of Missouri, June 2008. 

Marketing Research Camp, Texas A&M University, April 2008. 

Marketing Workshop, Duke University, December 2007. 

Marketing Workshop, Columbia University, November 2007. 

5 th QME Conference, discussant, Chicago, IL, October 2007. 

ISMS Doctoral Consortium, Singapore Management University, Singapore, June 2007. 

Invitational Choice Symposium, hosted by Wharton School, May 2007/. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, May 2007. 

Advertising Research Foundation, Marketing Modelers’ Seminar Series, NY, NY, May 

2007. 

4-School Colloquium, Columbia, NYU, Wharton, Yale hosted by Wharton, April 2007. 

Marketing Research Camp, University of Pittsburgh, February 2007. 

Marketing Science Doctoral Consortium, University of Pittsburgh, June 2006. 

Marketing Workshop, University of California, Riverside, June 2006. 

Marketing Workshop, Yale University, New haven, December 2005. 

Distinguished Lectureship Series, University of Michigan, October 2005. 

Marketing Workshop, New York University, September 2005. 

Graduate School of Management Seminar, University, Istanbul, Turkey, July 

2005. 

Faculty of Business Administration Seminar, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey, July 

2005. 

Marketing Science Doctoral Consortium, Emory University, June 2005. 

Hightower Distinguished Lectureship Series, Emory University, December 2004. 

IO Workshop, Duke University, October 2004. 

ACR Doctoral Consortium, Portland, Oregon, October 2004. 

Marketing Science Doctoral Consortium, Erasmus University, Netherlands, June 2004. 

Invitational Choice Symposium, hosted by University of Colorado, June 

2004. 

Marketing Workshop, Stanford University, February 2004. 

Business School Seminar Series, San Francisco State University, October 2003. 

Marketing Science Doctoral Consortium, University of Maryland, June 2003. 

Marketing Workshop, Northwestern University, April 2003. 

Marketing Research Camp, Washington University, March 2003. 

Cowles Conference on Estimation of Dynamic Demand Models, Economics 

Department, Yale University, November 2002. 

ACR Doctoral Consortium, Atlanta, Georgia, October 2002. 

Marketing Workshop, Yale University, May 2002. 

Marketing Workshop, University of Colorado, April 2002. 

Marketing Workshop, Washington University, St. Louis, May 2001. 

9


Marketing Workshop, MIT, April 2001. 

Marketing Workshop, Harvard Business School, April 2001. 

Marketing Workshop, University of Houston, March 2001. 

AMA Summer Educators Conference Special Session on Brand Equity honoring 

David Aaker, Chicago, August 2000. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, University of Western Ontario, August 2000. 

Marketing Workshop, University of Toronto, March 2000. 

Marketing Workshop, University of California, Davis, December 1999. 

Econometrics in Tel Aviv, Dept. of Economics, Tel Aviv University, Israel, June 1999. 

Marketing Seminar Series, UC Irvine, March 1999. 

Marketing Seminar Series, Cornell University, February 1999. 

Marketing Research Camp, UCLA, January 1999. 

Marketing Seminar Series, University of Pennsylvania, December 1998. 

Marketing Seminar Series, New York University, December 1998. 

AMA Doctoral Consortium, University of Georgia, August 1998. 

Marketing Seminar Series, GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University, May 1998. 

CEDA (Committee on Economic Development of Australia) Conference on Building 

Brands in the Knowledge Economy, Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, 

September 1998. 

Invitational Symposium on Choice Modeling and Behavior, hosted by HEC, Jouy- en- 

Josas, France, July 1998. 

Marketing Workshop, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey, June 1998. 

Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Methods Summer Workshop, Koc University, 

Istanbul, Turkey, August 1997. 

Marketing Workshop, University of Texas at Dallas, May 1997. 

Marketing Workshop, MIT, April 1997. 

5th Annual Winter Research Retreat, University of Florida, March 1997. 

Invitational Symposium on Choice Modeling and Behavior, hosted by Columbia 

University, June 1996. 

Marketing Workshop, MIT, November 1995. 

Marketing Workshop, Ohio State University, May 1995. 

AMA Advanced Research Techniques Forum, Beaver Creek, Colorado, June 1994. 

Marketing Workshop, Stanford University, November 1993. 

Invitational Symposium on Choice Modeling and Behavior, hosted by Duke University, 

July 1993. 

Conference Presentations 

EIRASS Conference, Zagreb, Croatia, July 2008. 

Marketing Science Conference, UBC, Vancouver, Canada, June 2008. 

Marketing Science Conference, SMU, Singapore, June 2007. 

EIRASS Conference, Budapest, Hungry, July 2006. 

Marketing Science Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2006. 

Marketing Dynamics Conference, Sacramento, CA, September 2005 

Marketing Science Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 2005. 

10


TEACHING 

Interests 

Experience 

EIRASS Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, July 2004. 

Marketing Science Conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands, June 2004. 

Quantitative Marketing and Economics Conference, Chicago, IL, October 2003. 

EURO/INFORMS Joint International Meeting, Istanbul, Turkey, July 2003. 

Marketing Science Conference, Washington D.C., June 2003. 

AMA Advanced Research Techniques (ART) Forum, Monterey, CA, June 2003. 

Bayes Conference, Columbus, Ohio, November 2002. 

Marketing Science Conference, Edmonton, AB, Canada, June 2002. 

Marketing Science Conference, Wiesbaden, Germany, July 2001. 

EIRASS Conference, Sintra, Portugal, July 2000. 

Marketing Science Conference, LA, CA, June 2000. 

Marketing Science Conference, Syracuse, NY, May 1999. 

Marketing Science Conference, Fontainebleau, France, July 1998. 

INFORMS Fall Meetings, Dallas, Texas, October 1997. 

Association for Consumer Research Conference, Denver, CO, October 1997. 

Marketing Science Conference, Berkeley, CA, March 1997. 

Marketing Science Conference, Gainesville, FL, March 1996. 

INFORMS Spring Meetings, Los Angeles, CA, April 1995. 

Marketing Science Conference, Tucson, AZ, March 1994. 

Marketing Science Conference, St. Louis, MI, March 1993. 

Marketing Science Conference, London, England, July 1992. 

Marketing Science Conference, Delaware, March 1991. 

MSI Conference on Managing Brand Equity, Austin, TX, November 1990. 

Marketing Science Conference, Urbana, IL, March 1990. 

Brand Management and Strategy, Marketing Management, Marketing Planning, 

Marketing Strategy, Marketing Models 

Teaching: 

Undergraduate: Marketing Management, Branding, Brand Management and Strategy, 

Marketing Strategy and Planning, Economic Development and International Trade 

MBA: Marketing Concepts, Marketing Management, Branding/ Brand Management and 

Strategy 

Ph.D.: Empirical Modeling, Marketing Models, Choice Models, Individual Topics in 

Marketing 

Executive Education: Brand Equity, Brand Strategy, International Marketing, 

Marketing Management and Strategy 

11


Graduate and Post-Graduate Mentorship: 

Post-Doctoral Mentorship: 

Baohong Sun (1995-1997). Carnegie Mellon University. 

Chair of Ph.D. thesis committee: 

Sue Chang (2012) “Learning Dynamics in Product Relaunch,” University of 

Georgia. 

Rachel Shacham (2011) “Econometric Methods for Modeling the Difficult-to- 

Observe Phenomena,” University of Minnesota. 

Johanna Sussman Ilfeld (2004) “Investigating Social Learning Effects in the 

Consumer Choice of Health Care Plan Adoption.” Go-Strolling Inc. 

Judi Strebel (1997) “Modeling consumer choice processes for high-tech durable 

goods: An investigation of consumer learning under uncertainty.” 

University of Arizona, SFSU. 

Effectiveness 

Member of Ph.D. thesis committee: 

Marketing 

Wenbo Wang (2012), HKUST 

Mantian Hu (2012), Chinese University of Hong Kong 

Sherif Naser (2008), Washington University, St. Louis. 

sity of Chicago, University of Michigan. 

Liang Guo (2003), HKUST. 

Ying Zhao (2001), HKUST. 

Mark Stiving (1996), OSU. 

Other 

Mürüvvet Çelikbas (2002, Industrial Eng. and OR) 

Timothy Beatty (2001, Agricultural Economics) 

Craig Mohn (1999, Agricultural Economics) 

Panupol Lerssrisuriya (1998, Industrial Eng. and OR) 

Alan Cooke (1997, Psychology) 

Member of several Oral Examination Committees 

At Haas: Member of Club 6.0 (median 6.0 and above on a 7-point scale in regard to 

teaching effectiveness) in the majority of the courses taught during 1993-2006. 

12


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 

Stern School of Business 

2012-present Member of Promotion and Tenure Committee 

2008-2009 Director, Stern Center for Measurable Marketing 

2007-2008 Co-Director, Center for Digital Economy Research (CeDER) 

2007-2009 Member of MBA Core Curriculum Committee 

2007-2009 Member of Senior Faculty Review Committee 

2007-2008 Member of Ad Hoc Search Committee in Environmental Studies 

2006-2007 Research Director, Center for Digital Economy Research (CeDER) 

2006-2007 Member of Global Task Force 

Haas School of Business 

2005-2006 Ph.D. Program Director, Haas School of Business 

2005-2006 Chair, Committee on Research (Academic Senate Committee) 

2005-2006 Member of DIVCO (UC Berkeley Divisional Council) 

2004-2005 Member of UCORP (University Committee on Research Policy). 

UC system-wide committee, UC Berkeley Representative 

2004-2005 Vice-Chair, Committee on Research (Academic Senate Committee) 

2004-2005 Chair, Policy and Planning (P 2 ) Committee 

2003-2004 Member of Policy and Planning (P 2 ) Committee 

2003-2004 Member of Academic Affairs Advisory Council 

2003-2004 Chair, Marketing Group 

2002-2003 Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Faculty Chair 

2001-2004 Member of Haas School Hiring Committee 

2001-2004 Member of Committee on Research (Academic Senate Committee) 

2001-2002 Co-Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Chair of Haas School Hiring 

Committee 

2001-2002 Acting Chair, Marketing Group 

1999-2001 Member of Policy and Planning (P 2 ) Committee 

1999-2000 Member of Faculty and Ph.D. Computer Committee (FPCC) 

1999-2000 Member of Space Allocation Committee 

1996 Member of ad hoc Marketing Ph.D. Program Evaluation Committee 

13


CONSULTING AND LITIGATION EXPERIENCE 

 

Academic Partner of Prophet (2008-2012). Prophet is a Strategic Brand and Marketing 

Consultancy. 

Viacom International Inc., MTV Networks and Harmonix Music Systems Inc. v. 

Activision Inc., Activision Publishing Inc. and RedOctane Inc., before JAMS Arbitration 

Panel, JAMS Reference No.: 1220038389 (2008-9). Retained by Kirkland & Ellis, LLP. 

Testified by deposition on brand equity, brand positioning, communication strategies and 

likelihood of consumer confusion. 

 

 

 

Co-authored White Paper on economic theory and empirical & econometric research on 

national cable ownership limits (2007). Filed in FCC cable ownership proceeding. 

Retained by Comcast. 

VISA U.S.A. v. First Data Corporation, First Data Resources Inc., First Data Merchants 

Services Corporation, Case No. C02-1786 (PJH) (2005-6), Northern District of 

California. Retained by Bingham McCutchen, LLP. Testified by deposition on brand 

promise, brand equity, branding strategy, trademark infringement, consumer behavior and 

decision-making in credit-card industry. 

Barbara’s Sales Inc. v. Intel Corporation, et. al., Case No. 02-L-788 (2004), Third 

Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. Retained by Korein Tillery. Testified by 

deposition on misleading positioning and advertising claims, branding strategy, consumer 

behavior and decision-making in high-tech product categories. 

14


Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

EXHIBIT 2 

Bates Range 

APL7940000082356 – APL7940000082378 

APL7940000102312 – APL7940000102332 

APL-ITC796-0000508285 – APL-ITC796-0000508544 

APLNDC00004618 – APLNDC00004736 

APLNDC0000036172 – APLNDC0000036570 

APLNDC0001324274 – APLNDC0001324278 

APLNDC0001867475 – APLNDC0001867477 

APLNDC0002007608 – APLNDC0002007704 

APLNDC0002420480 – APLNDC0002420484 

APLNDC0002831037 – APLNDC0002831088 

APLNDC-X0000006548 – APLNDC-X0000006647 

APLNDC-Y0000023361 – APLNDC-Y0000023907 








APLNDC-Y0000408237 

SAMNDCA00176053 – SAMNDCA00176171 


SAMNDCA00201771 


















Page 1 of 3



Bates Range (cont.) 


















S-ITC-003353288 – S-ITC-003353507 

S-ITC-010632298 – S-ITC-010632332 

S-ITC-500047393 – S-ITC-500047452 

S-ITC-500049452 

S-ITC-500054991 – S-ITC-500054998 

S-ITC-500056374 – S-ITC-500056457 

S-ITC-500057690 – S-ITC-500057758 

Legal Documents: 

Addendum to Apple Inc.'s Disclosure of Asserted Claims & Infringement Contentions, August 26, 2011. 

Amended Verdict Form, August 24, 2012. 

Apple Inc.'s Disclosure of Asserted Claims & Infringement Contentions, August 26, 2011, with Exhibits 4–6 and 

10–15. 

Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements, September 21, 2012. 

Declaration of Andries van Dam, Ph.D., October 18, 2012. 

Declaration of Marylee Robinson in Support of Apple's Motions for a Permanent Injunction, for Damages 

Enhancement, for Supplemental Damages, and for Prejudgment Interest, September 21, 2012, with Exhibits 9, 

25–29, and 31. 

Declaration of Stephen Gray, October 18, 2012. 

Declaration of Terry Musika in Support of Apple's Motion for Permanent Injunction, August 29, 2012, with Exhibits 

30, 31, 50, 51, 53–61, and 64–68. 

Declaration of Yoram (Jerry) Wind, October 19, 2012, with Appendices and Exhibits. 

Joint Pretrial Statement and Proposed Order, July 5, 2012. 

Manual Filing Notification of Exhibit 32 to the Declaration of Marylee Robinson in Support of Apple's Motions for 

a Permanent Injunction, for Damages Enhancement, for Supplemental Damages, and for Prejudgment Interest, 

September 21, 2012. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 30, 38, 46, 57, 69, 145, 146, and 185. 

Transcript of Proceedings, Apple v. Samsung C-11-01846-LHK, August 10, 2012, Vol. 6. 

Depositions: 

Deposition of Philip Schiller, February 17, 2012. 

Deposition of Steven Sinclair, April 4, 2012. 

Page 2 of 3



Expert Reports: 

Expert Report of John R. Hauser, March 22, 2012, with Exhibits A–K and supporting documents. 

Expert Report of Russel S. Winer, March 22, 2012. 

Articles and Books: 

"iPhone vs. Android," NielsenWire, available at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vsandroid 

(viewed October 9, 2012). 

Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press. 

Erdem, Tülin (1998), “An Empirical Analysis of Umbrella Branding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3), 339- 

351. 

Jessica E. Vascellaro, “Apple Wins Big in Patent Case,” The Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012). 

Kotler, Philip (1997). Marketing Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Lancaster, Kelvin (1966), “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132-157. 

Lilien, Gary L. Philip Kotler and K. Sridhar Moorthy (1992), Marketing Models, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Payne, J.W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision-Making: An Information Search and 

Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387. 

Shugan, Steven (1980), “The Cost of Thinking,” The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7(2), 99-111. 

Tirole, J. (1990). The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Yates, Frank, J. (1990). Judgment and Decision-Making. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Other: 

U.S. Patent 7,469,381. 

U.S. Patent 7,844,915. 

U.S. Patent 7,864,163. 

Page 3 of 3

, PH. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 


Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 




Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) 


Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) 


555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 th Floor 

Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 

Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 

Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 


865 S. Figueroa Street, 10 th Floor 


Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 



INC. and SAMSUNG 





vs. 








Defendants. 


DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY IN 



PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 

DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT 


DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY 

I, Stephen Gray, declare: 

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and am competent to testify 

to the same. 

2. I submit this declaration in support of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for 

a Permanent Injunction relating to U.S. Patents 7,844,915 and 7,864,163. If asked at hearings or 

trial, I am prepared to testify regarding the matters I discuss in this declaration. 

3. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on any new 

information that is relevant to my opinions. 

I. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 

4. I am an independent consultant. All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are 

based on my personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have 

relied on my knowledge and experience in graphical user interfaces and operating systems; 

software development practices; programming, including C and graphical programming; and on 

the documents and information referenced in this Declaration. I have attached as Exhibit 1 a true 

and correct copy of my current curriculum vitae (CV), which details my education and experience. 

The following thus provides only a brief overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the 

matters set forth in this Declaration. 

5. Since the mid-1970s, I have designed, developed, and deployed computing systems 

and products that operate in server, desktop, and graphical environments. As such, I have 

acquired expertise and am an expert in the areas of server computing architecture and design, 

graphical user interfaces, operating systems, local area and wide area networks, and various 

programming languages used in the development of those systems and products. I have been 

employed by or retained as a consultant, including acting as a litigation consultant, for numerous 

companies such as Burroughs, Filenet, Fujitsu, Marriott Corporation, MCI, Northern Telecom, 

Olivetti, TRW, and Xerox, as well as other companies. 

6. I have several relevant professional experiences that further demonstrate my 

expertise in the field of graphical user interfaces. In late-2001 to mid-2002, as Chief Technology 




1 

Officer for Networld Exchange Inc., I was responsible for the design, development, and 

2 

deployment of a suite of products that delivered eCommerce functions. 

These functions were 

3 

provided over the Internet and included product catalog information display, purchase and/or 

4 

purchase order creation, order delivery to fulfillment systems, and order status reporting. 

The 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

products for which I had responsibility provided an electronic shopping graphical user interface 

for business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions. The graphical user interface was 

designed to support both vendors of products as well as customers. Each of these user interfaces 

were an optimization based on the specific user class. 

7. In the mid-1990s I was a consultant for Xerox. One of my assignments there was 

to develop a graphical interface for network attached office products. For example, one of the 

graphical user interfaces I designed provided end-user visibility into printer queues supporting 

distributed network printers. Another graphical user interface I designed provided network 

operations distributed job management control. 

8. As a software development professional, I have had numerous occasions to review 

bodies of source code. I have analyzed source code written in several variants of C, SQL, 

COBOL, RPG, variants of Basic, Java, Perl, several Assembler languages, and others. For 

example, as an individual contributor at Xerox during the mid-1980s to 1990, I evaluated the 

quality of source code from third-party software providers for possible inclusion in the Xerox 

product line. Also, I evaluated the source code of several application software packages for 

completeness and maintainability, and for possible inclusion into the NTN product line in 2000- 

2001. During my early career, I spent time maintaining source code written by others. In each of 

these assignments, I analyzed the source code to identify the data structures, logical flow, 

algorithms, and other aspects. 

9. During my career as a software development professional, I have several relevant 

professional experiences that demonstrate my expertise in the field of operating system 

26 

technologies. 

I have performed operating system programming assignments, I have publicly 

27 

28 

lectured regarding various operating systems, and I have provided litigation support where 

operating system technology was central to the matter. 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

10. Finally, I have been retained by attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants in several 

matters where the concepts and practice of graphical user interface technology was a central issue. 

The matters include contract disputes: GTE v. Videotron; Eyefinity, Inc. v. Entigo; HealthFirst v. 

HealthTrio; Waltrip Associates v. Kevin Kimperlin & Spencer Trask Ventures, as well as patent 

infringement: WebSide Story v. NetRatings; ICR v. Harpo; Leader v. Facebook; Fotomedia v. 

Yahoo!; Cisco v. Telcordia; Ampex v. Kodak, et al.; andICI v. Red Hat and Novell. 

7 

8 

II. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

11. In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards. I have been 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

informed of these legal standards by Samsung’s attorneys. I am not an attorney and I am relying 

only on instructions from Samsung’s attorneys for these legal standards. In conducting my 

analysis of the '915 and '163 patent claims, I have applied the legal understandings set out in this 

declaration. 

12. I understand that assessment of infringement is a two step process. First, the 

language of the patent claims must be construed by the Court. Second, the claims as construed are 

applied to the accused product or process to determine whether the accused product or process 

meets each and every limitation of the claim as construed by the Court. To establish infringement 

of a patent, I understand that it is the patentee ’s burden to show that each accused product 

practices every limitation of at least one asserted claim in that patent. 

13. I understand that the patentee has the burden of proving infringement by the 

preponderance of the evidence. I understand that this standard requires that the patentee present 

evidence that as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. 

14. I understand that there are two types of infringement: literal infringement and 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. I understand that to literally infringe a claim, an 

accused product or process must literally meet every limitation of the claim. 

15. I understand that even if all limitations of a claim are not literally met, an accused 

26 

product or process may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. 

I understand that to 

27 

28 

establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused product or process must, for 

each element of the claim not literally present, contain a structure or perform a step that is 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

substantially equivalent to the element in the claim. I am informed by counsel that one common 

way of determining substantial equivalence is to examine whether the accused structure or step 

performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially 

the same result as the corresponding limitation of the claim. 

16. I also understand that there are several restrictions on the application of the doctrine 

of equivalents. First, if an accused product or process wholly lacks even a single limitation of a 

7 

claim, it cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Second, the range of 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

equivalents cannot be so broad as to encompass that which was already known in the prior art. 

Third, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel precludes a patentee from reclaiming through 

equivalents subject matter that was relinquished based on statements or amendments during 

prosecution. 

17. I understand that every claim limitation is essential in proving infringement, and 

that the absence of even one limitation in an accused product or process avoids infringement. 

14 

15 

III. 

MATERIALS CONSIDERED 

18. In forming my opinions in this Declaration, I reviewed a number of materials, 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,844,915 (the "'915 Patent") and 7,864,163 (the "'163 Patent") as well 

as their respective file histories, and relevant portions of the record in this case to date. I have also 

reviewed the Expert Infringement and Rebuttal Reports of Dr. Karan Singh as well as the 

deposition transcript and trial testimony of Dr. Singh. 

19. In addition, I have reviewed the new source code relating to the Web Browser 

functionalities accused of infringing the '915 and '163 patents and a Galaxy SII (T-Mobile) 

product running this new source code. 

23 

24 

25 

IV. 

THE '915 PATENT 

A. OVERVIEW OF THE '915 PATENT 

20. The '915 Patent, entitled "Application Programming Interfaces for Scrolling 

26 

27 

Operations," issued on Nov. 30, 2010 from an application filed Jan. 7, 2007. The named inventors 

of the '915 Patent are Andrew Platzer and Scott Herz. 

28 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21. The '915 Patent generally relates to the field of application programming interfaces 

that provide user interface operations, such as scrolling and scaling. The asserted claims of the 

'915 Patent are directed to a technique for distinguishing between a single-input point that is 

interpreted as a scroll operation and two or more input points that are interpreted as a gesture 

operation. This technique is set forth in element [c] of claim 8, which is reproduced below: 

8. A machine readable storage medium storing executable program instructions 

which when executed cause a data processing system to perform a method 

comprising: 

[a] receiving a user input, the user input is one or more input points applied to 

a touch-sensitive display that is integrated with the data processing 

system; 

[b] creating an event object in response to the user input; 

[c] determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture 

operation by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the 

touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and 

two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that 

are interpreted as the gesture operation; 

[d] issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or 

gesture operation; 

[e] responding to at least one scroll call, if issued, by scrolling a window 

having a view associated with the event object; and 

[f] responding to at least one gesture call, if issued, by scaling the view 

associated with the event object based on receiving the two or more input 

points in the form of the user input. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




1 

2 

B. PROSECUTION HISTORY 

22. Claim 8 as originally filed read as follows: 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

JX 1048.6. 

23. During prosecution, the Examiner rejected many of the pending claims, including 

claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Patent No. 7,576,732 B2) and 

Hollemans (2007/0252821). See 12/29/09 Office Action. In response, Apple argued that Li and 

Hollemans did not render the claims obvious. See 3/29/10 Response to Office Action. On June 9, 

2010, Apple and the Examiner conducted a telephonic interview where Li and Hollemans were 

discussed. See 6/21/10 Interview Summary. An agreement with respect to the claims was not 

reached as a result of that interview. Id. On July 16, 2010, Apple submitted a new prior art 

reference, Sato (GB 2319591 A). See 7/16/10 IDS. On July 20, 2010, the Examiner issued a 

Notice of Allowance along with an Examiner’s Amendment to the claims and an Examiner’s 

Amendment and Statement of Reasons for Allowance. See 7/20/10 Notice of Allowability. 

27 

28 




1 

24. The Examiner’s Amendment amended claim 8 as follows: 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

25. As shown above, this amendment added the limitation “by distinguishing between 

a single input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation 

and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the 

18 

gesture operation” to claim element [c]. 

Apple’s counsel authorized this amendment during a 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

telephone interview on July 7, 2010. Id. at 2. 

26. In the Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner stated that the “[p]rior art of record 

fails to teach the combination of claimed elements including creating an event object in response 

to a user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll operation or a gesture 

operation; distinguishing between a single input point and a two or more input points applied to a 

touch-sensitive display, wherein a single input point is interpreted as a scroll operation and two 

or more input points are interpreted as a gesture operation.” Id. (emphasis added). 

27. Thus, in allowing the independent claims, including claim 8, the Examiner found 

that the amendment to the claims that added the language "by distinguishing between a single 

input point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture 

operation" distinguished the claims of the '915 patent from the prior art. 

C. THE '915 PATENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF A 

“QUINTESSENTIAL” TEST 

28. During the August 2012 trial, Apple’s expert for the ‘915 patent, Dr. Singh, 

testified that 24 Samsung products infringed the '915 patent. More specifically, Dr. Singh testified 

that the Web Browser application in these accused products infringed claim 8 of the '915 patent. 

Dr. Singh testified that the Web Browser application infringed because it performed a 

“quintessential” and "very important" test required by claim elements [c] and [d]. With respect to 

these claim elements, Dr. Singh testified as follows: 

A. Okay. So these elements, again, are – sort of describe in 

some sense what's happening below in the, in the Samsung code. 

And the operative words in the big one are determining whether 

the event object invokes a scrolling operation, which I've described 

before, which is moving content, or the small complex gesture 

operation, such as scaling, by distinguishing between whether a 

single input point is applied to the screen or two or more inputs, in 

which case a gesture operation is made. 

So to understand this – to understand this element, what you see 

below is a schematic. It's, it's just a schematic showing the 

Samsung smartphone and tab phone. 

Again, what you see over there are excerpts taken from the 

Samsung source code and laid out just to make things very clear. 

And upon receiving input, there is a – there's a function in the web 

view. The web view is the browser program, the internet browser 

program on the Samsung device. 

Web view has a function called on touch event, so whenever 

there's a touch, you go into that code. When you go into that code, 

that code is called and caused by this motion event object that is 

being passed into this piece of code and it's – it's sent into this code 

as a parameter. I've kind of illustrated it on top just so you can 

clearly see the flow that is taking place in the code. And there's a 

very important line in this code where a simple test is made. The 

motion event object has a pointer count. The pointer count tells 

you whether one input is one input touch, two input touches, or 

more. 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

So all you're doing over here is making this quintessential test, and 

then based on the test, when a single input touch is on the screen, 

you go down a one finger part, that results in a scroll operation. So 

that takes you to this claim element c where you're distinguishing 

and you're going down this scroll bar, and I'll go one step further 

into claim element d, which says issues at least a scroll call or a 

gesture call, depending on which part you go down, and a scroll 

call, an example of a scroll call in this case is a method that says do 

drag, which says I'm dragging now, and what do I do? That's if you 

go down the scroll call. Very similarly, if you go down the gesture 

part, which is two or more fingers, you go down in the code and 

you perform a gesture operation which results in a gesture call 

being made. In this example, the gesture call is a the touch event of 

a scale gesture, something that results in the scale operation. 

So what we've just seen over here is a run through the Samsung 

source code to give you a sense of two important things. One, that 

the motion event object causes a very important test to be made, 

one finger or two or more fingers; and then based on that test, 

there's a fork in the code and you either go down a scroll box 

where a scroll call is made and a scroll operation results, or down 

the gesture part and a gesture call is made and a gesture results. 

So that's these two elements. 

Trial Tr. at 1823:3-1825:22 (Singh testimony). 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




1 

2 

29. During this testimony, Dr. Singh referred to demonstratives numbered PDX 29.12 

and PDX 29.13, which have been reproduced below. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

30. As Dr. Singh testified and as is shown in his demonstratives above, the 

"quintessential" and "very important" test occurs in the line of source code 

“ev.getPointerCount() > 1” found in Android's WebView code. Dr. Singh testified that this code 

receives a motion event and distinguishes between a single input point and two or more input 

points. If a single input point is detected, the “ev.getPointerCount() > 1” test causes the code to 

proceed to a scroll operation. If two or more input points are detected, the 

“ev.getPointerCount() > 1” test causes the code to proceed to a gesture operation. This fork in the 

code is illustrated in Dr. Singh’s demonstratives in the box that includes 

"ev.getPointerCount() > 1". The portion of the accused WebView source code that includes the 

"quintessential" test performed by "ev.getPointerCount() > 1" is shown below. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Exhibit 2, Android source code [SAMNDCA-C000002857]. 

D. SAMSUNG’S NEW CODE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE '915 PATENT 

31. I have examined a new version of the source code for the Web Browser application. 

I understand that this source code was used to create the following software: Android version 

4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, and Build number IMM76D.UVLI1. 1 

It is my opinion that this new source code does not infringe the ‘915 patent because it removes the 

“quintessential test” for distinguishing between scroll and gesture operations required by the '915 

26 

27 

28 

1 

Declaration of Hee-chan Choi In Support Of Samsung’s Opposition To Apple’s Motion For 

A Permanent Injunction And Damages Enhancement. 




1 

2 

patent and instead employs a fundamentally different technique for processing scroll and scaling 

operations. 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

35. Importantly, there is no code that determines whether the scrolling code or scaling 

code should be executed “by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touchsensitive 

display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points applied to 

the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture operation” as required by claim 8. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

I understand that the new version of code for the Web Browser that does not include the 

"quintessential test" was released in the Jelly Bean version of Android in July 2012. 

http://grepcode.com/file_/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/4.1.1_r1/ 

android/webkit/WebViewClassic.java/?v=source 




1 

36. The following flowchart illustrates how the new code operates: 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

37. As illustrated above, the new code does not include the "quintessential" test 

performed by the “ev.getPointerCount() > 1” source code. That source code has been removed 

and a fundamentally different technique that does not distinguish the number of input points has 

been implemented. 

38. 

Thus, the motion 

events do not "cause[] a very important test to be made, one finger or two or more fingers; and 

then based on that test, there's a fork in the code and you either go down a scroll box where a 

scroll call is made and a scroll operation results, or down the gesture part and a gestured call is 

made and a gesture operation results." Singh Trial Tr. at 1825:15-21. In other words, the new 

code does not "determine[] whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation by 

distinguishing between a single input point . . . that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or 

more input points . . . that are interpreted as the gesture operation" as required by all claims of the 

'915 patent, including claim 8. Consequently, the new code does not literally infringe any claims 

of the '915 patent. 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

39. I also understand that the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents Apple 

from arguing the new code infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. As noted above, the claims 

of the '915 patent were amended to add the narrowing limitation "distinguishing between a single 

input point . . . and two or more input points . . ." to avoid prior art. Consequently, it is my 

understanding that prosecution history estoppel applies and precludes a finding of infringement 

under the doctrine of equivalents. 

40. Even if Apple were allowed to argue that the new code infringes under the doctrine 

of equivalents, it is my opinion that the new code does not infringe for several reasons. 

41. First, there are substantial differences between the claimed technique for processing 

scroll and gesture operations and the technique used by the new code. The claimed technique 

examines the number of input points and based on the results of that examination, invokes either a 

scroll or gesture operation. The technique utilized in the new code is fundamentally and 

substantially different. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

42. Second, the new code does not perform substantially the same function, in 

substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the same result. The technique found to 

infringe performs the function of determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or scale. 

The way it performs this is by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touchsensitive 

display and two or more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display. The result of 

this is that either a scroll call or a gesture call is issued. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Even assuming the function performed by the new code 

were the same as the function recited in the claim, the way in which the function performed is 

substantially different. The code found to infringe determines whether an event object invokes a 

scroll or scale operation by distinguishing between the number of input points applied to the touch 




1 

2 

3 

screen display. 

Dr. Singh identified this as the "quintessential" test. The new code does not 

Finally, the new code produces results that are substantially 

4 

5 

different than the claimed function. For example, the claimed function results in either a scroll or 

gesture operation based on a motion event. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

43. I have also examined the scrolling code in WebView that processes scrolling 

operations and the scaling code in WebviewScaleGestureDetector that processes scaling 

operations and confirmed that both do not include any code that meet the limitations of claim 8. 

Specifically, none of the scrolling code or scaling code "distinguish[es] between a single input 

point applied to the touch-sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or 

more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are interpreted as the gesture 

operation" or "issu[es] at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or gesture 

operation." 

44. I have also examined the Web Browser application in a Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 

16 

product that includes this new code. 

I understand that this source code was used to create the 

17 

following software: Android version 4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, 

18 

and Build number IMM76D.UVLI1. 3 

The Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) was running the following 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

software: Android version 4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, and Build 

number IMM76D.UVLI1. Using this device, I was able to scroll web pages using one finger and 

zoom in and out of web pages using two fingers. 

E. PRODUCTS USING THE NEW CODE DO NOT INFRINGE THE '915 

PATENT 

45. For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that products running the new code 

described above does not infringe claim 8 of the '915 patent literally or under the doctrine of 

26 

27 

28 

3 






1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

equivalents. I understand that, as of the filing of this declaration, the only product accused of 

infringing the '915 patent that has not been discontinued is the Galaxy S II (T-Mobile). It is my 

opinion that Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) products running the new code do not infringe the '915 patent. 

V. THE ’163 PATENT 

A. OVERVIEW OF THE '163 PATENT 

46. The '163 patent, entitled “Portable Electronic Device, Method and Graphical User 

Interface for Displaying Structured Electronic Documents,” issued on January 4, 2011 from an 

application filed on September 4, 2007. The named inventors of the '163 Patent are Bas Ording, 

Scott Forstall, Greg Christie, Stephen O. Lemay, Imran Chaudhri, Richard Williamson, Chris 

Blumenberg, and Marcel Van Os. A review of the file history shows that Apple filed a certificate 

of correction on January 14, 2011 to remove Bas Ording as an inventor and add Andre M.J. Boule 

as an inventor. 

47. The '163 patent relates to methods and systems for navigating an information space 

on portable electronic devices with limited display screens. The independent claims of the '163 

patent generally cover a two-step process for enlarging and substantially centering a first box of 

content and substantially centering a second box of content within a structured electronic 

document. This technique is set forth in claim 50 of the '163 patent, which is reproduced below: 

50. A portable electronic device, comprising: 

[a] a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or 

more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and 

configured to be executed by the one or more processors, 

[b] the one or more programs including: instructions for displaying at least 

a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein 

the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content; 

[c] instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed 

portion of the structured electronic document; instructions for determining a first 

box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture; instructions for 

enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is 

substantially centered on the touch screen display; 

[d] instruction[s] for, while the first box is enlarged, detecting a second 

gesture on a second box other than the first box; and instructions for, in response to 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

detecting the second gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that 

the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display. 

B. PROSECUTION HISTORY 

48. As initially drafted, claim 50 of the '163 patent (then numbered claim 51) did not 

include claim element [d], which requires “instruction[s] for, while the first box is enlarged, 

detecting a second gesture on a second box other than the first box; and instructions for, in 

response to detecting the second gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that the 

second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.” JX-1049.49-50. 

49. On October 20, 2011, the patent Examiner issued a Notice of Allowability for the 

'163 patent. JX-1049.1696-1712. According to this notice, the Examiner conducted a telephone 

interview with Apple on October 12, 2010, who authorized the following Examiner’s Amendment 

to claim 50 (then claim 51). JX-1049.1698. This amendment added claim element [d]. 

[50]. A portable electronic device, comprising: 

[a] a touch screen display; one or more processors; memory; and one or 

more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and 

configured to be executed by the one or more processors, 

[b] the one or more programs including: instructions for displaying at least 

a portion of a structured electronic document on the touch screen display, wherein 

the structured electronic document comprises a plurality of boxes of content; 

[c] instructions for detecting a first gesture at a location on the displayed 

portion of the structured electronic document; instructions for determining a first 

box in the plurality of boxes at the location of the first gesture; and instructions for 

enlarging and translating the structured electronic document so that the first box is 

substantially centered on the touch screen display; 

[d] instruction[s] for, while the first box is enlarged, detecting a second gesture 

on a second box other than the first box; and instructions for, in response to detecting 

the second gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that the second 

box is substantially centered on the touch screen display. 

C. SAMSUNG’S NEW CODE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE '163 PATENT 

50. In Exhibit 5 of his infringement report, Dr. Singh cites motionUp() as the 

WebView.cpp function in the accused Samsung code that is ultimately responsible for “in 




1 

2 

3 

4 


second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display.” 

51. I have reviewed the new source code for the Web Browser application. I 

understand that this source code was used to create the following software: Android version 4.0.4, 

5 

Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, and Build number IMM76D.UVLI1. 4 

Based 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

on my review, I have confirmed that the relevant source code in the motionUp() function, 

identified by Dr. Singh as infringing, has been commented out and is therefore inoperative. As a 

result, it is my opinion that the Samsung accused code no longer contains “instructions for, in 


second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display” as required by claim 50. The 

new code does not literally infringe the '163 patent. 

52. I have also examined the Web Browser application in a Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 

product that includes this new code. The Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) was running the following 

software: Android version 4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, and Build 

15 

number IMM76D.UVLI1. 

Using the Web Browser application on this device, I loaded a web 

16 

17 

18 

page from the New York Times website. After “enlarging and translating” a first box of content 

on the web page using a double tap, I was unable to then cause the device to “translate” to 

“substantially center” a second box in response to a “second gesture” on a “second box other than 

19 

the first box.” 

Any attempt to single-tap on a second region outside the first, enlarged region 

20 

21 

resulted in no response from the device. Any attempt to double-tap anywhere on the webpage, 

including a second region outside the first, enlarged region, resulted in the structured electronic 

22 

document returning to its original size (i.e., a “zoom out”). 

This non-infringing behavior is 

23 

24 

25 

26 

illustrated in the video attached as Exhibit 3. 

literally infringe claim 50 of the '163 patent. 

As a result, Web Browser application does not 

27 

28 

4 






1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

53. I also understand that the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents Apple 

from arguing the new code infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. Claim 50 was amended to 

add the limitation “instruction[s] for, while the first box is enlarged, detecting a second gesture on 

a second box other than the first box; and instructions for, in response to detecting the second 

gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that the second box is substantially 

centered on the touch screen display” to avoid prior art. As a result, my understanding is that 

prosecution history estoppel applies and precludes a finding of infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents. 

54. Even if Apple were allowed to argue that the new code infringes under the doctrine 

of equivalents, it is my opinion that the new code does not infringe the ’163 patent under the 

doctrine of equivalents. In my opinion, without the functionality associated with the second 

gesture, the Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) does not perform substantially the same function, in 

13 

substantially the same way, to achieve the substantially same result. 

The claimed function of 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

centering a second box is no longer performed. Instead, the Galaxy S II (T-Moblie) performs a 

substantially different function of doing nothing (single tap) or zooming out to the web pages’ 

original size (double tap). For the same reasons, the result of the claimed function and the result 

of the function performed by the Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) are substantially different. 

55. I also note that while the structured electronic document is in an enlarged state, a 

user makes a second gesture on a second box other than the first box and the structured electronic 

document reduces to its original size, there could be a case where the second box is by chance 

substantially centered on the display. It is my opinion that this does not infringe claim 50 because 

the centering of the second box in this example did not occur as a result of “instructions for” 

“substantially centering” the “second box.” In this example, the centering of the second box is not 

caused by any code designed specifically to bring about that result. It is merely an incidental 

effect of the zoom out operation. Indeed, the lines of code specifically cited by Dr. Singh as 

responsible for “translating the structured electronic document so that the second box is 

substantially centered on the touch screen display” are no longer operative and are unable to 

perform any functionality on the Samsung accused devices. In my opinion, absent “instructions 



Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054-2 Filed10/19/12 Page21 of 39


EXHIBIT 1


Curriculum Vitae 

Stephen Gray 

Expertise 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distributed Computing Architecture 

Internet/Web/e-Commerce 

Web Services Protocols/SOA 

Client/Server Technology 

Electronic Presentation Technology 

Programming Languages 

 

 

 

 

 

Image and Document Processing 

Relational Database Design 

Network Architecture 

Software Quality 

Software and Systems Development, 

Integration and Management 

Professional Summary 

Mr. Gray has over 30 years of experience in the computer and communications industries. 

His background includes systems and software architecture, design and development as well 

as senior management positions in development, marketing, and general management. 

Employment History 

From: 1984 Gray & Yorg, LLC 

To: Present San Diego, CA 

Position: Principal 

Mr. Gray is an expert in modern computing platform architecture, 

design, implementation and integration, including relational database 

design in networking environments. In providing consulting services, 

he has successfully completed the following projects: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performed patent portfolio analysis for large corporations 

Developed policies and procedures for a “clean” software 

development environment. Monitored activities to ensure 

conformance. 

CSO for a Business Process Management software start up. The 

firm develops Web Services/SOA based BPM creation, 

orchestration, management and optimization solutions. 

CTO for an e-Commerce Internet start up. The firm developed a 

product that specializes in procurement for public agencies. 

Interim CEO for a broadband Competitive Local Exchange Carrier 

(CLEC). Helped negotiate the successful sale of the CLEC. 

CTO for an Internet-based secure content distribution startup. The 

firm developed comprehensive Digital Rights Management (DRM) 

solutions for the control and promotion of content on the Internet. 

Architected several e-Commerce applications for legacy 

interoperability 

Confidential Resume of Stephen Gray Page 1 

Printed: 03/22/12



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participated in the architecture definition and design of a highly 

scalable, high performance device controller for multifunction 

document processing products 

Performed a detailed analysis of the competitive environment for 

retail point-of-sale hardware and software systems. Analysis 

included technology, marketing, compensation and back office 

interface issues 

Provided system design, product selection and project management 

for a turnkey software/hardware system for residential refuse 

hauling and toxic waste disposal company. System involved 

multiple hardware and software vendors around the IBM AS400 

central processing system 

Led the design of a high performance, LAN-based image capture 

and statement printing subsystem using IBM system components 

using DBII relational database and SQL language for TRW 

Led the design of an image assisted, remittance processing system 

using IBM system components and Sybase relational database in a 

client/server architecture for TRW. Additionally, designed an 

object-oriented front end to the database so that the UNIX platform 

could execute Sybase applications 

Engaged to perform a technology audit for the United States 

Department of Agriculture using ORACLE database products, 

which resulted in a major overhaul of the database management 

implementation for their application 

Collaborated with FileNet to develop an IBM-to-UNIX 

interconnection strategy for their optical disk-based document 

imaging and filing system 

Defined high speed interconnection and relational database 

methods using SQL language for Marriott Corporation to handle 

large transaction volumes in a hotel reservations system 

Collaborated with Xerox in mid 1990s development of an 

electronic printing system front end supporting a wide range of 

advanced printing services, including resolution enhancement 

technology 

Advised Northern Telecom on the performance of IBM's Net View 

product 

Authored two technical seminars: SNA Technology Update, OS/2 

and SAA, Introduction to Client/Server Technology with special 

emphasis on relational database management. Published articles in 

trade journals such as Interface Age, CASE World and Info World 

From: 2001 Networld Exchange Incorporated 

To: 2002 Bonsall, CA 

Position: Chief Technical Officer 





Networld Exchange, Inc. (NEI) provides Fortune 2000 companies 

private trading exchange (PTX) solutions that automate their B2B 

commerce activities. NEI is a restart. NEI is funded by institutional 

investors in New York and Florida. Mr. Gray was recruited in 4Q01 

by the investors as part of the new management team. 

From: 2000 NTN Communications 

To: 2001 Carlsbad, CA 

Position: Chief Technical Officer 

NTN Communications, Inc. (AMEX: NTN) is the parent corporation 

of two operating divisions: Buzztime Entertainment, Inc. and the NTN 

Network®. Mr. Gray serves as CTO for the parent corporation and 

each of its operating divisions. 

Buzztime Entertainment, Inc. develops and distributes sports and 

trivia games to a variety of interactive platforms including interactive 

television, the Internet, PDS and mobile phones. 

The NTN Network, NTN’s hospitality business, operates two 

interactive television (ITV) networks that broadcast games to millions 

of consumers each month at 3500 restaurants, sports bars and taverns 

in North America. 

Mr. Gray is responsible for all of the technical aspects of the 

corporations as well as forward looking programs and business 

opportunities. 

From: 1987 Simpact Associates 

To: 1988 

Position: Director, Product Marketing 

Directed the full life cycle of definition, delivery, marketing and 

enhancement of four sets of IBM connectivity products, including: 

SNA protocol support hardware and software for DEC VAX 

systems 

An IBM PC-based gateway product that supports SNA and other 

industry-standard communications architectures 

A Netware-based Token Ring Network adapter board and software 

for DEC VAX systems 

A hardware/software product that receives financial market feeds 

and reformats the information for presentation to programs running 

a VAX via a proprietary applications programming interface (API) 

From: 1982 Xerox Corporation 

To: 1987 

Position: General Manager, Host Software Products 

1985-87 As the founder and leader of the product delivery organization of a 

Xerox independent business unit, Mr. Gray managed 21 employees and 

33 contract professionals. He directed the definition, architecture, 





design, development, test, product transfer and sustaining engineering 

of six products for electronic page printers connected to IBM 

mainframes, DEC VAX and IBM PC's. 

1982-85 

Manager, Foreign System Interconnect. Managed four professionals 

who defined and developed the technical interconnect strategy for 

electric page printers to wide-and local-area networks. Mr. Gray's 

group delivered host software, network and printer engineering 

services. He invented a new printer interconnection technique, 

developed interfaces to Ethernet local area network, and designed 

connections to IBM mainframes using SNA and the System/370 

channel. 

From: 1979 Computer Communications, Inc. 

To: 1982 

Position: Manager, Communication Controller Software Development 

As leader of the architecture, design, development, and testing of an 

SNA communications controller, Mr. Gray managed 24 

professionals. His group successfully designed, developed and 

deployed the controller's operating software, diagnostics, host-based 

compilers, and system support software. Before that, he was the 

product manager for front-end processors and remote concentrators. 

Also, he engineered an X.25 multi-channel controller. 

From: 1977 Olivetti Corporation 

To: 1979 

Position: Regional Support Manager 

Started as a district manager and later became a regional software 

support manager for a series of mini- and microcomputer business 

systems. Applications included general business and on-line frontoffice 

banking. 

From: 1973 Burroughs Corporation 

To: 1977 

Position: Systems Programmer, Systems Analyst 

Specializing in data communications software and held several 

design and product implementation positions in the mid range and 

small system development groups. 

Additional Professional Experience: 

 

 

Designed and implemented numerous relational database management systems using 

Sybase, Informix, Microsoft Access, DB2. 

Knowledgeable in C, C++, SQL, COBOL, RPG, Basic, Java, various Assembler 

languages, HTML, XML. 





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designed IBM SNA Distribution Services compatible electronic mail interface product. 

The product interfaced to MCI mail services. 

Designed peer-to-peer printing network product for MCI 

Designed image-processing system for TRW on contract with the Internal Revenue 

Service. Participated in the implementation of a prototype of the system. 

Designed image based item processing system for TRW and IBM Participated in the 

implementation of a prototype of the system. 

Defined IBM interoperability strategy for FileNet products. 

Defined distributed network printing product for Xerox. 

Defined and managed several networking products for Simpact Associates. Used the 

System Strategies Inc. Express SNA package. 

Defined, designed and implemented several interoperability interfaces to Xerox Electronic 

Printers. 

Defined, designed and implemented telecommunications control devices for Computer 

Communication Incorporated. 

Developed and presented numerous public and in-house courses in IBM, Unix, Internet 

and related networking technologies. 

Member of UCSD Connect “Most Innovative Product Award” Selection Committee 

(2002, 2003, 2004). 

Member of Association of Computing Machinery 

Litigation Support Experience 

Date: 2012 Morrison & Foerster 

Augme v. Yahoo 

Patent infringement – distributed processing 

Active 

Date: 2011 Quinn Emanuel 

Catalina Marketing v. Coupons Inc. 

Contract Dispute 

Active 

Date: 2011 Alston & Bird 

Openwave v. Apple, et al 


Active 

Date: 2011 DLA Piper 

Motorola v. Tivo 

Patent infringement – audio/video processing 

Inactive 

Date: 2010 Law Office of Christian E. Mammen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann 

and Bernstein, LLP and Tousley Brain Stephens, LLP 





Deep9 v. Barnes & Noble 


Active 

Date: 2010 McDermott Will & Emery, Alston & Bird 

Bedrock v. Soft Layer, et al 


Inactive 

Date: 2010 Quinn Emanuel 

Soverain v. J.C. Penney, et al 


Active 

Date: 2009 Jones Day 

Oracle v. SAP 

Copyright infringement – enterprise software 

Inactive 

Date: 2009 Foley & Lardner 

DataTreasury v. US Bank 


Inactive 

Date: 2009 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 

IPI v. Red Hat, Novell 

Patent infringement – distributed file systems 

Inactive 

Date: 2009 Jackson and Walker 

ICR v. Harpo 

Patent infringement – e-Commerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2009 Cooley Godward 

Leader v. Facebook 


Inactive 


SuperSpeed v. IBM 


Inactive 

Date: 2008 Baker & Botts 

Fotomedia v. Yahoo! 





Patent infringement – file sharing 

Inactive 

Date: 2008 Hogan & Hartson 

ODS v. Magna Entertainment 

Patent infringement – E-Commerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2008 Winston & Strawn 

CNET v. Etilize 

Patent infringement – E-Commerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2008 Weil, Gotshal & Manges 

i4i v. Microsoft 

Patent infringement – Data formatting, representation 

Inactive 


MathWorks v. COMSOL 

Patent infringement - interoperability, Copyright 

Inactive 

Date: 2008 Townsend, Townsend & Crew 

Anthurium v. Spheris 

Patent infringement – Distributed Processing 

Inactive 


Soverain v. CDW, et al 

Patent infringement – e-commerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2008 Paul Hastings 

Sify v. Yahoo 

Trade secrets 

Inactive 

Date: 2007 Finnegan Henderson 

Cisco v. Telcordia 

Patent infringement – system monitoring 

Inactive 

Date: 2007 Brown Raysman 

WebSide Story v. NetRatings 

Patent infringement – web monitoring 





Inactive 


MediaTek v. Sanyo 

Patent infringement – data compression 

Inactive 

Date: 2007 Sutherland 

FedEx v. U.S. 

Tax Credit 

Active 


IBM v. Amazon 

Patent infringement – Electronic commerce 

Inactive 


NetRatings v. SageMetrics 

Patent infringement – web monitoring 

Inactive 

Date: 2006 Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor 

Sungard v. PHI 

Breach of contract 

Inactive 


Autobytel v. Dealix 

Patent Infringement – Electronic commerce 

Inactive 


NetRatings v. Coremetrics, et al 

Patent Infringement – Electronic commerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2005 Kim & Wilcox 

HealthFirst v. HealthTrio 

Contract Dispute – Electronic information portals 

Inactive 

Date: 2005 Ropes & Gray (Fish & Neave) 

Ampex v. Kodak, et al 

Patent Infringement – Image transformation 

Inactive 





Date: 2005 Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP 

Waltrip Associates v. Kevin Kimperlin & Spencer Trask Ventures 

Contract Dispute - Theft of trade secret, EDI and ecommerce 

Inactive 

Date: 2005 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 

Metilinx v. Hewlett-Packard 

Contract Dispute - Large scale software deployment, QA, system 

management 

Inactive 

Date: 2005 Morrison & Foerster 

BEA v. SoftwareAG 

Patent Infringement - Web Services, Software development tools, 

OOP 

Inactive 


Orion v. American Honda 

Patent Infringement – Electronic Catalogs and Brochures 

Inactive 

Date: 2004 Keker & Van Nest 

AB Cellular v. City of Los Angeles 

Contract Dispute – Tax Authority, Source Code Analysis 

Inactive 

Date: 2004 Silicon Edge Law Group 

Oracle v. Mangosoft 

Patent Infringement – Web System Personalization 

Inactive 

Date: 2003 Smith Katzenstein & Furlow LLP 

S. Rakoff et al v. Dot Com Group, A. Nash et al 

Contract Dispute – Web Analytics 

Inactive 


Hill v. IBM 

Patent Infringement – Electronic Catalog, data management 

Inactive 

Date: 2003 Fish & Richardson 

Mirror Imaging LLC v. Affiliated Computer Services 





Patent Infringement – Electronic Document Storage 

Inactive 


VPS LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co. and Ofoto 

Patent Infringement – Digital Media distribution 

Inactive 

Date: 2002 Steptoe and Johnson 

Steven Heard & Dean Messier v. California Institute of Technology 

& Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Patent Infringement - Digital Images Upload/Storage 

Inactive 

Date: 2002 Fish & Neave LLP 

Harrah’s Casino v. Station’s Casino 

Patent Infringement – Player loyalty system in a network 

Inactive 

Date: 2002 Preston Gates and Ellis LLP 

Case Eyefinity, Inc. vs. Entigo, Inc. 

Project: Contract Dispute - Faulty software development 

Status: Inactive 

Date: 1998 Robman & Seeley 

Case Ametron-American Electronic Supply v. Entin, et al 

Project: Theft of Trade Secrets - Recovery of Data and Evaluation 


Date: 1998 Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman 

Case GTE v. Videotron 

Project: Contract Dispute - Analysis of UNIX-based system 


Date: 1998 Kudo & Daniels 

Case Total Recovery Services v. Microage 

Project: Contract Dispute - Faulty Product, evaluation of product. 


Date: 1996 Baker & Botts 

Case BMC Software v. Peregrine Systems, Inc. 

Project: Theft of Trade Secrets - DB2 enhancement software. 





Status: 

Inactive 

Date: 1995 Pacific Bell Inside Counsel 

Case David McGoveran v. Pacific Telesis Group and Pacific Bell 

Damages trial in Theft of Trade Secret Litigation - assess market 

potential and value of SQL software. 


Date: 1994 Cooley Godward Castro Huddleson & Tatum 

Case ADV Freeman v. Boole & Babbage 

Project: Contract Dispute - Assessment of software quality, expert witness 

on product marketing and software quality. 


Date: 1984 O'Melveny & Myers 

Case IBM v. NCR Comten 

Project: Copyright Infringement - Code comparison and product analysis 

and design of alternative technologies. 


Education 

Year College/University Degree 

1973 California Polytechnic University BS, Economics 




EXHIBIT 2


1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 







Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


vs. 








Defendant. 


MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION FOR 

EXHIBIT 2 TO THE DECLARATION OF 

STEPHEN GRAY IN SUPPORT OF 




ENHANCEMENT 


MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION


1 

2 

3 

Regarding: 

MANUAL FILING NOTIFICATION 

Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Stephen Gray in Support of Samsung’s Opposition 

to Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and Damages Enhancements 

4 

5 

6 

7 

This filing is in paper or physical form only, and is being maintained in the case file in the Clerk’s 

office. The exhibits were previously served on all parties. 

For information on retrieving this filing directly from the court, please see the court’s main web 

site at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). 

8 

9 

This filing was not e-filed for the following reason(s): 

10 

11 

12 

13 

__ 

__ 

Voluminous Document (PDF file size larger than efiling system allowances) 

Unable to Scan Documents 

Physical Object (description): 

Non Graphical/Textual Computer File (audio, video, etc.) on CD or other media 

14 

15 

16 

17 

X 

Item Under Seal 

Conformance with the Judicial Conference Privacy Policy (General Order 53) 

Other (description): 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 


Respectfully submitted, 


SULLIVAN, LLP 

By Victoria F. Maroulis 









EXHIBIT 3


1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 







Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


vs. 








Defendant. 




STEPHEN GRAY IN SUPPORT OF 




ENHANCEMENT 




1 

2 

3 



Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Stephen Gray in Support of Samsung’s Opposition 

to Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and Damages Enhancements 

4 

5 

6 

7 





8 

9 


10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

__ 

__X 








18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




SULLIVAN, LLP 







02198.51855/5018101.1 









Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 







Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 








vs. 









DECLARATION OF R. SUKUMAR IN 



PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND FOR 

DAMAGES ENHANCEMENTS 

Defendants.


I, Ramamirtham Sukumar, hereby declare as follows: 

I. BACKGROUND 

1. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Optimal Strategix Group, Inc., a strategic 

market research and marketing consulting company. 

Prior to becoming Chief Executive 

Officer of Optimal Strategix Group, Inc., I served as a Professor of Marketing at a number of 

Universities and as the Associate Dean for Academic Programs at the Indian School of Business 

(“ISB”). I have served as a consultant for many Fortune 500 companies, engaged to assist 

clients in understanding the value of the products they offer, designing and developing new 

products and services, setting pricing and promotional strategies, and evaluating brand marketing 

strategies. I have also served as an expert, conducting survey research for cases that have 

involved patent infringement. My CV is attached as Exhibit 1. My CV contains a list of my 

publications from the last 10 years. 

II. 

ASSIGNMENT 

2. I understand that Apple is seeking a permanent injunction for certain Samsung 

smartphones and tablets. 

I also understand that Apple must prove Samsung consumers 

purchased the relevant Samsung devices because they included the functionality claimed by three 

of Apple’s touchscreen patents (US 7,469,381, US 7,844,915, and US 7,864,163) (the “Three 

Touchscreen Patents”) purportedly tested in Professor Hauser’s surveys. I further understand 

Apple is relying on Professor Hauser’s Report and surveys to show the requisite consumer 

demand for the Three Touchscreen Patents. 

1


III. 

ANALYSIS 

A. Professor Hauser’s Results Do Not Show The Three Touchscreen Patents Drive 

Consumer Demand For Any Samsung Product 

3. In this litigation, I submitted a rebuttal report in which I analyzed Professor 

Hauser’s Report and surveys. 1 

Professor Hauser attempted to measure Samsung consumers’ 

willingness to pay (“WTP”) (or so-called “price premiums”) for certain touchscreen functionality 

claimed by Apple’s patents. 

Hauser Dep. Tr. at 64:5-13 (“Well, I had an assignment from 

Apple that I wanted to essentially measure price premium, or use other words to describe it, of 

the functionality of the patents, yes. That was my assignment.”). 

After careful analysis, I 

concluded that Professor Hauser’s surveys and analysis did not reliably estimate consumers’ 

WTP. 

4. I have been asked by counsel for Samsung to consider the applicability of 

Professor Hauser’s surveys and results to the question of consumer demand. 

As an initial 

matter, consumer demand for a product and Professor Hauser’s estimated consumer WTP for 

certain features are fundamentally different concepts. See HAL R. VARIAN, INTERMEDIATE 

MICROECONOMICS: A MODERN APPROACH 4 W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. (3d ed. 1993) 

(“Economists call a person’s maximum willingness to pay for something that person’s 

reservation price.” “We can plot these reservation prices in a diagram . . . [where] the 

[reservation] price is depicted on the vertical axis and the number of people who are willing to 

pay that price or more is depicted on the horizontal axis.” “The demand curve describes the 

quantity demanded at each of the possible [reservation] prices.”) (emphasis added); see also 

1 

Expert Report Of R. Sukumar Regarding The Amount Samsung Customers Would Be Willing To Pay For 

The Features Associated With Patent Nos. U.S. 7,844,915, U.S. 7,469,381, U.S. 7,864,163, And U.S. 7,663,607 

(“Sukumar Rebuttal Report”). 

2


BRYAN K. ORME, GETTING STARTED WITH CONJOINT ANALYSIS: STRATEGIES FOR PRODUCT 

DESIGN AND PRICING RESEARCH 84 Research Publishers LLC (2d ed. 2010) (“A measure of 

willingness to pay shows how much value an individual consumer places on a good or service.”). 

Importantly, Professor Hauser’s estimated consumer WTP for a feature does not measure the 

ability of Samsung to profitably raise its prices for its products and does not accurately reflect 

consumer demand for a product in real-world markets. 

5. Assessing consumer demand for the Three Touchscreen Patents was not Professor 

Hauser’s assignment and his analysis does not contain such an assessment. 

Professor Hauser’s 

surveys and analysis attempt to determine the maximum amount certain customers would be 

willing to pay to have a particular feature. 

He did not, however, even attempt to assess how 

consumer demand for a product with a particular feature in the market would vary if the feature 

was changed or excluded. See Hauser Report 70 (the surveys were designed to “estimate the 

value of a change in the level of touchscreen capability relative to a change in price,” not to 

estimate “demand”). 

Such an analysis would be necessary in order to assess whether certain 

features drive the demand for the products. 

6. In addition, the relationships between features, prices, and the quantity of 

products sold, and the question of what drives consumer demand for any product, depend on the 

other competitive products in the marketplace, and the decisions of other participants in the 

market. 2 

For example, if Apple decided to price its iPhone at $1, then consumer demand for 

Samsung smartphones would be expected to be quite small, even with the Three Touchscreen 

Patents. 

The market context is critical in assessing consumer demand for the Three 

Touchscreen Patents, and Professor Hauser’s surveys and analysis completely ignored competing 

2 

BRYAN K. ORME, GETTING STARTED WITH CONJOINT ANALYSIS: STRATEGIES FOR PRODUCT DESIGN AND 

PRICING RESEARCH 86-88 Research Publishers LLC (2d ed. 2010). 

3


brands and products. 

Hauser Report 69 (“the survey was designed with the goal that 

respondents would not make comparisons with other devices available in the marketplace”), 96 

(“I note that I use the term ‘market’ in a specific way to cover only smartphone and tablet types 

that I have varied in the survey; I have not tested a market for smartphones or tablets in which 

consumers choose among various brands of smartphones or tablets”). Professor Hauser’s 

analysis is therefore necessarily irrelevant to the question of whether the Three Touchscreen 

Patents “drive the demand” for certain Samsung smartphones or tablets. 

7. Furthermore, because Professor Hauser’s survey designs were fundamentally 

flawed, his conclusions about so-called “price premiums” or maximum WTP are inherently 

unreliable. I explain these design flaws in more detail below. 

B. Professor Hauser’s Survey Designs Were Flawed 

8. I focus here on issues related to the presentation of the touchscreen “feature” 

Professor Hauser tested. 

Professor Hauser used audio/video (“A/V”) animations for three of the 

seven “features” he tested. Hauser Report 64 (touchscreen, camera, and connectivity 

“features” presented using A/V animations). Professor Hauser claims this was done to avoid socalled 

“demand artifacts” vis-à-vis using A/V animations for only a single feature, but he failed 

to recognize that in using A/V animations for only some of the “features,” he created demand 

artifacts vis-à-vis the features not presented via A/V animations. Hauser Report 64, 19 

(“Demand artifacts are aspects of the study that influence research results based on the chosen 

procedure rather than based on the phenomenon under study.”) Evidence of these demand 

artifacts can be seen in Professor Hauser’s WTP estimates, which show that the three features 

presented via A/V animation produced the highest WTP values and yet none of these features is 

4


identified by consumers as among the most important features considered in their smartphone 

purchase decision. 3 

9. Further evidence of flawed survey designs is adduced from looking at Professor 

Hauser’s WTP estimates for the “weight and size” “feature.” It is well documented that screen 

size is one of the most important attributes in the smartphone purchase decision, yet Professor 

Hauser’s results indicate that consumers value the Three Touchscreen Patents exponentially 

more than the “weight and size” “feature.” 4 

Indeed, evidence of substantial consumer demand 

for smartphones with larger screens can be readily observed in the marketplace by looking at the 

success of both the Samsung Galaxy S III with its 4.8” screen and Apple’s recently-introduced 

iPhone 5, with its 4” screen (larger than all previous iPhone models). 5 

10. I obtained additional marketplace evidence of the lack of consumer demand for 

the Three Touchscreen Patents by examining publicly-available, in-depth product reviews for 

relevant Samsung smartphones and tablets. 6 

These reviews appear on popular websites that 

cover the consumer electronics market. 

Many of these reviews include both text and video, but 

none describe, mention, or demonstrate the functionality associated with the Three Touchscreen 

Patents. 

3 

Compare TABLE 1 infra with APLNDC0002007608 - APLNDC0002007704 at ‘7633-34 (Defendant’s 

Trial Exh. 572.026-27); see also Sukumar Rebuttal Report 50 (“Furthermore, by providing videos for some 

features and only graphics for others (Hauser Report, 64) the survey may have created demand artifacts that would 

place more emphasis on the attributes for which videos were shown. Consequently, the willingness-to-pay for these 

attributes would be biased upward as compared to attributes for which only an image was shown.”). 

4 

; Table 1 

infra. 

5 

See, e.g., Droid Charge (http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/02/droid-charge-review/), Galaxy Tab 

(http://www.wired.com/reviews/2010/11/galaxy_tab/), Galaxy S II (AT&T) 

(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393609,00.asp), Exhibit 4G 

(http://www.laptopmag.com/review/cellphones/samsung-exhibit-4g.aspx), Gem 

(http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-gem-sch-i100/4505-6452_7-34480810.html), Mesmerize 

(http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-mesmerize-u-s/4505-6452_7-34192075.html). 

5


11. When viewed in the proper marketplace context, Professor Hauser’s conclusions 

regarding the Three Touchscreen Patents are plainly implausible. 

In order to understand why 

his results are so disconnected from marketplace evidence of actual consumer demand, I have 

looked again at his surveys and noted an additional problem, the presence of additional demand 

artifacts, which was not readily apparent by analyzing his report. 7 

I have concluded that in 

addition to the demand artifacts created by presenting only some of the “features” via A/V 

animation, Professor Hauser created separate, additional demand artifacts for the touchscreen 

“feature.” 

12. As Professor Hauser himself acknowledged, a demand artifact is created when the 

design of a survey causes a respondent to focus on a particular feature. Hauser Dep. Tr. at 

89:11-90:1 (“I do have to have at least some reasonable set of distraction features so that I don't 

have a -- them focusing on just the patent and price features.”); see also Hauser Report 19. 

It is a basic tenet of consumer research that demand artifacts render survey and other types of 

experimental results unreliable. 8 

13. For each of the tested “features,” Professor Hauser showed survey respondents an 

introductory screen which purported to explain the “feature” by use of words and icons. 9 

These 

7 

Professor Hauser’s actual surveys were not provided to Samsung. Instead, Professor Hauser provided 

screenshots from the surveys, which were printed and attached as Exhibits F-G to his Report. It was only after 

discovering on my own that some of the survey pages were still viewable online that I had the chance to view those 

survey pages in the same way survey respondents did, thus discovering the additional demand artifacts created by 

the flawed survey designs. 

8 

Alan G. Sawyer, “Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer 

Research, 1, 4 (Mar. 1975) at 20-21 (“The effects of demand artifacts pose important threats to both internal and 

external validity.” “Demand characteristics which are more likely to occur in the more artificial laboratory may 

affect the ability of the experimenter to generalize his results to a real life situation where an analogous set of 

demand conditions may be absent [ ].”). 

9 

See, e.g., http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR1.asp, 

http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR2.asp, 




(footnote continued) 

6


icons were also used in each of the screens respondents used to make their product selections. 

Hauser Report Exhs. F-G. As is easily discerned by viewing the introductory screens and the 

survey selection screens, Professor Hauser improperly and overtly differentiated the touchscreen 

“feature,” causing respondents to focus on it inordinately, thus introducing error and bias in the 

form of demand artifacts. 10 

14. Professor Hauser differentiated the touchscreen feature in numerous ways. Most 

obviously, when moving from level to level in the touchscreen “feature,” levels are crossed out 

with bright red lines—no other “feature’s” levels are depicted this way. 11 

This differentiation is 

made clear by direct comparison to the connectivity “feature,” the icons of which otherwise most 

closely resembles the touchscreen “feature” icons. 12 

When depicting connectivity levels, 

Professor Hauser simply presented the functions the particular level had—he did not, as he did 

with the touchscreen levels, strike-through missing functions in red and allow those functions to 

remain in each of the four icons presented in the survey. Such differentiation focused survey 

respondents inordinately and inappropriately on the Three Touchscreen Patents, specifically, on 

the loss of the functions covered by them. 

In so doing, Professor Hauser’s surveys suggest the 


http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR7.asp. 

10 

The introduction to the touchscreen “feature” for smartphones is available at 

http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR3.asp and the introduction to the touchscreen “feature” for 

tablets is available at http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asts/QATTR3.asp. The actual survey selection screens 

incorporating the touchscreen icons are not available online. Each survey respondent saw 16 selection screens 

featuring the icons discussed above. Professor Hauser provided only two examples (one for smartphones, one for 

tablets) of these selection screens in his Report. Hauser Report Exhs. F-G. 

11 

Compare http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR3.asp with 

http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR1.asp and 







12 

Compare http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/QATTR3.asp with 


7


correct answer to each choice exercise is whichever choice includes all of the functions covered 

by the Three Touchscreen Patents. In this way, Professor Hauser made the Three Touchscreen 

Patents appear in his survey as must-have functions, which improperly guided respondents to 

select them without proper consideration of utility, other features, or price. 

This caused his 

surveys to overstate the WTP estimates of the Three Touchscreen Patents. 

15. Professor Hauser differentiated the touchscreen “feature” in other ways as well. 

They include: (1) occupying the most space in the selection screen grid; 13 

(2) rendering the 

background color of the touchscreen icon solid black, while rendering the other “features’” icons 

in medium-to-light gray gradients; 14 

and (3) depicting the touchscreen feature with large 

disparities in the lines of text used to describe levels (for example, “Full Multi-Touch” is a single 

line of text while the highest level touchscreen description utilizes five lines of text; 15 

no other 

feature’s description employs a five-to-one ratio). 16 

The import of these differentiations is that 

the survey focused respondents on the touchscreen “feature,” which created layers of demand 

artifacts. 

These and other errors render his results and conclusions unreliable. 

C. Professor Hauser’s Results And Conclusions Are Contradicted By Marketplace 

Evidence Of Demand 

16. As made clear during trial, Professor Hauser’s results lack external validity, 

which means they are not validated by real-world consumer behavior. Trial Tr. 1926:24- 

1927:7; 1940:4-21. The import of this is twofold. First, it is undisputed that Professor 

Hauser’s implausible valuations of the Three Touchscreen Patents do not reflect dollar amounts 

consumers would actually pay in the real world. See id. at 1935:16-25 (“It's not what they 

13 

14 

15 

16 

See Hauser Report Exh. F at “QINTRO3.” 

See n.11 supra; Hauser Report Exh. F at “QINTRO3.” 

http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asts/QATTR3.asp. 

See n.11 supra. 

8


actually pay in the marketplace.”). Indeed, Professor Hauser himself has conceded that, at best, 

his survey data and results can be used to estimate WTP for the tested features—they do not 

measure, and cannot be used to measure, what consumers might actually pay in the real world. 

Id. 

Second, because Professor Hauser’s results are inconsistent with consumer data, including 

purchase-decision surveys commissioned and/or conducted by Apple and/or Samsung, his results 

cannot be equated with actual consumer demand for the Three Touchscreen Patents. 17 

17. To demonstrate the disparity between Professor Hauser’s results and evidence of 

actual consumer demand in the marketplace, using Professor Hauser’s data and one of his 

selected methodologies, I calculated the WTP estimates for the other “features” Professor Hauser 

tested in his surveys. While Professor Hauser deliberately chose not to report these other WTP 

estimates, they can be calculated using the back-up data and programs he provided. 18 

Hauser 

Dep. Tr. at 90:2-91:2 (“I think for simplicity . . . I didn’t report them, but, you know, they were – 

they’re in all the files; you can compute them, et cetera.”). More specifically, I used Professor 

Hauser’s median-consumer WTP programs to derive so-called “price premium” estimates for the 

other tested “features.” Professor Hauser used the median-consumer willingness to pay 

calculations to check the market simulation results reported in Table 4 of his Report. 19 

Below, I 

17 

See, e.g., SAMNDCA00252685 - SAMNDCA00252775 at ‘707 (Most important features are reception and 

battery life. Device durability, speed of connectivity, ease of typing, and wireless carrier deemed very important 

attributes by at least 75% of consumers.), 

The relevant data appears in Professor Hauser's SAS datasets (avss_mono_scrub.sas7bdat and 

avst_mono_scrub.sas7bdat) and program files (header.sas, wtp_tablet.sas, and wtp_sphone.sas). The price premiums 

I report in Table 1 were generated by applying the code in Professor Hauser’s programs for the Touchscreen feature 

to the other features. 

19 As Professor Hauser states in his Report, “[t]he median-consumer willingness to pay calculation yields price 

premium estimates that are similar to what I estimate using the market simulation method.” Hauser Report 104, 

n.72. Median WTP estimates could also be derived using Professor Hauser’s market simulation method. Hauser 

Report 98. Analyzing Professor Hauser’s consumer WTP method allowed me to consider the distribution of 

individual WTP estimates, which provided additional insight into the reliability and reasonableness of Professor 

Hauser’s analysis and results. Sukumar Rebuttal Report 11, 70-75. 

9


summarize some of the fundamental marketplace contradictions his median-consumer 

willingness to pay calculations show: 

• Professor Hauser’s estimated price premium for memory was $.04 for 

smartphones and $10 for tablets to double memory from the base 8GB, 

while the marketplace typically commands much more to double the 

storage capacity of a smartphone or tablet. 20 For example, Samsung 

charges $100 to double the storage capacity of the “Galaxy Tab 7.0” 

tablet. 21 

• Professor Hauser’s results suggest consumers are willing to spend only 

$0.01 to double the number of applications (“apps”) available for their 

smartphone. 22 

In fact, the number of available apps is such a critical driver of 

consumer demand that Apple 

. 24 

18. Professor Hauser used four levels for each of the “features” he tested. Hauser 

Report Exhs. F-G. Professor Hauser’s estimated price premiums are presented in the Table 1 

below. As the table clearly illustrates, the median-consumer WTP for the Three Touchscreen 

Patents for smartphones is substantially greater than every other tested feature besides 

“camera.” 25 

Such a result is implausible—the Three Touchscreen Patents are indisputably a 

20 

21 

See Table 1 infra. 

Compare http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P6210MAYXAR (16GB/$349) with 

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/GT-P6210MAVXAR (32GB/$449). 

22 

See Table 1 infra. 

23 

24 

Professor Hauser’s choice to 

conflate these features likely resulted in respondent confusion and upwardly biased his WTP estimates for the 

“camera” “feature.” See Sukumar Rebuttal Report 47-49. Similarly, Professor Hauser’s “connectivity” 

“feature” is also a bundle of features consumers typically disaggregate, as evidenced by the very source Professor 

Hauser claims externally validates his construction of “features.” Compare Hauser Report 39 with http://cellphones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/. 

In fact, Professor Hauser admitted he had no external validation for 

bundling the “features” they way he chose to do in his surveys. Hauser Dep. Tr. 160:6-20 (Q: “are you aware of 

(footnote continued) 

10


small subset of functions within a single feature, touchscreen. 26 

27 

28 

Indeed, as Professor Hauser himself has admitted, “there’s a lot of 

touchscreen features” and “literally hundreds of [other features]” came up during the consumer 

interviews Professor Hauser used to “design” his surveys. 29 Hauser Dep. Tr. at 59:18-60:9; 

109:17-25; 18:3-9. By virtue of constituting the entire touchscreen, “feature” with only Apple’s 

patents, survey respondents very likely misunderstood what the patents actually covered— 

perhaps mistakenly believing that without Apple’s patents, the devices’ touchscreens would not 

function at all. 30 

In any case, because Professor Hauser’s results defy common sense and 

contradict evidence of actual consumer sentiment and behavior, they cannot be relied upon to 

show consumer demand. 

any website or magazine that combines the features the way you do in your survey? A: I don’t – doesn’t need to – to 

have one.”). 

26 

See n.6 supra. The functionality claimed by the Three Touchscreen Patents is not disaggregated in 

Samsung’s advertising or in popular media reviews of the relevant Samsung products. Professor Hauser’s 

smartphone WTP estimate for the Three Touchscreen Patents is especially implausible when compared to the $152 

average price survey respondents paid for their smartphone. Hauser Report 101. 

27 

29 

Professor Hauser’s failure to test the features identified as important in consumers’ purchase decisions also 

render his results unreliable. Sukumar Rebuttal Report 43 (“if Professor Hauser had shown more features 

identified by consumers as influential to their purchasing decision, any one of the tested features may have been 

drowned out by a feature real-world consumers actually consider when purchasing smartphones and tablets”), 82 

(“Professor Hauser’s conjoint analysis omitted a variety of characteristics that matter to consumers when selecting 

smartphones and tablet computers . . . [b]ecause Professor Hauser has excluded important features from his analysis, 

his results bias and inflate the value of the features he does test.”). 

30 

See, e.g., http://www.surveyplus.com/survey1202asps/play_video.asp?vid=31. 

11


TABLE 1: PROFESSOR HAUSER’S MEDIAN-CONSUMER WTP ESTIMATES 31 

Feature 32 Smartphones (Base Price $199) Tablets (Base Price $499) 

‘915 + ‘163 + ‘381 

CAMERA 

(3 MP Rear Camera, 

Standard Video 

Recording, Autofocus 

base level) 

$124 $97 33 

$77 (8 MP Rear Camera, HD Video 

Recording, Autofocus) 

$136 (8 MP Rear Camera HD Video 

Recording, Autofocus, 2 MP Front 

Camera) 

$49 

$121 

WEIGHT & SIZE 

STORAGE/MEMORY 

(8 GB base level) 

CONNECTIVITY 

$162 (12 MP Rear Camera, HD 

Video Recording, 

Autofocus, 2 MP Front Camera, 

Zoom) 

3.5 in., 4 oz. base level 

$28 (4 in. / 5 oz.) 

$26 ( 4.3 in. / 5.3 oz) 

$31 (4.5 in. / 6 oz.) 

$0.04 (16 GB) 

$19 (32 GB) 

$24 (64 GB) 

Cellular, WiFi base level 

$25 (Cellular, WiFi, Tethering) 

$75 (Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, 

MicroUSB) 

$83 (Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, 

MicroUSB, HDMI) 

$152 

7 in. / 1 lb. base level 

$21 (8.5 in. / 1.5 lbs.) 

$35 (9 in. / 1.75 lbs.) 

$46 (10 in. / 2 lbs.) 

$10 

$52 

$57 

WiFi base level 

$18 (WiFi, Bluetooth) 

$99 (WiFi, Bluetooth 

MicroUSB) 

$117 (WiFi, Bluetooth 

MicroUSB, HDMI) 

31 

These values are reported uncapped—nowhere in his Report did Professor Hauser reveal that he capped all 

values at $100, but the data and programs he produced shows the existence of such a cap. See wtp_sphone.sas and 

wtp_tablet.sas. 

32 

The four levels of “features” included in the smartphone and tablet surveys were identical except for the 

“weight and size” and “connectivity” “features.” 

33 

Hauser Report 104, n.73 (the median WTP is $97 for the combination of ‘915, 163, and ‘381). 

12


NUMBER OF APPS 

(150,000 base level) 

$0.01 (300,000) 

$0.03 (450,000) 

$0.04 (600,000) 

$0.01 

$0.04 

$0.05 

19. I believe that problems in any one of the areas I have outlined herein or 

previously described in the Sukumar Rebuttal Report render Professor Hauser’s survey results 

and analysis fundamentally unreliable. The fact that there are problems in numerous areas of 

his surveys lead me to conclude that the survey results and Professor Hauser’s analysis are not 

credible and cannot be relied upon to show actual consumer demand. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on October 19, 2012. 

By: _______________________________________ 

R. Sukumar 

13


EXHIBIT 1


R. Sukumar, Ph.D. 

Home: 

2 Tomlyn Drive 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

P: (609) 430-0986 

C: (832) 372-8580 

E: Sukumar@me.com 

Office: 

140 Terry Drive, Suite 118 

Newtown, PA 18940 

P: (215) 867-1881 

C: (609) 356-4551 

E: r.sukumar@optimalstrategix.com 

Education 

1991 Ph.D. in Business Administration 

Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Major: Marketing (Stochastic Parameter Model to Understand Price and Promotion 

Effectiveness) 

1990 Master of Business Administration 

Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business 

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Major: Marketing 

1985 Bachelor of Technology (Hons.) 

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India 

Major: Mechanical Engineering 

Experience 

1998- Chief Executive Officer, Optimal Strategix Group, Inc., a strategic market research 

and marketing consulting company focused on delivering market foresight on 

innovations, brand engineering, and effective marketing programs 

Fall 2008 

Visiting Professor, City University of New York, Baruch College 

2006-2007 Visiting Associate Professor of Marketing, Rutgers Business School, State University 

of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 

2005-2006 Visiting Professor of Marketing, Robert H. Smith Graduate School of Business, 

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 

2001-2005 Clinical Professor of World Business, Thunderbird, 

Sam Garvin International School of Management, Glendale, Arizona 

Courses taught – Data Analysis, Global Product Development, Analysis for 

Strategic Marketing, EMBA – Data Analysis in Taipei – Teacher Effectiveness 

Index from 4.3 to 4.8 on 5.0 

Taught in the MBA and Executive MBA programs and Executive Education 

Programs. Rated the best professor in Marketing; top three in the Business School 

Associate Director – Thunderbird Corporate Consulting Program. Consulted with 

GM, Ford, J & J, among others. 

1


1999-2001 Visiting Associate Professor of Marketing, Jones Graduate School of Management 

Rice University 

Taught in the MBA and the Executive MBA programs 

Rated in the top three professors in the Business School 

2002-03 Associate Dean for Academic Programs, The Indian School of Business 

ISB is founded by partner schools Northwestern University, Kellogg Graduate 

School of Management; University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of 

Management and London School of Business. 

1990-99 Assistant Professor – Marketing & Entrepreneurship, C. T. Bauer College of 

Business, University of Houston. 

Taught in undergraduate, graduate (MBA and Ph.D.) and Executive MBA programs 

Received Distinguished EMBA Faculty Award, 1999. 

Received Halliburton Excellence Award for Teaching and Service, 1996-97. 

1997-2004 Vice President - Marketing Sciences, IPSOS-Insight, New York, NY (first started 

with the NPD Group, Inc., custom business was acquired in 2001 by IPSOS). 

Role involves conducting advanced analytics, product development, conducting 

workshops, internal teaching, client support and research and development of new 

analytical tools. 

Teaching & Workshops 

Also taught at the City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong courses on Global 

Product Development, Marketing Management, and Marketing Research 

Core course in Marketing Management, Market Research and Marketing Strategy 

MBA electives in Business-to-Business Marketing, Database Marketing, 

Data Mining, and New Product Development 

Executive MBA courses in Marketing Management and Advanced Marketing 

Strategy. 

Taught in the Executive Certification Program in E-Commerce Management at the 

C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston. 

Conducted Workshop on Survey Research Methods at the Advanced Research 

Techniques Conference in Aspen, Colorado (June 1998). 

Chaired two Executive workshops on “Improving the New Product Development 

Process: Lessons from Experts” (June 1994 and May 1995) 

Chair of Executive Program on “Customer-Driven Technology New Product 

Development: Increasing Profits and Managing Risk through Market Research.” 

(January 17-18, 1996) 

2


Conducted three week course on “Managing Markets” for executives from Deutsche 

Telekom, Germany (October 1996) 

Taught executives from Deutsche Telekom, Germany (June 1997, September 1997), 

from China’s PetroChina (China National Petroleum Corporation) (September 1999, 

June 2000, September 2000). 

Research Experience 

Articles 

"Heuristics for Product-Line Selection using Conjoint Analysis," Management 

Science, December 1990, Vol 36, Number 12, p. 1464-1478 (with Professor Rajeev 

Kohli). 

“Measuring Marketing Mix Effects in the Video-Game Console Market” with 

Pradeep Chintagunta and Harikesh Nair (forthcoming Journal of Applied 

Econometrics, October 2006) 

“Data Mining,” in Handbook of Marketing Research, 2006 (editors, Rajiv Grover 

and Marco Vriens) 

Research Interests 

New Product (service) innovation, Market segmentation, brand loyalty, pricing, 

database marketing, data mining, market structure analyses. 

Other Research Experience 

Dissertation Committees 

Presented at several conferences and workshops. Most recent presentation: “Effects 

of Service Failure and Service Recovery on Customer Life Time Value,” a joint 

MSI/Yale University Conference (December 2004) 

Presented conference papers at Marketing Science Conferences (INFORMS). 

Currently, working in the area of Hierarchical Bayesian approaches to Market 

Segmentation based on information search criteria 

Served as a Reviewer for a number of manuscripts submitted for publication to 

journals published by the American Marketing Association, INFORMS. 

Reviewer for manuscripts submitted to Management Science, Journal of Marketing 

Research and Journal of Advertising. 

Ms. Charu Prakash (co-chair), Ms. V. Satya (co-chair) 

Kiran Karande (member), John Gaskins (member), Rajagopal Echambadi (member), 

Rosalind Wyatt (member) 

Rama Pakala (member, Mechanical Engineering, Master’s thesis) 

Shantanu Swadi (member, Mechanical Engineering, Master’s thesis) 

3


Consulting Experience 

Consulted on Marketing and Market Research issues for a number of large and small 

organizations, including Pfizer, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Johnson and Johnson 

Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, Nestle, Kraft Foods, ExxonMobil, Jiffy 

Lube/Pennzoil, Schlumberger-GeoQuest, Halliburton, Lucas Arts, Qwest 

Cyber.Solutions, Inc., Lubrizol, Shell Oil, Calgary Transit Authority, Diagnostic 

Systems Laboratories, Columbia/HCA, METRO Transit, Conoco and St. Luke’s 

Episcopal Hospital. 

I have worked with a number of organizations as part of class projects with student 

teams developing market research and marketing plans. 

Conducted training programs for Reliant Energy and Communications, El Paso 

Energy, Deutsche Telekom, PetroChina (China National Petroleum Corporation), 

Shell Business Leadership Team. 

Professional Affiliations 

Expert Witness Work 

American Marketing Association, American Statistical Association, INFORMS 

American Economic Association 

American Psychometric Society 

American Statistical Association 

Econometric Society 

European Marketing Association 

Product Development and Management Association 

President, South Central Chapter of the Product Development and Management 

Association. (1995-1997). Active member and Director of the Board for the 

Phoenix Chapter of the PDMA (1998-2004) 

- Nomadix v. HP et. Al, United States District Court, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION, Case under settlement 

- Apple v. Samsung, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT 

OF CALIFORNIA 

- Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and General Instrumentation 

Corporation, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

WASHINGTON at Seattle 

4


PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION 


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

__________________________________________ 

) 

APPLE INC., ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 

) 

v. ) 

) 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; ) 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; ) 

and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS ) 

AMERICA, LLC, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

__________________________________________) 

DECLARATION OF YORAM (JERRY) WIND 

October 19, 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 

A. Assignment And Objectives ......................................................................................... 3 

B. Qualifications ................................................................................................................ 3 

C. Approach And Materials Reviewed .............................................................................. 6 

II. Summary Of Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 7 

III. Background ......................................................................................................................... 10 

A. Case Status .................................................................................................................. 10 

B. Patented Features and Non-Infringing Alternatives ................................................... 11 

C. Background On Smartphones And Tablets................................................................. 14 

D. Overview Of Professor Hauser’s Analysis ................................................................. 16 

IV. Analysis Of Hauser Report .................................................................................................. 21 

A. The Surveys Upon Which Professor Hauser’s Findings Are Based Were Not 

Designed To Estimate The Magnitude Of Samsung Smartphone And Tablet Sales 

Attributable To The Protected Features ...................................................................... 21 

B. Professor Hauser’s Estimates Of The WTP Price Premium Associated With The 

Features Claimed In The Utility Patents Are Based On An Underlying Methodology 

That Generates Nonsensical Predictions ..................................................................... 24 

1. Professor Hauser’s Methodology Suggests That A Substantial 

Portion Of Survey Respondents Prefer To Pay Higher Prices 

For Otherwise Identical Smartphones And Tablets ........................................ 24 

2. Professor Hauser’s Methodology Suggests That A Large 

Portion Of Samsung Owners Prefer Clearly Inferior, Yet 

Identically Priced, Smartphones And Tablets ................................................. 26 

3. Professor Hauser’s Estimates Of The WTP Price Premium 

Associated With Just The Touchscreen Features Examined 

Exceed The $152 Average Smartphone Price Paid By Survey 

Respondents .................................................................................................... 28 

C. The Surveys Underlying Professor Hauser’s Findings Embody Numerous Design 

Flaws That Invalidate His Analysis And Appear To Inflate His Price Premium 

Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 29 

1. Professor Hauser’s WTP Price Premium Estimates Associated 

With The Features Claimed In The Utility Patents Are 

Conflated By An Apparent Bias Associated With Animated 

Feature Descriptions ....................................................................................... 29 

2. Professor Hauser’s Failure To Incorporate Appropriate Non- 

Infringing Alternative Features Results In Apparently Inflated 

WTP Price Premium Estimates ....................................................................... 32 

1


3. Professor Hauser’s WTP Price Premium Estimates May Be 

Inflated Because Respondents Were Forced To Choose 

Samsung Smartphones .................................................................................... 35 


Biased Upward Due To The Fact That There Are No Actual 

Consequences To Purchasing More Expensive Products In A 

Hypothetical Survey ........................................................................................ 36 


Overstated Because His Survey Omits A Number Of Important 

Features And Benefits Associated With The Smartphone And 

Tablet Purchase Decision ................................................................................ 37 

D. Professor Hauser Failed To Externally Validate His Model ...................................... 39 

V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 39 

2


I, Yoram (Jerry) Wind, declare as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Assignment And Objectives 

1. I was asked by counsel for Samsung to evaluate the Expert Report of John R. 

Hauser (the “Hauser Report”) and the conjoint study discussed therein, and in particular, to 

comment on whether the conjoint study conducted by Professor Hauser demonstrates that the 

touchscreen features claimed in U.S. Patent Numbers 7,469,381 (“the ’381 patent”); 7,844,915 

(“the ’915 patent”); and 7,864,163 (“the ’163 patent”) drive consumer demand for Samsung 

smartphones and tablets—i.e. that consumers buy Samsung smartphones and tablets because 

they are equipped with those features. 

B. Qualifications 

2. I am the Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of 

the University of Pennsylvania. I joined the Wharton staff in 1967, upon receipt of my doctorate 

from Stanford University. 

3. Publications – I have been a regular contributor to the marketing field, including 

22 books and over 250 papers, articles, and monographs. My books and articles, which are 

frequently cited by other authors, encompass marketing strategy, marketing research, new 

product and market development, consumer behavior, organizational buying behavior, and 

global marketing strategy. 

4. Editorships – I have served as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Marketing, as 

a guest editor of numerous marketing journals, on the policy boards of the Journal of Consumer 

Research, and Marketing Science, and on the editorial boards of the major marketing journals. I 

am the founder of Wharton School of Publishing and served as its first Wharton editor from 2004 

3


to 2008. 

5. Teaching and Consulting – I have taught MBA, Ph.D., and executive 

development courses on a wide range of marketing topics. I also have consulted extensively for 

many Fortune 500 firms, including major consumer goods firms. In my teaching, consulting, 

editorial, and university positions I have designed, conducted, and evaluated thousands of 

marketing and consumer research studies. 

6. Expert Witness – I have conducted and evaluated marketing and consumer 

research in a litigation context, have been qualified as a marketing and survey research expert, 

and testified in trial in a number of federal courts. 

7. Awards – I have received various awards, including the four major marketing 

awards – The Charles Coolidge Parlin Award (1985), the AMA/Irwin Distinguished Educator 

Award (1993), the Paul D. Converse Award (1996), and MIT’s Buck Weaver Award (2007). I 

also received the first Faculty Impact Award by Wharton Alumni (1993). I was elected to the 

Attitude Research Hall of Fame in 1984. I have also been honored with a number of research 

awards, including two Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation awards. In 2001, I was selected as one of 

the ten grand Auteurs in Marketing and in 2003 I received the Elsevier Science Distinguished 

Scholar Award of the Society for Marketing Advances. In 2010, I was selected as one of the Ten 

Legends of Marketing, and Sage Publications is publishing eight volumes of my writings. 

8. Complete Resume and Compensation – My resume and the legal cases in which 

I have testified in deposition or trial are included in Appendix A. 1 

My total compensation for 

review and analysis of the relevant material and preparation of this expert report is based on my 

regular consulting rate of $1,000 an hour. 

1 A copy of my CV can also be found at https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/196/cv. 

4


9. Experience with Conjoint Analysis – With Paul Green and Doug Carroll, I 

wrote in 1973 the first book on conjoint analysis – Multi-Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A 

Measurement Approach. 2 

Since the early 1970s, as part of the research team including Paul 

Green and Abba Krieger, we developed many of the advances in conjoint analysis and have 

applied conjoint analyses in hundreds of academic and commercial studies. See, for example: 

“Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement” 3 

 

“Consumer Menu Preference: An Application of Additive Conjoint 

Measurement” 4 

“New Way to Measure Consumers’ Judgments” 5 

“New Developments in Conjoint Analysis” 6 

“Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums for Hotel Amenities” 7 

“Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects” 8 

2 Wind, Yoram, Paul E. Green, and J. Douglas Carroll. Multi-Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement 

Approach. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, 1973. 

3 Green, Paul E., Frank J. Carmone, and Yoram Wind. “Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement.” 

Behavioral Science 17.3 (May 1972): 288-299, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7205_Subjective_Evaluation_Models_and_Conjoint.pdf. 

4 Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. “Consumer Menu Preference: An Application of Additive 

Conjoint Measurement.” Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. 

Ed. M. Venkatesan. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 1972. 304-315, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7208_Consumer_Menu_Preferences_An_Application.pdf. 

5 Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind. “New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgments.” Harvard Business Review 53 

(July - Aug. 1975): 107-117, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7509_New_Way_to_Measure_Consumers'.pdf. 

6 Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “New Developments in Conjoint Analysis.” Paper presented at the 25th Annual Midwest 

Conference of the American Statistical Association on What's New in Statistical Techniques for Marketing 

Research, Mar. 1978. 

7 Goldberg, Stephen M., Paul E. Green, and Yoram Wind. “Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums for Hotel 

Amenities.” Journal of Business 57.1.2 (1984): S111-S132, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/8403_Conjoint_Analysis_of_Price_Premiums.pdf. 

8 Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and 

Prospects.” Interfaces 31.3.2 (May - June 2001): S56-S73, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0102_Thirty_Years_of_Conjoint_Analysis.pdf. 

5


“Conjoint Analysis: Methods and Applications” 9 

“Applying Conjoint Analysis to Legal Disputes: A Case Study” 10 

10. Additionally, the e-book I co-authored with Abba Krieger and Paul Green, 

Adventures in Conjoint Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide to Trade-Off Modeling and 

Applications, 11 offers a summary of reflections on some of our work over the years, in which we 

applied conjoint analysis in the design of products and services, positioning, market 

segmentation, product assortment, pricing, and other marketing and business decisions. These 

applications included the design of the Courtyard by Marriott, and projects for numerous firms 

such as AT&T, Ford, IBM, Xerox, American Airlines, FedEx, MasterCard, Monsanto, Pfizer, 

GSK, and a number of other B2C and B2B firms. For an illustrative list of applications, see 

Table 2 of “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects.” 12 

C. Approach And Materials Reviewed 

11. Approach and Criteria for Evaluation – In preparing this report, I relied on 

marketing, consumer behavior, and consumer research concepts, methods, and findings (a) as 

reflected in the professional literature and as taught by me and others at Wharton and other 

leading universities, and (b) as practiced by me and other leading professionals in conducting 

9 Green, Paul E., Jerry Wind, and Vithala R. Rao. “Conjoint Analysis: Methods and Applications.” The Technology 

Management Handbook. Ed. Richard C. Dorf. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998. 12-66–12-72, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9903_Conjoint_Analysis_Methods_and_Applications.pdf. 

10 Wind, Yoram (Jerry), Abba M. Krieger, and Paul E. Green. “Applying Conjoint Analysis to Legal Disputes: A 

Case Study.” Wharton School Working Paper, 2002, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0601_Applying_Conjoint_Analysis_to_Legal.pdf. 

11 Krieger, Abba M., Paul E. Green and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. Adventures in Conjoint Analysis: A Practitioner’s 

Guide to Trade-Off Modeling and Applications. Philadelphia: The Wharton School, 2004, available at 

https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/green/monograph/. 

12 Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and 

Prospects.” Interfaces 31.3.2 (May - June 2001): S56-S73, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0102_Thirty_Years_of_Conjoint_Analysis.pdf. 

6


and evaluating marketing and consumer research for academic peer-reviewed publications and 

for management and courts as input into their decisions. These principles are consistent with the 

criteria outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation (4th Edition) published in 2004 by the 

Federal Judicial Center. 

12. Material Reviewed and Research Team – In reaching these conclusions, I 

reviewed and/or relied upon the items listed in Appendix B. These materials include, among 

other things, Professor Hauser’s report, deposition and trial testimony. I also have discussed 

issues in this case with my colleague and research collaborator, Professor Abba Krieger, and 

with Analysis Group. In addition, some of the analysis that supports the opinions expressed in 

this declaration was performed by staff members at Analysis Group working under my direction 

and supervision. 

II. 

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 

13. Professor Hauser's Report and the conjoint analysis that it describes do not 

show that consumers bought Samsung smartphones or tablets because the devices were 

equipped with the features claimed in the utility patents. That is, Professor Hauser’s conjoint 

analysis does not provide a reliable or valid basis for determining whether the touchscreen 

features claimed in the ’915, ’163, or ’381 patents (the “utility patents” or “patents at issue”) 

drove sales of the Samsung smartphones or tablets that incorporated those features. The reasons 

include the following. 

14. First, as Professor Hauser acknowledges, his analysis was not designed to 

show that consumers bought Samsung smartphones or tablets because they were equipped 

with the features claimed in the utility patents. His surveys were designed to examine why 

respondents choose among Samsung smartphones or tablets and not why respondents select 

7


Samsung smartphones or tablets over competing products or rather than choosing to make no 

purchase at all. He limited his surveys to owners of Samsung smartphones or tablets and forced 

those respondents to choose only Samsung devices. Respondents did not have the choice to 

select competing products, nor did they have the choice not to select Samsung devices because 

prices were too high or the devices did not meet their purchase requirements. Consequently, 

Professor Hauser’s surveys do not provide a basis by which to analyze why survey respondents 

buy Samsung smartphones or tablets versus buying another brand of smartphone or tablet (or not 

buying such a device at all). Professor Hauser explicitly acknowledged this limitation of his 

survey design in his report, noting that “the survey was designed with the goal that respondents 

would not make comparisons with other devices available in the marketplace” 13 

and that “[t]his 

outside-option design is appropriate when a researcher wishes to estimate primary demand for 

smartphones,” 14 where primary demand reflects the demand for the products explicitly examined 

in the survey relative to alternatives. As such, one cannot draw any conclusions from Professor 

Hauser’s surveys as to whether the features claimed in the patents at issue drove purchases of 

Samsung smartphones or tablets equipped with those features. (See paragraphs 40-45) 

15. Second, Professor Hauser’s methodology generates predictions that are 

inconsistent with market realities and common sense. Specifically, Professor Hauser’s 

estimates of the willingness-to-pay (“WTP”) price premium associated with the features claimed 

in the utility patents are based on an underlying methodology that generates nonsensical 

predictions. For example, they suggest that: 

 

As many as 43 percent of survey respondents chose to purchase smartphones or 

13 Hauser Report, p. 35. 


8


tablets that were priced higher than an identical lower-priced device. (See 

paragraphs 46-47.) 

 

As many as 35 percent of respondents preferred clearly inferior yet identically 

priced devices. (See paragraphs 48-51.) 

 

The smartphone WTP price premium associated with just the touchscreen features 

examined by Professor Hauser exceeds the $152 average price paid by survey 

respondents. (See paragraphs 52-54.) 

16. Third, the design of the surveys that underlie Professor Hauser’s findings 

embodies numerous flaws that appear to invalidate his analysis and/or inflate his price 

premium estimates. Professor Hauser’s WTP premium estimates associated with the features 

claimed in the utility patents: 

 

are conflated by systematically higher WTP price premium estimates associated 

with animated descriptions used to describe the features claimed in the utility 

patents. (See paragraphs 56-60.) 

 

appear to be inflated because his analysis failed to compare the willingness-to-pay 

for features associated with technologies claimed in the utility patents with noninfringing 

substitute technologies. (See paragraphs 61-65.) 

 

may be inflated by a survey design which forced respondents to choose Samsung 

devices by not including other brands or a “no choice option.” (See paragraphs 

66-67.) 

 

may not accurately reflect respondents’ price sensitivity because respondents’ 

survey responses are linked to hypothetical, and not actual, spending. (See 


9


 

may be overstated because his survey omits a number of important features and 

benefits associated with the smartphone and tablet purchase decision. (See 


17. Fourth, Professor Hauser failed to externally validate his model. Professor 

Hauser conducted internal validity tests to determine whether his findings were consistent within 

his sample of respondents. However, Professor Hauser failed to conduct any external validity 

tests to determine whether his findings might be meaningful beyond the sample of respondents 

he surveyed and beyond his narrow survey environment. (See paragraph 73.) 

III. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Case Status 

18. On August 24, 2012, a jury found that Samsung had infringed several Apple 

patents, including the ’381 patent, the ’915 patent, and the ’163 patent. 15 

I understand that 

Samsung is appealing the verdict. 

19. I further understand that Apple has asked the Court to permanently enjoin 

Samsung from selling certain smartphones and tablets. Among the arguments that Apple has 

made in support of its motion is that Samsung’s infringement has caused “more than an 

insubstantial loss of market share” to Apple. 16 

To support that argument, Apple has argued that 

“Apple’s iOS utility patents drive consumer demand.” 17 

20. Apple has used the results of the Hauser Conjoint Analysis as evidence 

15 Vascellaro, Jessica E. “Apple Wins Big in Patent Case,” The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2012, available at 

online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html (viewed October 9, 2012). 

16 Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements, p. 7. 


10


demonstrating “strong consumer demand” 18 for each of Apple's patented inventions. According 

to Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements: 

Using the sam e methods that m ajor com panies use outside of 

court, the results [of Professor Hauser’s analysis] show that 

Samsung consumers who purchased the infringing products would 

be willing to pay $39 more for a smartphone or $45 for a tablet that 

included the technology of the ’ 915 Patent and $100 m ore for a 

smartphone or $90 for a tablet that included the technology of all 

three of the utility patents. (Tr. 1929:12-16; 1946:4-9; PX30.) This 

evidence demonstrates strong cons umer demand for each patented 

invention. (See also Musika Decl. 40-57; Robinson Decl. 34- 

42). 19 

B. Patented Features and Non-Infringing Alternatives 

21. I understand that Samsung has been found to have incorporated touchscreen 

features claimed in the ’381, ’915, and ’163 patents in certain smartphones and tablets. I also 

understand that Samsung has developed and begun to employ non-infringing alternatives which 

provide customer benefits that are comparable to the features claimed in the Apple patents that 

Samsung was found to have infringed. 

22. U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 issued December 23, 2008 and is entitled “List 

Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display.” 20 

I 

understand that the ’381 patent relates to the “bounce back” or “rubberband” feature that 

indicates when a user has scrolled to the end of a document on a touchscreen display. 21 When 


19 Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements, pp. 9. (emphasis added) 

20 U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 B2. 

21 Declaration Of Andries Van Dam, Ph.D. In Support Of Samsung’s Opposition To Apple’s Motion For A 

Permanent Injunction And For Damages Enhancements Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, October 18, 2012 

(“Van Dam Declaration”), pp. 5-6; U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 B2, at column 21. See also, Reed, Brad. “Apple vs. 

Samsung: The gory details,” BGR, August 24, 2012, available at http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsungtrial-verdict-samsung-loses-big/ 

(viewed October 9, 2012); Arthur, Charles. “Apple v Samsung: the questions the 

jury has to answer,” The Guardian, August 22, 2012, available at 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/22/jurors-samsung-apple-questions (viewed October 9, 2012). 

11


the user scrolls to the end of a document, the screen continues past the edge of the document and 

temporarily displays a shaded area before bouncing or “snap[ing] back” to the edge of the 

document. 22 

I further understand that this functionality has been incorporated into certain 

Samsung smartphones and tablets. 

23. I understand that Samsung has developed a non-infringing alternative to the ’381 

patent that has been implemented in several of its smartphones and tablets. 23 

This non-infringing 

alternative replaces the “rubberband” feature with a blue glow that emanates from the edge of the 

screen whenever the user attempts to scroll past the edge. I understand that, under the noninfringing 

alternative, the screen stops at the edge of the document such that no “rubberband” 

effect is implemented. 24 

24. U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 issued November 30, 2010 and is entitled “Application 

Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations.” 25 

I understand that the ’915 patent claims an 

“autoswitch” feature that enables the device to distinguish between single finger gestures (such 

as scrolling) and multi-finger gestures (such as “pinch to zoom”). 26 

I further understand that this 

functionality has been incorporated in certain Samsung smartphones and tablets. 

25. I understand that Samsung has implemented a non-infringing alternative to the 

22 Van Dam Declaration, p. 5. 

23 Van Dam Declaration, pp. 6-7. 

24 Van Dam Declaration, p. 6. 

25 U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 B2. 

26 Declaration Of Stephen Gray In Support Of Samsung’s Opposition To Apple’s Motion For A Permanent 

Injunction And Damages Enhancement, October 18, 2012 (“Gray Declaration”), p. 5; Reed, Brad. “Apple vs. 

Samsung: The gory details,” BGR, August 24, 2012, available at http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsungtrial-verdict-samsung-loses-big/ 

(viewed October 9, 2012); Arthur, Charles. “Apple v Samsung: the questions the 

jury has to answer,” The Guardian, August 22, 2012, available at 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/22/jurors-samsung-apple-questions (viewed October 9, 2012). 

12


’915 patent that is being implemented in the Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) smartphone. 27 This noninfringing 

alternative modifies the underlying software but leaves the user’s experience 

essentially unchanged. That is, a user will still be able to scroll (with one finger) and zoom on 

documents (using two fingers). 28 

26. U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 issued January 4, 2011 and is entitled “Portable 

Electronic Device Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Structured Electronic 

Documents.” 29 

I understand that the ’163 patent claims a method of navigating a document on a 

small screen device. More specifically, the ’163 patent relates to a method by which the user can 

double-tap the screen to re-center and zoom in on a section of the screen. 30 

The user can then 

double-tap on other portions of the screen to re-center the display while still zoomed in. 31 

I 

further understand that this functionality was incorporated in certain Samsung smartphones and 

tablets. 

27. I understand that Samsung has developed a non-infringing alternative to the ’163 

patent that has been implemented in several of its smartphones and tablets. 32 

This non-infringing 

alternative modifies the approach presented in the ’163 patent. Under this non-infringing 

alternative, after the user has performed a double-tap to zoom and re-center the screen, a 

subsequent double-tap causes the screen to zoom out rather than re-center on another portion of 

27 Gray Declaration, pp. 15-16. 

28 Gray Declaration, p. 15. 

29 U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 B2. 

30 Gray Declaration, pp. 16-17; Reed, Brad. “Apple vs. Samsung: The gory details,” BGR, August 24, 2012, 

available at http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-trial-verdict-samsung-loses-big/ (viewed October 9, 

2012); Arthur, Charles. “Apple v Samsung: the questions the jury has to answer,” The Guardian, August 22, 2012, 

available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/22/jurors-samsung-apple-questions (viewed October 9, 

2012). 



13


the screen. Additionally, a subsequent single-tap results in no response from the device. 33 

C. Background On Smartphones And Tablets 

28. Smartphones are voice and data handheld mobile wireless communications 

devices that can be distinguished from other mobile handsets, referred to as “feature phones,” by 

their advanced operating systems. 34 

A key feature distinguishing smartphones from other 

handsets is the ability to run third-party applications. 35 

These phones offer a range of advanced 

features and functionalities, including email support, the ability to access the internet, and 

multimedia functions (such as gaming and streaming music and video). 36 

29. A tablet is a hybrid of a computer and a smartphone that incorporates a flat 

touchscreen and typically measures 7 to 10 inches across. 37 

Tablets typically offer Wi-Fi 

connectivity, 38 and while a subset of tablets offer cellular communications capability, 39 they are 

not primarily used for voice communications. Instead, they are primarily used for personal 

computing uses such as gaming, email, and web browsing. 40 

30. Consumer surveys conducted by or for Samsung and Apple indicate that features 

33 Gray Declaration, p. 18. 

34 See e.g., “North American Smartphones Market,” Frost & Sullivan report number N81F-65, December 2010, p. 

14; Kidron, Ittai and George Iwanyc, “2012 Handset Guidebook,” Oppenheimer Equity Research, November 13, 

2011 (“Oppenheimer 2012 Handset Guidebook”), p. 93. 

35 Oppenheimer 2012 Handset Guidebook, p. 93. 

36 Oppenheimer 2012 Handset Guidebook, p. 93. 

37 Bell, Donald. “Tablet Buying Guide,” CNET, March 28, 2012, available at http://reviews.cnet.com/tablet-buyingguide/?tag=auxPromo 

(viewed October 16, 2012); Tablet Computer Definition, PC Magazine, available at 

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=tablet+computer&i=52520,00.asp (viewed October 16, 2012); 

“Tablet Buying Guide,” Consumer Reports, May 2012, available at 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/tablets/buying-guide.htm (viewed October 16, 2012). 

38 “Tablet Buying Guide,” Consumer Reports, May 2012, available at 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/tablets/buying-guide.htm (viewed October 16, 2012). 

39 See, e.g., APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, pp. 160, 216-217. 

40 APLNDC-Y0000023361-427, p. 389; APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, p. 246. 

14


relevant to smartphone customer purchase decisions include, among others, 

41 One website cited in the Hauser Report refers to approximately 30 

smartphone features in its product comparisons, 42 as do research reports from other third-party 

sources. 43 

A number of indirect attributes also affect the consumer purchase decision, including 

the quality, cost, and brand name of the network service provider; the price of the monthly 

service plan; and recommendations from other users and salespeople. 44 

The fact that many 

attributes contribute to the smartphone consumer’s purchase decision is consistent with the way 

smartphones, such as the AT&T version of the Galaxy SII, are displayed on Samsung’s 

website. 45 

Similarly, there are a variety of features that are relevant to tablet customer purchase 

decisions. 46 

31. The features claimed in the patents at issue contribute to, and make use of, 

touchscreen technology. However, the patents at issue do not cover touchscreen technology in 

and of itself, nor are they necessary for a touchscreen to be functional. I also understand that 

they do not cover many of the touchscreen features and functionalities that are incorporated in 

Samsung phones, such as the ability to type, scroll, or double-tap to select links. Consistent with 

41 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00250503-557, p. 525; APLNDC-X0000006548-647, p. 566; APLNDC0002007608-704, p. 

634. 

42 http://cell-phones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/ (viewed October 12, 2012). See also, Hauser Report, p. 22. 

43 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00190144-243, at 195. 

44 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00252685-775, p. 707; “How to Buy a Cell Phone,” PC World, November 29, 2011, 

available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/125653/cell_phone_guide.html (viewed October 16, 2012). 

45 See, e.g., Exhibit 1. 

46 APLNDC-Y0000023361-427, p. 387; APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, p. 233; http://tabletsreview.toptenreviews.com/ 

(viewed October 12, 2012). See also, Hauser Report, p. 22. 

15


this, while the Samsung website for the AT&T version of the Galaxy SII smartphone lists the 

touchscreen among the many features and attributes of the device, it describes the touchscreen 

broadly as “[t]echnology that enables users to interact with a phone by touching images, words, 

or icons on the display.” 47 

As such, the functions claimed in the patents at issue contribute, at 

most, some incremental value to the overall user experience of the touchscreen, which is just one 

of the many features relevant to smartphone and tablet customer purchase decisions. 

D. Overview Of Professor Hauser’s Analysis 

32. The Hauser Report, dated March 22, 2012, describes and reports the results of the 

conjoint analysis that he undertook related to his assignment “to determine the price premium, if 

any, that Samsung consumers are willing to pay for…features” 48 in smartphones and tablets 

associated with the patents at issue, including the ’915 patent, the ’381 patent, and the ’163 

patent. 49 33. 

Professor Hauser used a web-based conjoint analysis survey procedure 50 along 

with a hierarchical Bayes choice-based conjoint (“HB CBC”) statistical methodology to develop 

his price premium estimates. 51 

His approach included the following elements: 

i. A series of 20 interviews were conducted with smartphone and tablet consumers 

to develop an understanding about consumers’ use of smartphones and tablets. 52 

ii. 

Using this information, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire was 

47 Exhibit 2. 


49 The Hauser Report also addresses U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 as it relates to tablets and U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 

as it relates to smartphones; however, I understand that those patents were dropped from the litigation. 




16


pre-tested with another 20 respondents to examine the design and clarity of the 

survey instrument. 53 

iii. 

Survey respondents completed a set of screener questions to determine eligibility 

for the conjoint survey. 54 

Respondents who passed the screener section proceeded 

immediately to the conjoint survey introduction, which included instructions for 

completing the survey as well as lengthy descriptions of each of the features 

included in the survey. 55 

Three of the feature descriptions were accompanied by 

text, static images, and multimedia animations that further explained the features, 

while others were accompanied only by text and static images. 56 

The following 

features were included in the survey: (1) capabilities of the touchscreen; (2) size 

and weight; (3) camera; (4) storage/memory; (5) connectivity; (6) number of 

apps; and (7) price. 57 

iv. The survey considered four levels of each feature. 58 For the touchscreen, “three 

of the touchscreen capability levels (for both smartphones and tablets) were 

intended to be chosen such that they would represent a product that included a 


54 Hauser Report, pp. 29-30. 


56 Animations were used for the descriptions of touchscreen capability, camera, and connectivity. The remaining 

four features (size and weight, number of apps, storage/memory, and price) used only static images. Hauser Report, 

p. 33. 

57 Hauser Report, pp. 9, 33. Respondents were told “[a]side from these features below, you should assume that all 

other smartphone features are the same for every smartphone offering you see.” Hauser Report, p. 36. 

58 Exhibit 3 lists the features and feature levels for Professor Hauser’s smartphone survey. Exhibit 4 lists the 

features and feature levels for Professor Hauser’s tablet survey. The level descriptions are largely similar in the 

smartphone and tablet surveys, though they differ somewhat for the touchscreen, connectivity and size and weight 

features. 

17


non-infringing alternative for one or more of the patents at issue.” 59 

v. For both smartphones and tablets, each survey respondent was asked to choose 

among four hypothetical products composed of sets of product features. The 

exercise was repeated 16 times for each respondent. Professor Hauser does not 

specify the approach he employs to determine the composition of the products 

shown on each choice screen. 60 

However, it appears that the features used in each 

smartphone or tablet on a given choice screen were determined using a 

randomized sampling without replacement approach. 61 

vi. 

As described by Professor Hauser, respondents were forced to choose among the 

four options presented to them. Respondents were asked, “[i]f these were your 

only options and you were choosing a new smartphone [tablet], which Samsung 

smartphone [tablet] would you choose?” 62 

That is, the survey was designed such 

that respondents would not make comparisons with other devices available in the 

marketplace. 

34. The smartphone and tablet surveys were taken by 604 and 599 individuals, 

respectively, who had purchased an infringing Samsung product in the prior two years. 63 

After 

eliminating certain of the survey respondents, samples of 455 Samsung smartphone users and 


60 Professor Hauser states only that the examples used in the choice screens were generated randomly to avoid order 

effects. Hauser Report, pp. 23, 34-35, 37. 

61 More specifically, each choice screen contained four phones (or tablets), and each feature had four possible levels. 

For each feature, the first device was randomly assigned one of the four possible levels, then the second device was 

randomly assigned one of the three remaining levels, then the third device was randomly assigned one of the two 

remaining levels, and finally the last level was assigned to the fourth device. Thus, each level of each feature was 

represented in exactly one device on each choice screen. The randomization was done using Sawtooth software. 


63 Hauser Report, p. 30, 37. 

18


415 Samsung tablet users were analyzed. 64 All surveys were administered via the internet. 65 

35. From the survey results, Professor Hauser estimated a series of “partworths” for 

each respondent, which represent the partial contribution to utility of each level of each feature 

from consuming a product. Professor Hauser supplemented these partworths with prior 

information about the estimated partworths based on consumer-behavior theory. 66 

36. Professor Hauser then applied an approach known as Randomized First Choice 

(“RFC”) market simulation (“RFC Simulation”) to the partworth estimates to estimate the price 

premium for features associated with the patents at issue. 67 

More specifically, Professor Hauser 

estimated the price premium associated with a particular product attribute by using the RFC 

Simulation to determine the price at which half of the survey respondents would select a higher 

price phone with a given attribute over an otherwise identical phone that lacks that attribute. 68 

The WTP price premium is the difference in the prices between the two phones (that vary by a 

single feature but are otherwise identical). 

37. Exhibit 5 summarizes the steps employed by Professor Hauser to determine his 

estimate of the WTP price premium for the “autoswitch” feature claimed in the ’915 patent. This 

involves a comparison of two phones: Phone A and Phone B. With respect to the touchscreen 

features, Phone A includes the “autoswitch” feature as well as the “reliable touch,” 

“rubberband,” and “tap to re-center after zoom” features. Phone B includes only the reliable 

touch, rubberband, and tap to re-center after zoom features, but not autoswitch. The phones are 

64 Hauser Report, p. 17, 38. 


66 See, e.g., Hauser Report, pp. 41-42, 45. 


68 Hauser Report, pp. 51, 55. 

19


identical with respect to the other non-price features. 69 

The benchmark price for Professor 

Hauser’s WTP price premium calculations is $199. 70 

38. When priced at that benchmark price, the RFC Simulation predicts that 67 percent 

of the survey respondents would prefer Phone A. The RFC Simulation predicts that half of the 

survey respondents would prefer Phone A at price of $238 relative to Phone B at a price of $199, 

hence the $39 WTP price premium associated with the ’915 patent/autoswitch feature. 71 

Exhibit 

6 summarizes the steps employed by Professor Hauser to determine the $100 price premium 

associated with the features claimed in the ’915, ’163, and ’381 patents collectively. 72 

Using the 

same approach for tablets, Professor Hauser estimated a WTP price premium of $45 associated 

with the ’915 patent/autoswitch feature and a $90 price premium associated with the features 

claimed in the ’915, ’163, and ’381 patents collectively. Exhibits 7 and 8 are the tablet 

analogues of Exhibits 5 and 6. 

39. Professor Hauser summarized his WTP estimates as follows: 

…for both sm artphones and tabl ets, Sam sung consumers are 

willing to p ay a s ignificant price premium f or the tested f eatures 

that are covered by the patents at issue. For sm artphones with a 

base price of $199, the estimated price premium is $39 for the ’915 

Patent alone… [and] the estimated price prem ium is $100 for the 

’915, ’163 and ’381 Patents taken together. For tablets with a base 

price of $499, the estimated price prem ium is … $45 for the ’915 

Patent alone, and $90 for the ’ 915, ’163 and ’381 Patents taken 

69 According to Professor Hauser, “In the simulation, the levels of other features do not affect the consumer’s choice 

as long as they are held constant between the two product options.” Hauser Report, p. 51. However, this is true 

only if there are no interaction terms between levels across features. Hauser chose to fit a model without interaction 

terms (even though they might be relevant) which is why his statement holds. 


71 Exhibit 5. 

72 It is important to note that Professor Hauser’s methodology implicitly limits his WTP price premium estimates to 

$100 for any given feature level. The reason is that maximum price level in the Hauser survey is $299, and by using 

a benchmark price of $199, Professor Hauser does not allow the price of the preferred smartphone to be increased by 

more than $100. 

20


together. 73 

IV. 

ANALYSIS OF HAUSER REPORT 

A. The Surveys Upon Which Professor Hauser’s Findings Are Based Were Not 

Designed To Estimate The Magnitude Of Samsung Smartphone And Tablet 

Sales Attributable To The Protected Features 

40. Interpreting Professor Hauser’s survey results requires understanding his 

underlying survey design. Two central features of his survey design involve the selection of 

survey participants and the smartphone and tablet choices presented to survey respondents. First, 

survey participants were required to have purchased at least one Samsung smartphone or tablet in 

the last two years. 74 

The screening questions excluded any consumer who did not previously 

own a Samsung smartphone or tablet but intended to purchase one in the near future, 75 while not 

excluding any recent Samsung owners who no longer used their Samsung smartphone or tablet 

as their primary device. 76 

41. Second, survey participants who satisfied the screening requirements were 

restricted to choosing Samsung devices. 77 

Survey respondents were not given the option of 

selecting devices that compete with Samsung smartphones (e.g. Apple iPhones) or tablets (e.g. 

Apple iPads). Nor were survey respondents presented with the option to not, effectively, buy a 

device because, for example, none of the smartphones met their purchase requirements. 



75 The screening questions specify that any person who has not owned at least one Samsung smartphone or tablet in 

the last two years will be terminated from the survey. Hauser Report, Exhibit D, p. 3 and Exhibit E, p. 3. 

76 The screening questions specify that any person who has owned a Samsung phone in the last two years and can 

identify the device are allowed to continue with the survey. This may include, for example, people who have 

purchased a Samsung device in the last two years before switching to a different manufacturer’s device or people 

who have purchased a Samsung device in the last two years but already decided their next device will be from a 

different manufacturer. Hauser Report, Exhibit D, pp. 3-4 and Exhibit E, pp. 3-4. 


21


42. Professor Hauser acknowledged the limitations of his survey with respect to 

constraining respondents to choices of Samsung smartphones and tablets alone: 

For each set of four alternativ e sm artphones in a choice task, 

respondents were asked: “If th ese were your only options and you 

were choosing a new sm artphone [tablet], which Sam sung 

smartphone [tablet] w ould you c hoose?” By explicitly asking 

respondents to focus only on the four options provided to them, the 

survey was designed with the go al tha t resp ondents wo uld not 

make comparisons with other devices available in the 

marketplace. 78 

This approach does not correspond with the reality of the marketplace in which consumers are 

free to choose among different brands of smartphones and tablets that differ in many ways 

including price levels, features, and other benefits not included in Professor Hauser’s study. 

43. Professor Hauser further described how his survey design omitted an option that 

would have allowed him to estimate what he refers to as “primary demand” for the products 

analyzed in his survey: 

In some instances researchers augm ent the choice am ong profiles 

in the choice task by allowing the respondent to choose an “outside 

option,” that is, to choose not to choose am ong the options (this is 

also known as the “no-choice” optio n). This outside-option design 

is appropriate when a researcher wishes to estimate primary 

demand for smartphones. 79 

Professor Hauser, however, does not explicitly describe what primary demand reflects and, in 

turn, what his surveys fail to account for. Marketers use the term “primary demand” in reference 

to demand for the product category as a whole. 80 

In the context of Professor Hauser’s surveys, 

however, “primary demand” by virtue of the surveys’ design reflects the demand for Samsung 

smartphones and tablets. As such, Professor Hauser has essentially acknowledged that his 

78 Hauser Report, p. 35 (emphasis added). 

79 Hauser Report, p. 35 (emphases added). 

80 See, e.g., Pride, William M. and O.C. Ferrell, Marketing, South-Western College Publishing, 2012, p. 512. 

22


surveys were not designed to analyze the demand for Samsung smartphones or tablets. 

44. Because Professor Hauser’s conjoint study does not accurately depict market 

reality by allowing respondents to choose options other than Samsung smartphones and tablets, 

the survey data collected by Professor Hauser was not used – and cannot be used – to estimate 

the extent to which the patents at issue drove sales that Samsung would not have otherwise 

made. That is, the data collected by Professor Hauser cannot be used, for example, to estimate 

the extent to which people bought Samsung smartphones instead of competing smartphones 

because of the patented features, or the extent to which people would choose to purchase another 

brand of smartphone if the Samsung smartphones did not have the patented features. Nor can the 

survey be used to estimate the extent to which people purchased a Samsung smartphone rather 

than not buying a smartphone at all. This is inherent in the design of Professor Hauser’s surveys. 

Because respondents are not given any “outside options,” whether they are for competitor 

smartphones or no smartphone purchase at all, the survey response data collected by Professor 

Hauser does not allow for a systematic examination of the product features associated with 

Samsung smartphones versus an alternative. All 13,920 choices from all 870 respondents 

reported in Professor Hauser’s survey data involve the selection of a Samsung device, regardless 

of the product features. 81 

45. Importantly, Professor Hauser’s estimates of the amounts consumers are willing 

to pay for the patented features – even if reliable and valid, which they are not – do not provide 

any guidance regarding the extent to which the feature claimed in the utility patents drove 

Samsung sales. It is perfectly conceivable that consumers who place a high willingness-to-pay 

81 Professor Hauser reported results from 455 smartphone respondents and 415 tablet respondents. Each respondent 

provided 16 choice responses. Hauser Report, pp. 17, 19. (455 + 415) * 16 = 13,920. 

23


on the features claimed in the utility patents would purchase Samsung devices even without the 

features claimed in those patents. These consumers may have a strong affinity for the 

or any of a number of other features 82 and benefits 83 that 

consumers regularly identify as being central to their decision to purchase smartphones and 

tablets. 84 

Conjoint analysis/surveys are widely used to examine which product features drive 

consumer purchases among “competing” alternatives. Professor Hauser, however, did not 

conduct such a survey. 

B. Professor Hauser’s Estimates Of The WTP Price Premium Associated With 

The Features Claimed In The Utility Patents Are Based On An Underlying 

Methodology That Generates Nonsensical Predictions 

1. Professor Hauser’s Methodology Suggests That A Substantial Portion 

Of Survey Respondents Prefer To Pay Higher Prices For Otherwise 

Identical Smartphones And Tablets 

46. In order to further evaluate the reliability and validity of Professor Hauser’s WTP 

price premium estimates, I employed the RFC Simulation technique underlying those estimates 

to evaluate predictions not reported by Professor Hauser in his report. Specifically, I employed 

the RFC Simulation relied on by Professor Hauser to evaluate predictions related to a benchmark 

smartphone – a smartphone that embodies the highest level attributes for each of the non-price 

82 Examples of other important features not included in Professor Hauser’s survey include 

See, e.g., SAMNDCA00250503-557, p. 

525; APLNDC-X0000006548-647, p. 566; APLNDC0002007608-704, p. 634; APLNDC-Y0000023361-427, p. 

387; APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, p. 233. 

83 Consumers consider many additional factors when making a smartphone or tablet purchase decision, including 

quality of network service, network coverage, cost of service (voice and/or data) plans, consumer reviews, word of 

mouth recommendations, etc. See, e.g., SAMNDCA00252685-775, p. 707; “How to Buy a Cell Phone,” PC World, 

November 29, 2011, available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/125653/cell_phone_guide.html (viewed October 

16, 2012). 

84 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00250503-557, p. 525; SAMNDCA00252685-775, p. 707. 

24


features 85 – that differed only in terms of price. Exhibit 9 shows specific predictions of the RFC 

Simulation employed by Professor Hauser, including the following: 

 

32 percent of survey respondents would prefer to pay $199 rather than $99 for the 

benchmark smartphone; 

 

43 percent of survey respondents would prefer to pay $99 rather than $0 for the 

benchmark smartphone; 

 

between 19 percent and 43 percent of survey respondents would pay an additional 

$100 for an otherwise identical smartphone; 

 

as many as 31 percent would pay an additional $200 for an otherwise identical 

smartphone; and 

 

16 percent would prefer to pay $299 for a smartphone they could have for free 

(but, in both cases, come with a two-year carrier contract). 

Exhibit 10 shows qualitatively similar predictions associated with Professor Hauser’s tablet 

analysis. For example, 41 percent of respondents would prefer to pay $359 rather than $199 for 

an otherwise identical tablet, while 15 percent of respondents would prefer to pay $659 rather 

than $199 for an otherwise identical tablet. 86 

47. These results are at odds with common sense. They demonstrate that the RFC 

Simulation upon which Professor Hauser bases his WTP price premium estimates generates 

predictions in which survey respondents are unrealistically insensitive to price. This renders his 

WTP price premium estimates unreliable and invalid because they are, ultimately, a measure of 

85 Professor Hauser notes that feature levels that are held constant between the two phones will not affect the 

consumer’s choice. Hauser Report, p. 51. However, this is true only if there are no interactions between the 

features and feature levels used in the conjoint exercise. 

86 Exhibit 10. 

25


survey respondent price sensitivity as they relate to the claimed in the patents at issue. 

2. Professor Hauser’s Methodology Suggests That A Large Portion Of 

Samsung Owners Prefer Clearly Inferior, Yet Identically Priced, 

Smartphones And Tablets 

48. I also employed the RFC Simulation to generate predictions involving pairs of 

smartphones where one is clearly superior to another. For example, I compared a $199 

benchmark smartphone, 87 with 64 GB of memory capacity, to an otherwise identical $199 

smartphone with only 8 GB of memory capacity. The RFC Simulation predicted that 35 percent 

of survey respondents would select the 8 GB smartphone. 88 Similarly, I compared a $499 

benchmark tablet, 89 with 64 GB of memory capacity, to an otherwise identical $499 tablet with 

only 8 GB of memory capacity. The RFC Simulation predicted that 31 percent of survey 

respondents would select the 8 GB tablet. 90 

By way of reference, a 64 GB micro SD memory 

card that can be inserted into many Samsung smartphone models retails for prices in the range of 

$50. 91 Similarly, upgrading from the 16 GB Samsung Galaxy SIII to the otherwise identical 32 

GB Samsung Galaxy SIII costs consumers $50. 92 

49. Similar comparisons were conducted involving other features. For example, the 

RFC Simulation predicted that 25 percent of respondents would select the $199 benchmark 

87 The benchmark smartphone is one that embodies the highest level attributes for each of the features aside from the 

one being varied in the current example (in this case, memory). 


89 The benchmark tablet is one that embodies the highest level attributes for each of the features aside from the one 

being varied in the current example (in this case, memory). 


91 See, e.g., http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDSDU-064G-A11-Ultra-UHS-I- 

Class/dp/B007B5RJA6/ref=sr_1_94?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1350430546&sr=1-94&keywords=sandisk+64 (viewed 

October 10, 2012). See also, http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones-accessories#container (viewed 

October 8, 2012) 

92 See, e.g., http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_wall.jsp?filterString=smartphone&isDeeplinked=true& 

INTNAV=ATG:HE:Smartphones (viewed October 18, 2012). 

26


smartphone with only the cellular and Wi-Fi connectivity features over an otherwise identical 

smartphone with cellular, Wi-Fi, Tethering, Micro USB, and HDMI connectivity features. 93 

In 

addition, the RFC Simulation predicted that 24 percent of respondents would select the $199 

benchmark tablet with only Wi-Fi connectivity over an otherwise identical tablet with Wi-Fi, 

Bluetooth, Micro USB, and HDMI connectivity features. 94 

The consumer benefits of these 

additional connectivity features are discussed widely. 95 

50. The breadth of app availability is also widely discussed. 96 Yet the RFC 

Simulation predicted that 43 percent of survey respondents would select the $199 benchmark 

smartphone that had access to 150,000 apps over one that is otherwise identical, but with access 

to 600,000 apps. 97 The comparable figure for the $199 benchmark tablet is 44 percent. 98 

51. These findings are nonsensical. Similar to the comparisons of phones that differ 

only in price, the findings demonstrate that the RFC Simulations upon which Professor Hauser 



95 See, e.g., Ziegler, Chris. "Why Is Verizon's iPhone 5 Unlocked? Don't Thank Google or the FCC." The Verge. 

September 25, 2012, available at http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/25/3405610/verizon-iphone-5-unlocked-openaccess-fcc. 

(viewed October 17, 2012); Ziegler, Chris. “AT&T adding an extra 2GB to phone tethering plans, 

launching Mobile Hotspot app February 13th.” Engadget, February 2, 2011, available at 

www.engadget.com/2011/02/02/atandt-adding-an-extra-2gb-to-phone-tethering-plans-launching-mob/ (viewed 

October 17, 2012); Purewal, Sarah Jacobsson. “The ultimate Android tethering guide.” PC World, September 5, 

2012, available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/261928/the_ultimate_android_tethering_guide.html (viewed 

October 17, 2012); “Motorola Droid Razr Maxx review (Verizon Wireless).” CNET, October 17, 2012, available at 

http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/motorola-droid-razr-maxx/4505-6452_7-35128051-2.html (viewed October 17, 

2012); Miller, Matthew. “ACCELL MHL adapter turns the HTC Flyer into a portable media server (review).” The 

Mobile Gadgeteer, September 8, 2011, available at http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-gadgeteer/accell-mhladapter-turns-the-htc-flyer-into-a-portable-media-server-review/5095 

(viewed October 17, 2012); Bennett, Brian. 

“New iPad first tablet with Bluetooth 4.0: Should you care?” CNET, March 9, 2012, available at 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57394350-94/new-ipad-first-tablet-with-bluetooth-4.0-should-you-care/ (viewed 

October 18, 2012). 

96 For example, Apple’s website highlights that its “App Store has the world’s largest collection of mobile apps.” 

(http://www.apple.com/iphone/from-the-app-store/, accessed October 18, 2012). See also, Pogue, David, “Just How 

Many Android Tablet Apps Are There?”, The New York Times, July 1, 2011, available at 

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/mystery-how-many-android-tablet-apps/ (viewed October 18, 2012). 



27


bases his WTP price premium estimates generate predictions that are inconsistent with central 

tenets of consumer behavior. The findings also demonstrate that Professor Hauser’s WTP price 

premium estimates cannot be relied on. 

3. Professor Hauser’s Estimates Of The WTP Price Premium Associated 

With Just The Touchscreen Features Examined Exceed The $152 

Average Smartphone Price Paid By Survey Respondents 

52. The results of Professor Hauser’s WTP analysis also appear nonsensical when 

compared against the actual market prices of consumers’ devices. Respondents in Professor 

Hauser’s smartphone survey reported spending an average of $152 on their Samsung 

smartphones. 99 

Professor Hauser’s own WTP estimates imply that the price premium for the 

individual touchscreen features – reliable touch ($65), rubberband and tap to re-center ($75), and 

autoswitch ($39) – amount to $179. 100 

That is, the WTP estimates of the touchscreen features 

analyzed by Professor Hauser – which comprise only a fraction of the total number of 

touchscreen features, which, in turn, comprise only a small fraction of all smartphone features – 

exceed the actual amount, on average, survey respondents paid for their smartphone. 

53. Professor Hauser’s WTP estimates are similarly out of line with market realities 

when estimated based on a different benchmark price. With respect to his smartphone 

calculations, Professor Hauser generated his WTP price premium estimates based on a 

benchmark smartphone arbitrarily priced at $199 and noted that doing so was conservative. 101 

However, as noted earlier, basing his WTP estimates on the $199 benchmark price also has the 

99 Hauser Report, p. 53. Professor Hauser’s survey instructed smartphone survey respondents to assume that the 

price shown was for a smartphone purchased with a 2-year service contract. Hauser Report, Exhibit D, p. 14. 



28


effect of limiting his WTP estimates to, at most, $100. 102 

54. Exhibits 18 and 19 demonstrate the unrealistic WTP estimates generated by 

Professor Hauser’s methodology when the estimates are based on a benchmark smartphone 

priced at $0 (with a two year contract). Specifically, Professor Hauser’s methodology generates 

a WTP price premium of $164 for the features associated with the ’915 patents (autoswitch) and 

a WTP price premium of $266 for the features associated with the ’915, ’381, and ’163 patents, 

collectively. 103 

These WTP figures, too, stand in stark contrast to the actual prices survey 

respondents reported paying for smartphones (in their entirety) and further demonstrate the 

unreliability and invalidity of Professor Hauser’s findings. 

C. The Surveys Underlying Professor Hauser’s Findings Embody Numerous 

Design Flaws That Invalidate His Analysis And Appear To Inflate His Price 

Premium Estimates 

55. The predictions generated by Professor Hauser’s analysis strongly suggests 

problems with the underlying survey design. My review reveals a number of such problems that 

invalidate Professor Hauser’s price premium estimates. 

1. Professor Hauser’s WTP Price Premium Estimates Associated With 

The Features Claimed In The Utility Patents Are Conflated By An 

Apparent Bias Associated With Animated Feature Descriptions 

56. Any findings associated with a conjoint analysis depend critically on the manner 

in which the features of interest are presented to survey respondents. In addition, the reliability 

and validity of the findings depends on respondents clearly understanding the product features 

upon which the survey is based. The reliability and validity of the findings also depend on a 

102 This is because the RFC Simulation is limited to prices with the range explicitly considered in Professor Hauser’s 

survey. For smartphones, prices range from $0 to $299. Hauser Report, Exhibit D, p. 14. 

103 Exhibits 18 and 19. 

29


survey design that does not artificially influence respondents’ choices so as to introduce bias. 

57. As noted above, in addition to price, Professor Hauser’s surveys consider features 

associated with the smartphone or tablet’s: (i) touchscreen, (ii) connectivity, (iii) camera, (iv) 

storage/memory, (v) app availability, and (vi) size and weight. The touchscreen features 

associated with the utility patents were described to survey respondents on a web-based interface 

employing text, static images, and multimedia animations. 104 

The connectivity and camera 

features were also described using text, static images, and multimedia animations. 105 

In contrast, 

the other non-price features – related to storage/memory, app availability, and size and weight – 

were described only with text and static images. They did not rely on multimedia animations. 106 

58. There are numerous reasons why an analysis that uses different visual stimuli for 

some of the features being tested could produce biased results for those features. First, 

multimedia animations may be easier for survey respondents to comprehend, particularly in 

instances in which the subject feature involves actions that can be difficult to depict in static 

images or describe in words. Second, multimedia animations can be more engaging to 

respondents, such that respondents may pay substantially more attention to features that are 

accompanied by multimedia animations than to those without multimedia animations. Third, the 

use of multimedia animations for a subset of the features being tested might signal to 

respondents that those features may be more important than features that are accompanied only 

by static images. For example, respondents may perceive that the features that have multimedia 

animations are more important to the survey creators due to the extra time and effort that was 

expended in developing the animations (relative to developing a static image). For these reasons, 

104 Hauser Report, p. 33 and Exhibit D, pp. 9-10. 

105 Hauser Report, p. 33 and Exhibit D, pp. 7, 12-13. 

106 Hauser Report, p. 33 and Exhibit D, pp. 7-9, 11, 13-14. 

30


it is customary in conjoint analysis to use the same presentation approach for every feature in the 

survey. 

59. In Exhibit 20, I summarize the WTP price premium estimates for the smartphone 

feature and level combinations not reported by Professor Hauser by employing the RFC 

Simulation in the same manner as Professor Hauser. 107 

In particular, I present the respective 

WTP price premium estimates for each feature relative to a $199 benchmark phone that 

embodies the highest attribute level for each of the six non-price features (consistent with 

Professor Hauser). 108 This leads to 18 distinct WTP price premium estimates. 109 These WTP 

price premium estimates range from $11 to $100 (Professor Hauser’s externally imposed cap). 

The estimates associated with the nine attribute levels associated with the features that did not 

employ a multimedia animated description – storage/memory, app availability, and size and 

weight – range from $11 to $31. 110 

The estimates associated with the nine smartphone attribute 

levels associated with the features that did employ a multimedia animated description – 

touchscreen, connectivity, and camera – range from $33 to greater than $100. 111 

Thus there is a 

clear distinction between the features described with multimedia animations and those that were 

not: the smartphone WTP price premium estimates are uniformly higher for the features 

described with multimedia animations. The results are depicted graphically in Exhibit 21. 

Exhibits 22 to 24 depict the smartphone WTP price premium estimates by level and show an 

107 Note that these estimates were generated based on the methodology employed to generate Table 4 in Professor 

Hauser’s Report. They are not based on the alternative “robustness check” methodology described in Paragraph 104 

of his Report based on the “median-consumer.” 


109 There are 6 six non-price features with four levels each, allowing for three WTP price premium estimates per 

level (relative to the highest level of a given feature). 



31


even more pronounced distinction between the features that were described with multimedia 

animations in contrast to those that were not. Exhibit 25 summarizes the WTP price premium 

estimates for the tablet feature and level combinations not reported by Professor Hauser. 

Exhibits 26 to 29 show a similarly strong tendency for tablet features described with multimedia 

animations to be associated with high WTP price premium estimates. 

60. These findings imply that the WTP price premium estimates reported by 

Professor Hauser for the features claimed in the utility patents are likely driven, at least in part, 

by the manner in which they were presented to respondents when taking the survey. 

Additionally, while Professor Hauser employs multiple methods to test the “fit and predictive 

ability” of his model, none of these are able to account for the influence of the animated 

descriptions. 112 For example, the hold-out analysis Professor Hauser describes in his report 113 

seeks only to test the predictive ability of the model by using a subset of choices from each 

respondent to estimate the model and predict the respondent’s behavior for the remaining “holdout” 

choices. More importantly, there is no clear or conventional method by which to analyze 

and, effectively, disentangle the role that preferences of the survey respondents had in driving 

Professor Hauser’s WTP price premium estimates from the role of the animated descriptions. 

More generally, the apparent effect of the multimedia animations relied on by Professor Hauser 

further undermines the reliability and validity of his findings. 

2. Professor Hauser’s Failure To Incorporate Appropriate Non- 

Infringing Alternative Features Results In Apparently Inflated WTP 

Price Premium Estimates 

61. Professor Hauser’s conjoint survey did not appropriately account for the 



32


possibility of non-infringing alternatives to the patented features. 114 

Despite Professor Hauser’s 

claim that the touchscreen capability levels “were chosen such that they would represent a 

product that included a non-infringing alternative,” 115 Professor Hauser’s survey did not account 

for alternative, non-infringing technologies that Samsung could have, and ultimately has (as 

described above in paragraphs 21-27), employed to provide consumer benefits that are 

comparable to those provided by the features claimed in the utility patents. 

62. The touchscreen features included in Professor Hauser’s Smartphone survey 

levels included combinations of the following features: autoswitch/ no autoswitch, 

rubberband/no rubberband, and tap to re-center after zoom/no tap to re-center after zoom. 116 

As 

such, Professor Hauser’s analysis can, at best, estimate consumers’ incremental utility and 

willingness-to-pay for the infringing feature relative to having no feature at all. The analysis 

was not designed to provide, nor can it provide, an estimate of the incremental utility and 

willingness-to-pay for the patented features relative to non-infringing alternative versions of 

those features. Because Professor Hauser’s survey did not present respondents with appropriate 

non-infringing benchmarks against which to compare the patented features, his results appear to 

overestimate the relevant partworth measures and lead to invalid and apparently inflated 

willingness-to-pay inferences related to each of the three patented features. 117 

114 Professor Hauser states that “[t]hree of the touchscreen capability levels (for both smartphones and tablets) were 

chosen such that they would represent a product that included a non-infringing alternative for one or more of the 

patents at issue.” Hauser Report, p. 32. However, Professor Hauser’s non-infringing alternatives are to remove the 

infringing features completely from the device, rather than to implement the feature in a different way (as the noninfringing 

alternatives implemented by Samsung have done). Professor Hauser’s survey does not contemplate any 

alternative design to the features claimed in the utility patents that would allow some (or all) of the functionality to 

be implemented in the device in a non-infringing way. 

115 Hauser Report, p.32. 

116 Hauser Report, p. 49 and Exhibit D, pp. 9-10. 

117 Furthermore, Professor Hauser’s results likely overestimate the range of relative values by measuring against the 

wrong benchmark. In conjoint analysis, the relative importance of an attribute depends on the range of attribute 

33


63. For example, Professor Hauser measures the WTP price premium for the 

rubberband feature against an alternative of no rubberband feature, rather than against the “blue 

glow” non-infringing alternative (described above) developed and, ultimately, implemented by 

Samsung. Doing so provides, at best, an indication of respondents’ willingness-to-pay for the 

rubberband feature as compared to no alternative feature. Yet, it does not account for the 

customer benefits associated with the blue glow feature. As a result, Professor Hauser’s analysis 

will likely overstate the importance of the ’381 patent. 

64. Similarly, Professor Hauser measures the WTP price premium for the “tap to recenter 

after zoom” relative to “no tap to re-center after zoom.” As noted above, Samsung has 

designed and begun to implement a design around to this feature where after the user has 

performed a double-tap to zoom and re-center the screen, a subsequent double-tap causes the 

screen to zoom out rather than re-center on another portion of the screen. Professor Hauser does 

not account for the non-infringing alternative implementation. Consequently, his analysis will 

likely overstate the importance of the ’163 patent. 

65. Finally, as discussed above, Samsung has developed a design around for the 

“autoswitch” patented feature that, based on software changes, provides a user experience that is 

essentially the same as the patented feature. Professor Hauser did not account for this. As a 

result, Professor Hauser’s WTP estimates associated with the ’915 patent will likely overstate the 

importance of the patent. 

levels used in the conjoint survey. Here, Professor Hauser’s survey presents only two levels of each infringing 

feature – the inclusion of the infringing feature and the complete absence of any version of that feature. Using “no 

feature” as the baseline increases the range of WTP values that result from Professor Hauser’s analysis. Inclusion of 

a non-infringing alternative would generate more precise results. 

34


3. Professor Hauser’s WTP Price Premium Estimates May Be Inflated 

Because Respondents Were Forced To Choose Samsung Smartphones 

66. As noted above, Professor Hauser surveys forced respondents to choose Samsung 

phones. He did not provide them with a “no choice option,” a topic that has been the subject of 

considerable academic research. A recent publication by Brazell et al. noted the following: 

It has long been advanced that one should include a [no-choice 

option] in choice-based conjoint designs… Inclusion of the nochoice 

option increases design efficiency (An derson and W iley, 

1992), better m imics the choice process in m any situations 

(Louviere and W oodworth, 1983) di rectly m easuring dem and for 

specific tested products in the c ontext of the entire m arket, and 

allows one to m odel market growth as more attractive alternatives 

are introduced. 118 

In addition, researchers have noted that including a “no choice option” enhances the realism of 

the choice tasks and survey. 119 

67. Brazell et al. further describe the results of an experiment comparing a survey that 

incorporates forced choices with one that incorporates a no choice option. They find that 

respondents can exhibit less price sensitivity, sometimes substantially less, when faced with 

forced choices. 120 

This lower level of price sensitivity has the effect of increasing the price 

premium associated with given attribute values. The observation that excluding the “no choice 

option” from a conjoint survey can lead to higher estimated price premiums undermines the 

118 See Brazell, Jeff D., Christopher G. Diener, Ekaterina Karniouchina, William L. Moore,Válerie Séverin and 

Pierre-Francois Uldry, “The no-choice option and dual response choice designs,” Marketing Letters, Vol. 17, No. 4 

(Dec., 2006), pp. 255-268 (“Brazell et al.”), p. 256. 

119 See, e.g., Orme, Bryan K. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing 

Research, Research Publishers, Madison, WI, 2010, p. 22 (“Choice-based conjoint questions closely mimic what 

buyers do in the real world – choose among available offerings. Including none as an option enhances the realism, 

and allows those respondents who are not likely to purchase to express their disinterest.” Emphasis in original.); 

Johnson, Rich and Bryan Orme: “Getting the Most from CBC,” Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series, 1997, p. 

5 (“We think it is usually a good idea to include the “None” option in the questionnaire, for these reasons… It makes 

the choice tasks more realistic, because that option is usually available when shopping.”) 

120 Brazell et al., at Table 1.A. 

35


reliability and validity of the Professor Hauser’s findings. 

4. Professor Hauser’s WTP Price Premium Estimates May Be Biased 

Upward Due To The Fact That There Are No Actual Consequences 

To Purchasing More Expensive Products In A Hypothetical Survey 

68. There is a difference between the amount that a consumer indicates they would be 

willing to pay in a hypothetical transaction and the amount that they would pay when actual 

money is involved. Consumers’ hypothetical willingness-to-pay may overstate the extent to 

which they would actually pay for a feature given that they are not engaging in a transaction that 

involves real money changing hands. 121 

69. This inflated willingness-to-pay is consistent with the observation that, based on 

Professor Hauser’s survey analysis, several features examined had WTP price premium estimates 

that were comparable to (or greater than) the average price respondents actually paid for their 

Samsung smartphones. For example, respondents in Professor Hauser’s survey reported 

spending an average of $152 on their Samsung smartphones. 122 

However, as discussed above, 

Professor Hauser’s WTP price premium estimates for the touchscreen, connectivity, and camera 

features alone equal almost double the amount that respondents reported spending on their actual 

smartphones. 123 

In light of this problem, one cannot rely on the findings and estimates that result 

from Professor Hauser’s analysis. 

121 See, e.g., Harrison, Glenn W. and Elisabet E. Rustrom. 2008. “Experimental Evidence on the Existence of 

Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” In Charles R. Plott and Vernon L. Smith (eds.), Handbook of 

Experimental Economics Results. New York: Elsevier B.V. 

122 Hauser Report, p. 53. Professor Hauser’s survey instructed smartphone survey respondents to assume that the 

price shown was for a smartphone purchased with a 2-year service contract. Hauser Report, Exhibit D, p. 14 

123 Exhibit 20. The combined WTP price premium estimates for touchscreen, connectivity, and camera are at least 

$268. Note that the estimates for touchscreen and camera are both capped at $100. 

36



Overstated Because His Survey Omits A Number Of Important 

Features And Benefits Associated With The Smartphone And Tablet 

Purchase Decision 

70. There are, as noted in paragraphs 30-31, numerous features and benefits that are 

known to affect consumers’ purchase decisions related to smartphones and tablets. For example, 

a pair of 2008 presentations prepared for Samsung highlights a number of these features and 

related attributes that affect the smartphone purchase decision. These features include the 

smartphone’s screen size, connectivity options, music & video capabilities, Bluetooth, camera, 

GPS, email access, battery life, keyboard, brand name, and touchscreen. 124 

Similarly, Apple has 

identified numerous additional product attributes that are important to the purchase decision, 

including 

. 125 There are also a variety of features that are relevant to tablet customer purchase 

decisions. 126 The websites cited by Professor Hauser include many more features, including 30 

smartphone features and 26 tablet features in their product comparisons, 127 as do research reports 

from other third-party sources. 128 

A number of indirect attributes also affect the consumer 

purchase decision, including the quality, cost, and brand name of the network service provider; 

the price of the monthly service plan; and recommendations from other users and salespeople. 129 

71. It is important for the design of the conjoint survey to incorporate the features that 

124 SAMNDCA00250503-557, p. 525; SAMNDCA00252685-775, p. 707. 

125 See, e.g., APLNDC-X0000006548-647, p. 566; APLNDC0002007608-704, p. 634. 

126 APLNDC-Y0000023361-427, p. 387; APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, p. 233; http://tabletsreview.toptenreviews.com/ 


127 http://cell-phones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/ (viewed October 12, 2012); http://tabletsreview.toptenreviews.com/ 


128 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00190144-243, p. 195. 

129 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00252685-775, p. 707; “How to Buy a Cell Phone,” PC World, November 29, 2011, 

available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/125653/cell_phone_guide.html (viewed October 16, 2012). 

37


are known to be important consumer purchase decision drivers along with the features that the 

survey is designed to test. 130 

Omitting known important features can cause survey respondents 

to overvalue the features that are included in the survey. 131 

A design that omits important 

purchase decision drivers can fail to capture interaction effects between features that are included 

and those that are not, biasing the values of the included features. 132 

72. Professor Hauser’s survey includes some of the features known to be important to 

the consumer purchase decision, but excludes many others identified in Samsung 133 and Apple 134 

internal documents, as well as the websites Professor Hauser cited as validation for his feature 

selections 135 and the product websites for Samsung’s smartphones. 136 

According to Professor 

Hauser, “[b]ecause consumers are told to make choices among profiles assuming ‘all else equal,’ 

as is the standard in conjoint analysis, the set of features does not need to be exhaustive. 

130 In constructing a conjoint survey, generating the attributes and levels is a critical step. See, e.g., Orme, Bryan, 

“Formulating Attributes and Levels in Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2002. The features and benefits 

of the product in question should be presented in the survey in a way that closely mimics the consumer purchase 

decision process for the product. See, e.g., Orme, Bryan K. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for 

Product Design and Pricing Research, Research Publishers, Madison, WI, 2010, p. 45. 

131 See, e.g., Huber, Joel. “What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self- 

Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments,” Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference, 

August 1997 (“Evaluation tasks intentionally force respondents to attend to attributes that they might otherwise not 

notice. In doing so, attention can elevate the importance of particular attributes to a level that is greater than would 

occur in the marketplace.”) See also, McFadden, Daniel. “The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research,” 

Marketing Science, Vol. 5, No. 4, Special Issue on Consumer Choice Models (Autumn,1986), p. 291. (“When the 

items under study have a large number of attribute dimensions, of which only a small number can be characterized 

and varied experimentally, the subject’s imputation of the missing variables introduces noise, and possibly bias.”) 

132 See, e.g., Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan, “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with 

Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 3-19. (“It has been 

typical in conjoint studies to estimate only the main effects and assume away interaction effects. In certain cases, 

interaction effects, particularly two-way interaction effects, may be important.”) 

133 See, e.g., SAMNDCA00250503-557, p. 525. 

134 See, e.g., APLNDC-X0000006548-647, p. 566; APLNDC0002007608-704, p. 634; APLNDC-Y0000023361- 

427, p. 387; APLNDC-Y0000024130-333, p. 233. 

135 http://cell-phones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/ (viewed October 12, 2012); http://tabletsreview.toptenreviews.com/ 


136 See, e.g., Exhibits 1 and 2. 

38


However, a reasonable set of features makes the choices more realistic and minimizes demand 

artifacts.” 137 

While it is true that a conjoint analysis does not need to include every available 

feature, the omission of features known to be important to the purchase decision, and thus known 

to have value to consumers, can create an upward bias on the values of the features that are 

included in the survey, including the features related to the patents at issue here. In light of this 

problem, one cannot rely on the findings and estimates that result from Professor Hauser’s 

analysis. 

D. Professor Hauser Failed To Externally Validate His Model 

73. Professor Hauser failed to externally validate his model. Professor Hauser 

conducted internal validity tests to determine whether his findings were consistent within his 

sample of respondents. Specifically, he examined the predictive ability of his model by 

estimating the model on a subset of the data and then testing the predictive ability of the results 

obtained from that subset using two statistics, the U 2 and the hit rate. 138 

However, Professor 

Hauser failed to conduct any external validity tests to determine whether his findings might be 

meaningful beyond the sample of respondents he surveyed and beyond his narrow survey 

environment. 

V. CONCLUSION 

74. In summary, Professor Hauser's Report and the conjoint analysis that it 

describes do not show that consumers bought Samsung smartphones or tablets because 

they were equipped with the features claimed in the utility patents. Professor Hauser’s 

analysis was not designed to determine whether consumers bought Samsung smartphones or 


138 Hauser Report, pp. 42-43 

39


tablets because the devices were equipped with the features claimed in the utility patents. His 

methodology, moreover, generates predictions that are inconsistent with market realities and 

common sense, and includes numerous flaws (described in paragraphs 46-72). Those flaws, 

summarized in the figure below, render the WTP results unreliable and invalid. 

Component of Professor Hauser’s 

Survey Design 

WTP Estimation Produces Numerous 

Nonsensical Results 

Selective Use of Multimedia Animations in 

Feature Descriptions 

Lack of Non-Infringing Alternatives in Survey 

Design 

Respondents Not Provided with a “No Choice” 

Option 

Results are Linked to Hypothetical Spending 

Scenarios 

Survey Excludes Several Features Critical to 

Consumer Purchase Decision 

Paragraphs 

Effect 

46-54 Underm ines Reliability and 

Validity of Results 

56-60 Appears to Inflate WTP 

61-65 Appears to Inflate WTP 

66-67 May Inflate WTP 

68-69 May Bias WTP Upwards 

70-72 May Bias WTP Upwards 

When taken as a whole, the result is an unreliable analysis, which appears to generate 

highly-inflated WTP estimates for what are, at most, tertiary touchscreen features, and 

which has not been externally validated. 

75. I reserve the right to update my analysis and conclusions should new information 

become available. 

40

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2054-4 Filed10/19/12 Page42 of 165


APPENDIX A


YORAM (JERRY) WIND 

Academic Positions: Jerry Wind is The Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing at The Wharton 

School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the founding director of the Wharton "think tank,” The SEI 

Center for Advanced Studies in Management. The Center's mission is to assure, through research and 

development, the quality, relevance, and impact of management research, education, and practice. Dr. Wind 

joined the Wharton faculty in January 1967, upon receipt of his doctorate from Stanford University. 

Program Development: Dr. Wind is the founder and academic director of The Wharton Fellows program. 

From 1983 to 1988, he was the founding director of The Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and 

International Studies, and from 1980 to 1983 the founding director of The Wharton Center for International 

Management Studies. Dr. Wind chaired the Wharton committees that designed The Wharton Executive MBA 

Program (1974), the new MBA curriculum (1991), the School’s globalization strategy (1995-1997), and the 

MBA’s cross-functional integration efforts (2002-04). He also started The Wharton International Forum 

(1987) and served as the chairman of its faculty council until 1998. He was instrumental in establishing the 

Alfred West, Jr. Learning Lab and served as a member of its first advisory board (2001-05). 

Publications: Dr. Wind is one of the most cited authors in marketing. His regular contributions to 

professional marketing literature include 23 books and over 250 papers, articles, and monographs 

encompassing the areas of marketing strategy, marketing research, new product and market development, 

consumer and industrial buying behavior, and global marketing. Dr. Wind’s books have received wide 

acclaim and many have been translated into a number of languages. His most recognized recent 

publications include: Competing in a Flat World, with Victor and William Fung (Wharton School Publishing 

2007), The Power of Impossible Thinking: How Changing Your Mental Models Will Transform the Business 

of Your Life and the Life of Your Business, with Colin Crook (Wharton School Publishing 2004), 

Convergence Marketing: Strategies for Reaching the New Hybrid Consumer with Vijay Mahajan (Financial 

Times/Prentice Hall 2002), and Driving Change with Jeremy Main (Free Press 1998). Both The Power of 

Impossible Thinking and Convergence Marketing were selected by Executive Book Summaries as one of the 

thirty best business books of 2002 and 2004. His recent edited books– The Network Challenge: Strategy, 

Profit and Risk in an Interlinked World (Wharton School Publishing, June 2009), New Product Diffusion 

Models (Kluwer 2000), Digital Marketing (Wiley 2001), and Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and 

Prospects (Kluwer 2004)–include the works of the leading experts on these topics. In 2012, Sage will 

publish an 8-volume edited anthology of Dr. Wind’s publications through the Legends of Marketing Series. 

Editorship: Dr. Wind founded Wharton School Publishing (Wharton’s J.V. with Pearson) (2003) and served 

as the first Wharton editor (2003-2008). He has served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Marketing, on the 

policy boards of the Journal of Consumer Research and Marketing Science, and has been on the editorial 

boards of the major marketing journals. He has been a guest editor of special issues of the major marketing 

journals including Marketing Science (1996) on Empirical Generalization in Marketing (with Frank Bass), 

JMR (1978) on market segmentation and (1997) on Innovation in New Product Development and Marketing 

Research (1998) on The State of the Art in Quantitative Research. 

Business Experience: Dr. Wind has served as an advisor to many Fortune 500 firms and a number of non- 

U.S. multinationals in the financial services, pharmaceuticals, information, and consumer packaged goods 

industries. His consulting focuses on both overall global corporate and business strategy and transformation 

as well as marketing strategy and especially the development of new businesses. He is a regular advisor to 

the investment firm SEI. In addition, he has served as an expert witness in various legal cases. Dr. Wind is a 

member of the advisory board of a number of start-ups including Arshiya (India), and Decision Lens. He is a 

former director of IDT (HK), Enhance Financial Services Corporation, Contel Corporation, CASA and a 

number of entrepreneurial ventures. 

Professional Activities: Dr. Wind is an active member of the major marketing and management science 

professional associations. He is the former Chancellor of the International Academy of Management (IAM). 

He is a former academic trustee of the Marketing Science Institute and former chairman of the College of 

Marketing of the Institute of Management Science. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Marketing 

Accountability Standards Board. He is one of the founders of the Israeli university–The Interdisciplinary 

Center Herzliya (IDC) (1994), chairman of its academic council, and member of its academic appointment 

and promotion committee. He is also a member of the board of the American Friends of IDC. He is a 

member of the boards of a number of Wharton's centers, including the Lauder Institute and 

Knowledge@Wharton; a trustee of The Philadelphia Museum of Art and a member of its digital age 

committee; and a member of the Advisory Board of Business for Diplomatic Action. He is a frequent lecturer 

1 

February 2012


in faculty seminars and executive programs in over 50 universities worldwide. 

Awards: Dr. Wind is the recipient of various awards, including the four major marketing awards–The Charles 

Coolidge Parlin Award (1985), the AMA/Irwin Distinguished Educator Award (1993), the Paul D. Converse 

Award (1996) and the Buck Weaver Award (2007). He is the recipient of the first Faculty Impact Award given 

by Wharton Alumni (1993). In 1984, he was elected as member of the Attitude Research Hall of Fame and 

has won a number of research awards, including two Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation awards and a recent 

inclusion in JAR Classics issue of 18 articles that have withstood the test of time. In 2001 he was selected as 

one of the 10 Grand Auteurs in Marketing and later named as the 2003 recipient of the Elsevier Science 

Distinguished Scholar award of the Society for Marketing Advances. In May 2004 he was awarded as 

Honorary Fellow of the Decade by the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Israel). In 2009, Dr. Wind was 

selected as one of the 10 Legends of Marketing and in 2012 Sage will publish 8 edited volumes 

anthologizing his various publications. 

. Page 

Academic Experience ………………………………………………………………………..……….………3 

Publications …………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 

Consulting Experience.……………………………………………………………………….….……….….40 

University Activities ………………………………………………………………………….……..………..50 

Other Professional Activities …………………………………………………………………………….…58 

Professional Affiliations and Awards …………………………………………………………......….…..86 

Personal Data ……………………………………………………………………………………...…………..91 

2


EDUCATION 

ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE 

Stanford University, Graduate School of Business. Ph.D. (Marketing), September 1964-December 1966. 

Stanford University, International Center for Advancement of Management Education, Certificate in Marketing 

Management. September 1963-June 1964. 

The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, School of Economics and Social Sciences, M.A. (Business Administration 

and Political Science), September 1961-June 1963; B. Soc. Sci. (Economics and Political Science), 

September 1958-June 1961. 

UNIVERSITY POSITIONS 

A. University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School 

Faculty Positions: 

The Lauder Professor, 1983- 

Professor of Marketing, 1973- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Associate Professor of Marketing, 1970-1973 

Assistant Professor of Marketing and International Business, 1967-1970 

Selected Administrative Positions: 

Founding Academic Director, The Wharton Fellows platform and program, 2000- 

Founding Director, The SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management, 1988- 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Founding Editor, Wharton School Publishing (WSP), 2003-2008 

Founding Director, The Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, 1983-1988 

Founding Director, the 1st Title VI National Resource Center in International Management Studies, 1985- 

1988 

Founding Director, The Wharton Center for International Management Studies, 1980-1983 

Secondary Faculty Appointments: 

Member of the Graduate Group in International Studies (School of Arts & Sciences), 1984-1998 

Member of the OR Group, 1979-1984 and the OR affiliated faculty, 1984-1989 

Senior Fellow of the Leonard Davis Institute, 1977-1980 

Secondary Appointment as Professor of Management, 1981-1984 

Member of the Extended Faculty of the Social Systems Sciences Dept. 1981-1986 

B. Other Universities 

The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya Israel, Co-Founder (for specific activities since 1994, see p. 48). 

University of Tokyo (Japan) Co-Director of the Marunouchi Global Center (MCG) program, 2002; The First 

Hakuhodo Visiting Professorship, Spring 1992 and 1993. 

Erasmus University (The Netherlands) The First Visiting Unilever-Erasmus Professorship, Spring 1993. 

University of New South Wales (Australia) The First Visiting Hoover Foundation Professor, 1977. 

University of California at Berkeley, School of Business Administration Visiting Professor, Fall 1975. 

University of Tel Aviv, The Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, 

Visiting Senior Lecturer, September 1968-August 1969. 

Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, Research Assistant, June 1965-October 1966. 

The Hebrew University Jerusalem, Teaching Assistant in the Departments of Political Science and 

Business Administration, September 1961-June 1963. 

3


I. BOOKS 

PUBLICATIONS 

1. Fung, Victor K., William K. Fung and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. *Competing in a Flat World: Building 

Enterprises for a Borderless World. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing, 2007. [Translated 

editions: Bahasa Indonesia; Chinese Simplified; Chinese Traditional; English (India); Italian; Korean; 

Polish; Portuguese; Spanish; Italian; Bahasa Indonesian; Turkish.] 

2. Wind, Jerry, Colin Crook and Robert E. Gunther. *The Power of Impossible Thinking: Transform the 

Business of Your Life and the Life of Your Business. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing, 

2004. Selected by Executive Book Summaries as one of the thirty best business books of 2004. 

[Translated editions: Arabic; Bahasa Indonesia; Bulgarian; Chinese (simplified and traditional); English 

(Singapore); Italian; Japanese; Korean; Polish; Portuguese; Russian; Serbian; Spanish; Thai; and 

Turkish.] Selected by Executive Book Summaries as one of the thirty best business books of 2004; 

finalist in Fast Company Reader’s Choice Award for the October book of the month; among CEO 

READ top 25 books of August 2004. A paperback edition was published in 2006. 

3. Krieger, Abba, Paul E. Green and Jerry Wind. Adventures in Conjoint Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide 

to Trade-Off Modeling and Applications. Philadelphia: The Wharton School, 2004 < 

https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/green/monograph/ >. 

4. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), Vijay Mahajan and Robert Gunther. *Convergence Marketing: Strategies for 

Reaching the New Hybrid Consumer. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2002. 

Selected by Executive Book Summaries as one of the thirty best business books of 2002. Translated 

editions: Chinese (simplified), Tsingua University Press; Chinese (traditional), Prentice Hall Taiwan; 

Bahasa (Indonesia); Spanish; Portuguese; Italian [Consumatore Centauro: Orvaro il Marketing Della 

Convergenza, ETAS LAB. IT. 2002]; Korean; and Japanese. 

5. Fields, George, Hotaka Katahira, Jerry Wind and Robert E. Gunther. Leveraging Japan: Marketing to 

the New Asia. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. 

6. Wind, Yoram and Jeremy Main. *Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21 st 

Century. New York: The Free Press, 1997. 

Translated editions in U.K. by Kogan (Page Ltd.), 1998; China by Shanghai Jiao (Tong University 

Press), 1999; Hungary by Veres István (Geomeédia Szakkönyvek), 2000. Adaptation to local condition: 

Brazil by Luiz Felipe Monteiro Jr. (IBMEC Qualitymark Editoria), 2002. 

7. Bauer, Roy A., Emilio Collar, Victor Tang, Jerry Wind and Patrick R. Houston. The Silverlake Project: 

Transformation at IBM. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. 

Translated to Chinese, Huaxia Publishing, 2000. 

8. Wind, Yoram. *Product Policy: Concepts, Methods and Strategies (Addison-Wesley Marketing Series). 

Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1982. Reviewed in the Journal of Marketing, Summer 1981. 

9. Wind, Yoram. *Marketing and Product Planning (in Spanish). Mexico: Expansion, 1979. 

This book is based in part on sections from Product Policy which was selected by the editors of 

Expansion as the "Book of the Year" 1979. 

10. Wind, Yoram, Paul E. Green and Douglas Carroll. Multi-Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A 

Measurement Approach. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, 1973. 

11. Webster, Frederick E. and Yoram Wind. Organizational Buying Behavior (Foundations of Marketing). 

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972. 

Translated to Portuguese (Editor, Atlas, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1975). Reviewed JMR, August 1974. 

12. Wind, Yoram, Ronald E. Frank and William F. Massy. Market Segmentation (International Series in 

Management). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1972. Reviewed JMR, November 1972; August 1974. 

4


13. Wind, Yoram, Homer Dalby and Irwin Gross. Advertising Measurement and Decision Making. Boston: 

Allyn & Bacon, 1968. 

14. Robinson, Patrick J. and Yoram Wind. Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing. Boston: Allyn & 

Bacon, 1967. 

Contributed two chapters; co-authored with Patrick J. Robinson three chapters; and participated in the 

overall organization and preparation of the book. 

15. Yoram Wind. Industrial Buying Behavior: Source Loyalty in the Purchase of Industrial Components. 

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1966. 

II. EDITED BOOKS 

1. Wind, Yoram and Paul Kleindorfer, eds., The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit and Risk in an 

Interlinked World. Wharton School Publishing, 2009. 

2. Wind, Yoram (Jerry) and Paul E. Green, ed., *Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and 

Prospects. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. 

3. Wind, Jerry and Vijay Mahajan, ed. Digital Marketing: Global Strategies from the World’s Leading 

Experts. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001. 

4. Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller and Yoram Wind, ed. New-Product Diffusion Models. Boston: Kluwer 

2000. 

5. Mahajan, Vijay and Yoram Wind, ed. Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance. 

Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1986. 

6. Wind, Yoram, Vijay Mahajan and Richard N. Cardozo, ed. New-Product Forecasting: Models and 

Applications. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1981. 

7. Wind, Yoram and Robert J. Thomas, ed. Advances in Organizational Buying Research: The Case 

of Acquisition of Scientific and Technical Information. Washington, D.C: National Science 

Foundation, 1979. 

8. Wind, Yoram and Marshall Greenberg, ed. Moving Ahead with Attitude Research: Proceedings of 

the Seventh Attitude Research Conference. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1977. 

9. Nicosia, Francesco M. and Yoram Wind, ed. Behavioral Models for Market Analysis: Foundations 

for Marketing Action. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1977. 

III. BOOKS UNDER DEVELOPMENT 

1. Wind, Yoram and the Future of Advertising Team. The Future of Advertising…is Now. A 

forthcoming iPad app. 

5


2. Wind, Yoram, ed. “Paul Green Contributions to Clustering and Segmentation.” Paul 

Green Sage Series on Legends of Marketing, Forthcoming. 

3. Wind, Yoram. “Marketing Strategy Analysis,” NOW The Essence of Knowledge: 

Foundations and Trends in Marketing, Forthcoming. 

4. Bell, David and Wind, Yoram. “Market Segmentation Uncut: A Practitioner’s Gude to 

Understanding and Implementing The Most Powerful Concept in Marketing.” NOW The 

Essence of Knowledge: Foundations and Trends in Marketing, Forthcoming. 

5. Wind, Yoram. A Manager’s Guide to Creativity. 

6. Wind, Yoram, Colin Crook, Howard Moskowitz & Stephen Rappaport. “Rethinking 

Education: Current & Needed Models to Address the Education Challenge.” 

7. Wind, Yoram and Herb Addison. “Creating a Creative Organization.” 

8. Wind, Yoram and the Future of Advertising Team. “Rethinking Advertising” A 

forthcoming e-book in development as a collaboration platform featuring insights, 

innovations and debates among the FoA Program’s Advisory Board, Wharton faculty and 

other industry experts. 

9. Yoram Wind Legends in Marketing: forthcoming 2012 from Sage Publications: 

Organizational Buying Behavior, Bob Thomas 

Consumer Behavior, Barbara Kahn, Bob Meyer 

Product and New Product Management, Vijay Mahajan, 

Marketing Strategy, David Reibstein 

Market Segmentation, David Bell 

Global Marketing, Arun Jain 

Marketing Research and Modeling, Vithala Rao 

The Future of Marketing, George Day 

IV. ARTICLES, CONTRIBUTED CHAPTERS, PAPERS IN PROCEEDINGS, AND WORKING PAPERS 

The papers are grouped by the following topics: 

A. Portfolio analysis and strategy 

B. Marketing and business strategy 

C. Marketing and product strategy 

D. Research on industrial buying behavior 

E. Research on consumer behavior 

F. Marketing research and modeling 

G. International marketing 

H. International management education and the Lauder Institute 

I. Management practice and education in the 21st Century 

J. Convergence Marketing 

K. Mental Models – Power of Impossible Thinking 

L. Network-Based Strategies 

M. Advertising 

N. Entries in Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Handbooks 

6


A. Portfolio Analysis and Strategy 

1. Wind, Yoram. "Product Portfolio: A New Approach to the Product Mix Decision.” Combined 

Proceedings. Ed. Ronald C. Curhan. Chicago: American Marketing Association, Aug. 1974. 

460-464. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram, and Henry J. Claycamp. "Planning Product Line Strategy: A Matrix Approach.” 

Journal of Marketing 40 (Jan. 1976): 2-9. 

. 

3. Wind, Yoram and Daniel Gross. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Allocation of 

Resources Within a Target Product/Market/Distribution Portfolio.” Proceedings of the First 

ORSA/TIMS Special Interest Conference on Market Measurement and Analysis. Eds. David B. 

Montgomery and Dick R. Wittink. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 1980. 278-297. 

. 

4. Wind, Yoram, and Thomas L. Saaty. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy 

Process.” Management Science 26.7 (July 1980): 641-658. 

. 

5. Wind, Yoram, and Vijay Mahajan. "Designing Product and Business Portfolios.” Harvard 

Business Review 59.1 (Jan. - Feb. 1981): 155-165. [B] Based on “Measurement Issues in 

Portfolio Analysis.” Paper presented at the Second Market Measurement and Analysis 

Conference, Austin, TX, Mar. 1980. [C] Translated and reprinted in French as “Un portefeuille 

d’activités en sept étapes.” Harvard La Revue des Responsables L’Expansion. 1981: 37-49. 

. 

6. Wind, Yoram, and Susan Douglas. "International Portfolio Analysis and Strategy: The 

Challenge of the 80s.” Journal of International Business Studies (Fall 1981): 69-82. 

. 

7. Mahajan, Vijay, Yoram Wind, and John W. Bradford. "Stochastic Dominance Rules for Product 

Portfolio Analysis.” TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 18 (1982): 161-183. 

 

. 

8. Harshman, Richard A., Paul E. Green, Yoram Wind, and Margaret E. Lundy. "A Model for the 

Analysis of Asymmetric Data in Marketing Research.” Marketing Science 1.2 (Spring 1982): 

205-242. . 

9. Wind, Yoram, Vijay Mahajan, and Donald J. Swire. "An Empirical Comparison of Standardized 

Portfolio Models.” Journal of Marketing 47 (Spring 1983): 89-99. [B] Based on paper presented 

at the Conference on Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning, 1981 

. 

10. Cardozo, Richard N., and Jerry Wind. "Risk Return Approach to Product Portfolio Strategy.” 

Long Range Planning 18.2 (1985): 77-85. 

. 

11. Mahajan, Vijay, and Jerry Wind. "Integrating Financial Portfolio Analysis with Product Portfolio 

Models.” Strategic Marketing and Management. Eds. H. Thomas and D. Gardner. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1985: 193-212. 

 

| = Article published in refereed journal 7


12. Wind, Yoram, and Vijay Mahajan. "Corporate Growth Through Synergy: Concept, 

Measurement & Applications.” Wharton School Working Paper, Aug. 1985. 

 

13. Mahajan, Vijay, and Yoram Wind. "Business Synergy Does Not Always Pay Off.” Long Range 

Planning 21.1 (Feb. 1988): 59-65. 

. 

B. Marketing and Business Strategy 

1. Wind, Yoram. "A Research Program for a Marketing Guided Approach to Mergers and 

Acquisitions.” 1979 Educators’ Conference Proceedings. Eds. Neil Beckwith, et al. Chicago: 

American Marketing Association, 1979. 207-256. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram. "Marketing Oriented Strategic Planning Models.” Marketing Decision Models. 

Eds. Randall L. Schultz and Andris A. Zoltners. New York: Elsevier, North Holland, Inc., 1981. 

207-250. 

. 

3. Wind, Yoram. "Marketing and the Other Business Functions.” Research in Marketing Vol. 5 

(1981): 237-264. 

. 

4. Wind, Yoram. "Marketing and Corporate Strategy.” The Wharton Magazine (Summer 1982): 

38-45. [B] Based on Wind, Yoram. “Marketing and Corporate Strategy: Problems and 

Perspectives.” 13th Annual Albert Wesley Frey Lecture. University of Pittsburgh. 1981. 

. 

5. Robertson, Thomas S., and Yoram Wind. "Marketing Strategy." The Strategic Management 

Handbook. Ed. Kenneth J. Albert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. 11-3–11-22. 

. 

6. Wind, Yoram, and Thomas S. Robertson. "Marketing Strategy: New Directions for Theory and 

Research." Journal of Marketing 47 (Spring 1983): 12-25. 

. 

7. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "Marketing for Top Executives: Problems and Prospects,” Wharton 

School Working Paper, 1985. 

8. Wind, Yoram. "Models for Marketing Planning and Decision Making.” Handbook of Modern 

Marketing. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor P. Buell. New York: McGraw-Hill, Feb. 1986. 49-1–49-12. 

. 

9. Wind, Jerry. "Effective Competitive Strategies: A Marketing Perspective.” Address at the 

Securities Industry Association Regional Conference on Achieving Excellence in Management, 

Chicago, March 26, 1986: 62-80. 

. 

10. Wind, Jerry. "Expanding the Role of the Board of Directors.” Wharton School Working Paper, 

May 1986. 

11. Wind, Y. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Based Approach to the Design and Evaluation of a 

Marketing Driven Business and Corporate Strategy.” Mathematical Modeling 9.3-5 (1987): 

285-291. 

. 



12. Wind, Yoram. "Financial Services: Increasing Your Marketing Productivity and Profitability.” 

The Journal of Services Marketing 1.2 (Fall 1987): 5-18. 

. 

13. Dunn, Elizabeth F., and Jerry Wind. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Generation and Evaluation 

of Marketing Mix Strategies.” Contemporary Views on Marketing Practice. Eds. Gary L. Frazier 

and Jagdish N. Sheth. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, Dec. 1987. 111-131. 

. 

14. Wind, Jerry. "A Marketing Perspective for Competitive Strategy.” Handbook of Business 

Strategy: 1988/1989 Yearbook. Ed. Harold E. Glass. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, 

1988. 17-1–17-25. [B] Based on paper presented at the International Conference on 

Competitive Analysis, Groningen, Netherlands, Oct. 1986. 

 

. 

15. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "Targeting Global Markets: Guidelines to Meet the Marketing Challenge.” 

Directions. Atlanta, GA: Contel Corporation, 1989. 20-23. 

. 

16. Day, Diana L., John U. Farley, and Jerry Wind. “New Perspectives on Strategy Research: A 

View from the Management Sciences.” Management Science 36.10 (Oct. 1990). 

 

. 

17. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "Inducing Creativity and Innovation in Large Bureaucracies: Lessons 

from Marketing.” Proceedings of the RGK Foundation 4th International Conference on Creative 

and Innovative Management. 1993. 

18. Rangaswamy, Arvind, and Jerry Wind. “Don’t Walk In, Just Log In! Electronic Markets and 

What They Mean for Marketing.” Wharton School Working Paper, Dec. 1994. 

 

19. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Growth Strategies.” Wharton School Working Paper, 1996. 

20. Wind, Jerry. “Preemptive Strategies.” Wharton on Dynamic Competitive Stratetgy. Eds. 

George S. Day and David L. Reibstein. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. 256-276. 

< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9701_Preemptive_Strategies.pdf>. 

21. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Segmentation: Accomplishments, Issues and Challenges of the Global 

Information Age.” Proceedings of the 14th Paul D. Converse Symposium. Eds. James D. Hess 

and Kent B. Monroe. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1998. 130-150. 

. 

22. Wind, Jerry. “Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age.” Mastering Marketing. Eds. 

Financial Times, in association with INSEAD, Kellogg, LBS, and Wharton. London: Pearson 

Education, 1999. 131-150. 

. 

23. Wind, Jerry, and Vijay Mahajan. “The Challenge of Digital Marketing.” Digital Marketing. Eds. 

Jerry Wind and Vijay Mahajan. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001. [B] Modified version 

published as Wind, Jerry, and Vijay Mahajan. “Digital Marketing.” European Business Forum 

1.1 (Spring 2000): 20-27. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0004_The_Challenge_of_Digital_Marketing.pdf 



24. Wind, Jerry, and Arvind Rangaswamy. “Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass 

Customization.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 11.1 (Winter 2001): 13-32. [B] Reprinted as 

Marketing Science Institute working paper, 2000. [C] Summarized as “Customerization: 

Marketing Driven by the Consumer.” Insight from MSI (2000). [D] Reprinted in Pulses (Oct. 

2000) (publication of the Singapore Exchange). 

. 

25. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “The Challenge of ‘Customerization’ in Financial Services.” 

Communications of the ACM 44.6 (June 2001): 39-44. 

. 

26. Mahajan, Vijay, Raji Srinivasan, and Jerry Wind. “The Dot.com Retail Failures of 2000: Were 

There Any Winners?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30.4 (2002): 474-486. 

. 

27. Amit, Raffi, Cohen, Morris, Wunram, Jurgen, and Yoram Wind. “Winning the Digital 

Transformation Race.” Wharton School Working Paper, Oct. 2002. 

28. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Marketing as an Engine of Business Growth: A Cross-Functional 

Perspective.” The Journal of Business Research 58 (2005): 863-873. 

. 

29. West, Jr., Alfred P., and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Putting the Organization on Wheels: How SEI 

Uses Workplace Design and Art to Create a Corporate Culture that Drives Innovation and 

Growth.” California Management Review. 49.2 (2007): 138-153. 

. 

30. Wind, Jerry and David Bell. “Market Segmentation.” The Marketing Book (Sixth Edition). 

Butterworth Heinemann, November 2007. 

< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0702_Market_Segmentation.pdf>. 

31. Wind, Jerry, Louis Capozzi, and Monita Buchwald. “Beyond Stretch Objectives: Stretch the 

Thinking, Strategy and Organisational Design.” Strategic Innovators (May-July 2008): 8-17. 

. 

32. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “A Plan to Invent the Marketing We Need Today,” MIT Sloan 

Management Review, June 2008. [B] Excerpted from the 2007 Buck Weaver Award paper 

“Rigor and Relevance: A Key Marketing Challenge,” the full award paper is available online at 

http://sloanreview.mit.edu. 

33. Wind, Jerry. “Rethinking Marketing: Peter Drucker’s Challenge,” Journal of the Academy of 

Marketing Science 37 (2009): 28-34. 

 

C. Marketing and Product Strategy 

1. Knight, Kenneth E., and Yoram Wind. "Innovation in Marketing: An Organizational Behavior 

Perspective.” California Management Review 11 (Fall 1968): 67-78. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram, Bent Stidsen, and Kenneth E. Knight. "Management and Change.” Manpower 

and Applied Psychology 2.2 (Winter 1968): 38-46. 

. 



3. Schutte, Thomas F., and Yoram Wind. "The Marketing Concept Revisited: A Decade Recap of 

Its Development and Meaning.” Wharton School Working Paper, Jan. 1968. 

 

4. Wind, Yoram. "A Marketing Approach to the Salesman Function.” Organization and 

Administration (Hebrew) 15 (Sept. 1969): 26-33. 

. 

5. Wind, Yoram. "Innovation as Marketing Orientation.” Business Economics (Hebrew) 36 (Dec. 

1969): 5-11. 

. 

6. Wind, Yoram. "The Step Children of Marketing: Organizational and International Customers.” 

The Wharton Quarterly 7 (Fall 1972): 43-46. 

. 

7. Wind, Yoram. "A Note on the Operationalization of the Product Life Cycle Concept.” Wharton 

School Working Paper, Jan. 1975. 

 

8. Cacchione, Jr., Frank J., Dan Gross, and Yoram Wind. "Consumer Attitudes as Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of a New Distribution System.” Moving Ahead With Attitude Research. Eds. 

Jerry Wind and Marshall Greenberg. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1977. 139- 

143. 

. 

9. Wind, Yoram, and Tyzoon Tyebjee. "On the Use of Attitude Research in Product Policy.” 

Moving Ahead With Attitude Research. Eds. Jerry Wind and Marshall Greenberg. Chicago: 

American Marketing Association, 1977. 147-156 

 

10. Wind, Yoram. "The Perception of a Firm's Competitive Position.” Behavioral Models for Market 

Analysis: Foundations for Marketing Action. Eds. Francesco M. Nicosia and Yoram Wind. 

Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1977. 163-181. 


16. Wind, Jerry. "The Contribution of Research to Product Management and New Product 

Development.” Keynote Address at the 36th ESOMAR Congress, Barcelona, Spain, Aug. 

1983. . 

17. Wind, Yoram. “Significant Issues for the Future: Some Additional Perspectives - The Required 

Breakthrough.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 2 (1984):129-132. 

. 

18. Wind, Jerry. "The Marketing Challenge.” Charles Coolidge Parlin Award Acceptance Speech. 

Philadelphia, 1985. [B] Wharton School Working Paper, 1985. [C] Excerpts appeared in The 

Marketing News Aug. 1985. 

. 

19. Wind, Jerry, and Vijay Mahajan. "Marketing Hype: A New Perspective for New Product 

Research and Introduction.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 4 (1987): 43-39. 

. 

20. Wind, Yoram, and Vijay Mahajan. "New Product Development Process: A Perspective for 

Reexamination.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 5 (1988): 304-310. [B] IEEE 

Engineering Management Review 18.1(March 1990): 52-58. 

. 

21. Wind, Yoram J., and Douglas E. Hill. "Salespeople as Marketing Strategists.” Wharton School 

Working Paper, Aug. 1988. 

 

22. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "Innovative Distribution: The Neglected Dimension in Business Strategy,” 

Wharton School Working Paper, August 1988. 

23. Wind, Yoram J. "Positioning Analysis and Strategy.” The Interface of Marketing and Strategy. 

Eds. George Day, Barton Weitz and Robin Wensley. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Pct. 1990. 

387-412. 

. 

24. Wind, Jerry. "Getting a Read on Market-Defined ‘Value’” Journal of Pricing Management 1.1 

(Winter 1990): 5-14. 

. 

25. Wind, Yoram. "A New Approach to the Determination and Allocation of the R&D Budget.” 

Wharton Working Paper, Feb. 1990. 

 

27. Lee, HoonYoung, Jerry Wind, and Raymond R. Burke. “A New Approach for Screening New 

Product and Service Concepts: Application to Financial Services.” Wharton School Working 

Paper, August 1992. 

 

28. Katahira, Hotaka, Makoto Mizuno, and Yoram Wind. "New Product Success in the Japanese 

Consumer Goods Market." Wharton School Working Paper, Apr. 1994. 

 

29. Bass, Frank M., and Jerry Wind. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Empirical Generalizations 

in Marketing.” Marketing Science 14.3.2 (1995): G1-G5. 

. 

30. Wind, Yoram. “Creativity and Innovation: The Management Edge.” The First Annual Zoltan 

Wind Lecture, Herzliya, Israel, May 1996. IDC’s Zoltan Wind Lecture Series. 

. 



31. Wind, Jerry, and Vijay Mahajan. “Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An 

Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Marketing Research 34 (Feb. 1997): 1-12. 

. 

32. Wind, Yoram, Nifssen, Ed, and Berend Wierenga. “Innovation as a Determinant of Firms’ 

Financial Performance: The View of the Financial Analyst.” Wharton School Working Paper. 

33. Mahajan, Vijay, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Got Emotional Product Positioning? There’s More to 

Positioning Than Just Features and Benefits.” Marketing Management 11.3 (May/June 2002): 

36-41. 

 

34. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Abba Kreiger. “Beyond Product Substitution: The Impact of Satellite 

Radio on Sale of CDs and Music Downloads,” Working Paper. 2008. 

 

35. Roberts, John, Alvin Silk, Glen Urban and Jerry Wind. “Kotler on Strategic Marketing.” Glen 

Urban (Ed) Kotler on Strategic Marketing Sage Publications, 2010. 

36. Wind, Yoram. “Roger Layton’s Contributions to Marketing.” Astralasian Marketing Journal 

(2012) . 

D. Research on Industrial Buying Behavior 

1. Wind, Yoram. "Integrating Attitude Measures in a Study of Industrial Buying Behavior.” Attitude 

Research on the Rocks. Eds. Lee Adler and Irving Crespi. Chicago: American Marketing 

Association, 1968. 58-77. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram. "Applying the Behavioral Theory of the Firm to Industrial Buying Decisions.” The 

Economic and Business Bulletin 20.3 (Spring 1968): 22-28. 

. 

3. Wind, Yoram. "Mathematical Analysis of Perception and Preference for Industrial Marketing.” A 

New Measure of Responsibility for Marketing. Eds. K. Cox and B. M. Enis. Chicago: American 

Marketing Association, June 1968. 284-294. 

. 

4. Robinson, Patrick J., and Yoram Wind. "Generalized Simulation of the Industrial Buying 

Process.” Marketing Science Institute Working Paper P-46-2, July 1968. 

 

5. Wind, Yoram, and Patrick J. Robinson. "Simulating the Industrial Buying Process.” Marketing 

and the New Science of Planning. Ed. R. L. King. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 

Aug. 1968. 441-448. 

 

. 

6. Wind, Yoram, Paul E. Green, and Patrick J. Robinson. "The Determinants of Vendor Selection: 

The Evaluation Function Approach.” Journal of Purchasing 4 (Aug. 1968): 29-41. 

. 

7. Robinson, Patrick J., and Yoram Wind. "Computer Simulation - Marketing Management Tool.” 

Computer Operations 3 (Jan. - Feb. 1969): 42-27. 



. 

8. Wind, Yoram. "Industrial Source Loyalty." Journal of Marketing Research 7 (Nov. 1970): 450- 

457. 

. 

9. Wind, Yoram. "A Reward-Balance Model of Buying Behavior in Organizations.” New Essays in 

Marketing Theory. Ed. George Fisk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1971. 206-217. 

. 

10. Wind, Yoram and Richard Cardozo. "Industrial Marketing Research.” Paper presented at the 

AMA Workshop on Industrial Buying Behavior, Berkeley, CA, Apr. 1971. 

11. Wind, Yoram, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. "On the Study of Industrial Buying Behavior: 

Current Practices and Future Trends.” Industrial Marketing Management 4 (1972): 411-416. 

. 

12. Webster, Jr., Frederick E., and Yoram Wind. "A General Model for Understanding 

Organizational Buying Behavior.” Journal of Marketing 36 (Apr. 1972): 12-19. [B] Reprinted in 

Marketing Management 4.4 (Winter/Spring 1996) 52-57. 

. 

13. Wind, Yoram, and Frederick E. Websiter, Jr. "Industrial Buying as Organizational Behavior: A 

Guideline for Research Strategy.” Journal of Purchasing 8.3 (Aug. 1972): 5-16. 

. 

14. Wind, Yoram, and Elmer Lotshaw. "The Industrial Customer.” Marketing Manager’s Handbook. 

Ed. Steuart Henderson Britt. Chicago: The Dartnell Corporation, 1973. 781-792. 

. 

15. Wind, Yoram. "Recent Approaches to the Study of Organizational Buying Behavior.” 

Increasing Marketing Productivity. Ed. T. V. Greer. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 

Apr. 1973. 203-206. 

. 

16. Wind, Yoram, and Richard Cardozo. "Industrial Market Segmentation.” Industrial Marketing 

Management 3 (1974): 153-166. [B] Reprinted as Wind, Yoram, and Richard Cardozo. “La 

Segmentation des Marchés Industriels.” Encyclopedie du Marketing: Volume I. Ed. Christian 

Pinson. Paris: Editions Techniques, June 1977. 1-10. 

. 

17. Nicosia, Francesco M., and Yoram Wind. "Emerging Models of Organizational Buying 

Processes.” Industrial Marketing Management 6 (1977): 353-369. [B] Also appeared in Eds. 

Francesco Nicosia and Yoram Wind. Behavioral Models of Market Analysis: Foundations for 

Marketing Action. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1977. 96-120. [C] Translated and reprinted 

in Italian as “Modelli emergenti di acquisto nelle organizzazioni.” Sviluppo & Organizzazione. 

Nov.-Dec. 1978: 51-70. 

. 

18. Wind, Yoram. "Information Requirements on Buying and Usage of STI Services.” Current 

Research on Scientific and Technical Information Transfer. New York: J. Norton Publishers, 

1977. 

. 

19. Wind, Yoram. "Organizational Buying Center: A Research Agenda.” Organizational Buying 

Behavior. Eds. Thomas V. Bonoma and Gerald Zaltman. Chicago: American Marketing 



Association, 1978. 67-76. 

 

. 

20. Wind, Yoram. "Organizational Buying Behavior.” Annual Review of Marketing. Eds. Gerald 

Zaltman and Thomas Bonoma. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1978. 160-193. 

. 

21. Wind, Yoram. "The Boundaries of Buying Decision Centers.” Journal of Purchasing and 

Materials Management 14 (Summer 1978): 23-29. 

. 

22. Wind, Yoram, John F. Grashof, and Joel D. Goldhar. "Market-Based Guidelines for Design of 

Industrial Products.” Journal of Marketing 24 (July 1978): 27-37. 

. 

23. Wind, Yoram, and Robert Thomas. "Problems and Prospects in the Segmentation of the STI 

Market.” Marketing Scientific and Technical Information. Eds. William R. King and Gerald 

Zaltman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1979. 67-76. 

. 

24. Wind, Yoram. "Industrial Market Segmentation Under Conditions of Intra-Organizational 

Heterogeneity.” Advances in Organizational Buying Behavior. Eds. Yoram Wind and Robert 

Thomas. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1979. 

. 

25. Wind, Yoram, and Robert J. Thomas. "Conceptual and Methodological Issues in 

Organisational Buying Behaviour.” European Journal of Marketing 14.5/6 (1980): 239-263. 

. 

26. Robertson, Thomas S., and Yoram Wind. "Organizational Psychographics and 

Innovativeness.” Journal of Consumer Research 7 (June 1980): 24-31. 

. 

27. Grashof, John F., and Yoram Wind. "Marketing Research in the Design of STI Systems: A 

Case Study.” Information Services: Economics, Management, and Technology. Eds. Robert M. 

Mason and John E. Creps, Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981. 73-84. 

. 

28. Wind, Yoram, and Thomas S. Robertson. "The Linking Pin Role in Organizational Buying 

Centers.” Journal of Business Research 10.2 (1981): 169-184. 

. 

29. Thomas, Robert J., and Yoram Wind. "Toward Empirical Generalizations on Industrial Market 

Segmentation.” Issues in Industrial Marketing: A View to the Future. Eds. Robert E. Spekman 

and David T. Wilson. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1982. 1-19. 

. 

30. Robertson, Thomas S., and Yoram Wind. "Organizational Cosmopolitanism and 

Innovativeness.” Academy of Management Journal 26.2 (June 1983): 332-338. 

. 

31. Richardson, Douglas K., Steven G. Gabbe, and Yoram Wind. "Decision Analysis of High-Risk 

Patient Referral.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 63.4 (Apr. 1984): 496-501. 

. 



32. Thomas, Robert J., and Yoram Wind. "The Changing Industrial Market: Implications for 

Research.” A Strategic Approach to Business Marketing. Eds. Robert E. Spekman and David 

T. Wilson. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1985. 67-78. 

. 

33. Wind, Yoram, and Robert J. Thomas. "Strategy-Driven Industrial Marketing Research.” Annual 

Review of Marketing. Ed. V. Zeithaml. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1991. 411- 

454. 

. 

34. Wind, Yoram, and Robert J. Thomas. "Segmenting Industrial Markets.” Advances in Business 

Marketing and Purchasing. Ed. Arch G. Woodside. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994. 59-82. 

. 

35. Wind, Yoram, and Robert J. Thomas. “The BuyGrid Model: 30 Years Later.” Wharton School 

Working Paper, 1998. 

 

36. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Blurring the Lines: Is There a Need to Rethink Industrial Marketing?” 

Rotman Magazine, Spring 2008 Pages 62-68. [B]| Excerpted from Wind, Yoram (Jerry). 

“Blurring the Lines: Is There a Need to Rethink Industrial Marketing?” Journal of Business and 

Industrial Marketing, 21.7 (2007): 474-481. 

 

37. Wind, Yoram, and Thomas, Robert J. “Organizational Buying Behavior in an Interdependent 

World.” Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science (JGAMS). June 2010. 

 

E. Research on Consumer Behavior 

1. Wind, Yoram. "Incongruency of Socioeconomic Variables and Buying Behavior.” Marketing 

Involvement in Society and the Economy. Ed. P. R. McDonald. Chicago: American Marketing 

Association, Aug. 1969. 362-367. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram, and Ronald E. Frank. "Interproduct Household Loyalty to Brands.” Journal of 

Marketing Research 6 (Nov. 1969): 435-435. 

. 

3. Wind, Yoram. "Models of Customer Behavior.” Organization and Administration (Hebrew) 16 

(May 1970) 3-13. 

. 

4. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "The Application of Multidimensional Scaling in Segmentation Research." 

Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the Association for Consumer Research, 

Amherst, MA, Aug. 1970. 

5. Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind. "Prediction Experiments Utilizing Perceptual and Preference 

Judgments.” Paper presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the American Institute for 

Decision Sciences, Dallas, TX, Nov. 1970. 

. 



6. Douglas, Susan P., and Yoram Wind. "Intentions to Buy as Predictors of Buying Behavior.” 

Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. 

Ed. David M. Gardner. Maryland: Association for Consumer Research, 1971. 331-343. 

. 

7. Wind, Jerry. "Life Style Analysis: A New Approach.” Marketing in Motion. Ed. Fred C. Allvin. 

Chicago: American Marketing Association, Apr. 1971. 302-305. 

. 

8. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "Consumer Menu Preference: An Application 

of Additive Conjoint Measurement.” Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the 

Association for Consumer Research. Ed. M. Venkatesan. Chicago: Association for Consumer 

Research, 1972. 304-315. 

. 

9. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "Benefit Bundle Analysis.” Journal of 

Advertising Research 12.2 (Apr. 1972): 31-36. 

. 

10. Green, Paul E., Frank J. Carmone, and Yoram Wind. "Subjective Evaluation Models and 

Conjoint Measurement.” Behavioral Science 17.3 (May 1972): 288-299. 

. 

11. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "A Note on Measurement of Social- 

Psychological Belief Systems.” Journal of Marketing Research 9 (May 1972): 204-208. 

. 

12. Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind. "Experiments in the Multidimensional Psychophysics of 

Taste and Semantic Descriptions.” Research Design Competition of the American 

Psychological Association, Division 23, July 1972. 

. 

13. Wind, Yoram. "On the Teaching of Consumer Behavior: A Managerial Approach.” Paper 

presented at the American Marketing Association Conference, Houston, TX, Aug. 1972. 

. 

14. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "Preference Measurement of Item Collections.” 

Journal of Marketing Research 9 (Nov. 1972): 371-377. 

. 

15. Green, Paul E., Frank J. Carmone, and Yoram Wind. "Consumer Evaluation of Discount 

Cards.” Journal of Retailing 49.1 (Spring 1973): 10-22. 

 

. 

16. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "Analyzing Free-Response Data in Marketing 

Research.” Journal of Marketing Research 10 (Feb. 1973): 45-52. 

. 

17. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. "Benefit Bundle Congruence.” Paper 

presented at the Southeast AIDS Conference, 1974. 

. 

18. Wind, Jerry, and Paul Green. "Some Conceptual, Measurement, and Analytical Problems in 

Life Style Research.” Life Style and Psychographics. Ed. William D. Wells. Chicago: American 

Marketing Association, 1974. 97-126. 



. 

19. Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind. "Recent Approaches to the Modeling of Individuals' 

Subjective Evaluations.” Attitude Research Bridges the Atlantic. Ed. Philip Levine. Chicago: 


. 

20. Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Henry J. Claycamp. "Brand-Features Congruence Mapping.” 

Journal of Marketing Research 12 (Aug. 1975): 306-313. 

. 

21. Wind, Yoram. "Multiperson Influence and Usage Occasions as Determinants of Brand Choice." 

Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference, Rochester, NY, Aug. 

1975. 

. 

22. Wind, Yoram, and Terry C. Gleason. "Alternative Approaches to Data Collection for Attitude 

Measurement.” Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Los 

Angeles, CA, Sept. 1975. 

. 

23. Villani, Kathryn E. A., and Yoram Wind. "On the Usage of 'Modified' Personality Trait Measures 

in Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 2 (Dec. 1975): 223-228. 

. 

24. Wind, Yoram, and Michael DeVita. "On the Relationship Between Knowledge and Preference.” 

Marketing: 1776-1976 and Beyond. Ed. Kenneth L. Bernhardt. Chicago: American Marketing 

Association, 1976. 153-157. 

. 

25. Wind, Yoram. "Preference of Relevant Others and Individual Choice Models.” Journal of 

Consumer Marketing 3 (June 1976): 50-57. 

. 

26. Wind, Yoram. "A 1975 Retrospective View of Bourne's 1957 'Group Influence in Marketing'." 

Classics in Consumer Behavior. Ed. Louis E. Boone. Tulsa, OK: The Petroleum Publishing 

Company, 1977. 225-235. 

. 

27. Wind, Yoram. "Brand Loyalty and Vulnerability.” Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. 

Eds. Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett. New York: Elsevier, North 

Holland, Inc., 1977. 313-319. 

. 

28. Wind, Yoram. "Reflections on Creativity and Relevance of Consumer Research.” 

Contemporary Marketing Thought. Eds. B. A. Greenberg and D. A. Bellenger. Chicago: 


. 

29. Wind, Yoram. "Brand Choice.” Selected Aspects of Consumer Behavior: A Summary from the 

Perspective of Different Disciplines. Ed. Robert Ferber. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1977. 235-258. 

. 

30. Wind, Yoram. "On the Interface Between Organizational and Consumer Buying Behavior.” 

Advances in Consumer Research. Eds. Kent Hunt and Ann Abor. 1978. 657-662. 



. 

31. Douglas, Susan P., and Yoram Wind. "Examining Family Role and Authority Patterns: Two 

Methodological Issues.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 40.1 (Feb. 1978): 35-47. 

. 

32. Nicosia, Francesco M., and Yoram Wind. "Sociology of Consumption and Trade-Off Models in 

Consumer Public Policy.” Research for Consumer Policy. Eds. William Michael Denney and 

Robert T. Lund. Cambridge, MA: Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, 24 Mar. 1978. 141-184. 

. 

33. Wind, Yoram, Joseph Denny, and Arthur Cunningham. "A Comparison of Three Brand 

Evaluation Procedures.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43 (Summer 1979): 261-270. 

. 

34. Wind, Yoram, and David Lerner. "On the Measurement of Purchase Data: Surveys Versus 

Purchase Diaries.” Journal of Marketing Research 16 (Feb. 1979): 39-47. 

. 

35. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Peter Shubs. "A Note on the Relationship Between Perceived 

Problems, Severity, and Frequency of Occurrence.” Journal of the Professional Marketing 

Research Society 1.2 (Oct. 1981): 19-22 [B] and "On the Generalizability and Theoretical 

Implications of Empirical Findings: A Reply to Comments "A Note on the Relationships 

Between Perceived Problem Severity and Frequency of Occurrence,” with Peter Shubs, 

Journal of Professional Marketing Research, 1982. 

. 

36. Wind, Yoram, and Susan P. Douglas. "Comparative Consumer Research: The Next Frontier?" 

Comparative Marketing Systems. Ed. Erdener Kaynak. Bradford, England: MCB Publications, 

1982. 24-35. 

. 

37. Fraser, Cynthia, and Yoram Wind. "Physical and Social Psychological Anxiety as Correlates of 

Purchase Behavior.” Wharton School Working Paper, Aug. 1982. 

 

38. Deighton, John, Franco M. Nicosia, and Yoram Wind. "Exploration Into the Time-Money 

Tradeoff: Concepts and an Application.” Strategic Planning: A Thing of the Past or a Necessity 

for the Future – Can Research Contribute? San Francisco: American Marketing Association, 

Apr. 1983. 51-65. [B] Based in part on “A Time-Money Tradeoff (TMI) Model of Consumer 

Behavior.” Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, 

Aug. 1978. 

. 

39. Wind, Jerry, Paul E. Green, Douglas Shifflet, and Marsha Scarbrough. "Courtyard by Marriott: 

Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models.” Interfaces 19.1 (Jan. - 

Feb. 1989): 25-47. 

. 

40. Wind, Jerry, Vithala R. Rao, and Paul E. Green. "Behavioral Methods.” Handbook of 

Consumer Theory and Research. Eds. Thomas Robertson and Hal Kassarjian. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991. 507-532. 

< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9102_Behavioral_Methods.pdf>. 



41. Schmittlein, David C., and Jerry Wind. "Inferring Causality in Consumer Perception Studies in 

Litigation Contexts.” Advances in Claim Substantiation. New York: Council of Better Business 

Bureaus, Inc., April 30, 1991. 161-170. 

. 

F. Marketing Research and Modeling 

1. Goodman, Charles S., and Yoram Wind. "The Use of Interactive Marketing Models as 

Framework for Research.” Wharton School Working Paper, May 1968. 

 

2. Wind, Yoram, and Susan P. Douglas. "Marketing Performance: A Conceptual Framework.” 

Marketing Science Institute Working Paper P-51-1, June 1968. 

 

3. Wind, Yoram. "Organizing a Diffusion System for Managerial Information in Israel: A Proposal.” 

Organization and Administration (Hebrew) 15 (Sept. 1969): 1-3. 

. 

4. Wind, Yoram, Susan P. Douglas, and Aaron Ascoli. "Experimentation as a Tool for the 

Retailer.” Journal of the Market Research Society 13.3 (July 1971): 158-169. 

. 

5. Wind, Yoram, and Patrick J. Robinson. "Product Positioning: An Application of 

Multidimensional Scaling.” Attitude Research in Transition. Ed. Russell I. Haley. Chicago: 


. 

6. Wind, Yoram and Francesco M. Nicosia. "On the Measurement of Quality of Life.” Paper 

presented at the TIMS Conference, July 1972. 

7. Wind, Yoram, Paul E. Green, and Arun K. Jain. "Higher Order Factor Analysis in the 

Classification of Psychographic Variables.” Journal of the Market Research Society 15.4 

(1973): 224-232. 

. 

8. Wind, Yoram. "A New Procedure for Concept Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing 37 (Oct. 1973): 

2-11. [B] Translated and reprinted in French as “Une nouvelle procedure d’évaluation des 

idées de nouveaux produits.” La Revue française du Marketing. 1974: 1-12. 

. 

9. Wind, Yoram. "A Note on the Classification and Evaluation of New Product Forecasting 

Models." Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference, Apr. 1974. 

. 

10. Wind, Yoram, and Joseph Denny. "Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Research on the 

Effectiveness of TV Commercials.” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (May 1974): 136-142. 

. 

11. Wind, Yoram, Stuart Jolly, and Art O’Connor. "Concept Testing as Input to Strategic Market 

Simulations.” Proceedings of the 58th International AMA Conference. Ed. E. Mazzie. American 

Marketing Association, Apr. 1975. 120-124. 

. 

12. Wind, Yoram. "Is 'Concept Testing: An Appropriate Approach' Really Appropriate?" Wharton 

School Working Paper, May 1975. 

 



13. Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind. "New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgments.” Harvard 

Business Review 53 (July - Aug. 1975): 107-117. 


Laczniak, R. F. Lusch, P. F. Anderson, T. A. Shimp, R. W. Belk, and C. B. Weinberg., 


. 

26. Eliashberg, Jehoshua, Charles S. Tapiero, and Yoram Wind. “Diffusion of New Products in 

Heterogeneous Populations: Incorporating Stochastic Coefficients.” Wharton School Working 

Paper, June 1983. 

 

27. Goldberg, Stephen M., Paul E. Green, and Yoram Wind. "Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums 

for Hotel Amenities.” Journal of Business 57.1.2 (1984): S111-S132. 

. 

28. Mahajan, Vijay, Subhash Sharma, and Yoram Wind. "Parameter Estimation in Marketing 

Models in the Presence of Influential Response Data: Robust Regression and Applications.” 

Journal of Marketing Research 21 (Aug. 1984): 268-277. 

. 

29. Mahajan, Vijay, Subhash Sharma, and Yoram Wind. "Assessing the Impact of Patent 

Infringement on New Product Sales.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 28 (1985): 

13-27. . 

30. Eliashberg, Jehoshua, Charles S. Tapiero, and Yoram Wind. "New Products Diffusion Models 

with Stochastic Parameters.” Wharton School Working Paper, Feb. 1985. 

 

31. Mahajan, Vijay, and Yoram Wind. "Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance: A 

Reexamination.” Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance. Eds. Vijay Mahajan 

and Yoram Wind. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1986. 2-25. 

. 

32. Fraser, Cynthia, and Yoram Wind. “Why and When to Use Tobit Analysis.” Wharton School 

Working Paper, May 1986. 

 

33. DeSarbo, Wayne S., Vithala R. Rao, Joel H. Steckel, Jerry Wind, and Richard Colombo. "A 

Friction Model for Describing and Forecasting Price Changes.” Marketing Science 6.4 (Fall 

1987): 299-319. 

. 

34. Schmittlein, David C., Vijay Mahajan, and Yoram Wind. "The Role of Within Group Variance in 

the Design and Analysis of Market Tests.” Wharton School Working Paper, Sept. 1987. 

. 

35. Mahajan, Vijay, and Yoram Wind. "New Product Forecasting Models: Directions for Research 

and Implementation.” International Journal of Forecasting 4 (1988): 341-358. 

 

36. Rao, Vithala R., Jerry Wind, and Wayne S. DeSarbo. "A Customized Market Response Model: 

Development, Estimation, and Empirical Testing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing 

Science 16.1 (Spring 1988) 128-140. 

. 

37. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). "Market Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Wharton School 

Working Paper, 1989. 



38. Mahajan, Vijay, and Jerry Wind. "Market Discontinuities and Strategic Planning: A Research 

Agenda.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 36 (1989): 185-199. 

. 

39. Rangaswamy, Arvind, Jehoshua Eliashberg, Raymond R. Burke, and Jerry Wind. "Developing 

Marketing Expert Systems: An Application to International Negotiations.” Journal of Marketing 

53.4 (Oct. 1989): 24-39. 

. 

40. Schmittlein, David C., and Jerry Wind. "Combining Multiple Estimates: An Application to 

Damage Assessment Litigation.” Wharton School Working Paper, 1991. 

. 

41. Mahajan, Vijay, and Jerry Wind. "New Product Models: Practice, Shortcomings and Desired 

Improvements.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 9 (1992): 128-139. 

. 

42. Lee, Hoon Young, Burke, Raymond R., and Yoram Wind. “An Analogical Reasoning System 

for Managerial Learning and Problem Solving.” Wharton School Working Paper, 1992. 

43. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), David C. Schmittlein, and Shoshana Shapiro. "Attribute 

Interdependencies in Product Performance Claims: Truth and Consequences.” Product 

Performance Tests: Design, Interpretation, and Claims. Proceedings of the NAD Workshop 

IV., New York: Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., 2-3 June 1992. 99-107. 

. 

44. Wind, Jerry Yoram. "Marketing Science at a Crossroad.” Inaugural Presentation of the Unilever 

Visiting Professorship. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University, 1993. 

. 

45. Arabie, Phipps, and Yoram Wind. “Marketing and Social Networks.” Advances in Social 

Networks Analysis. Eds. S. Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz. London: Sage Publications, 

1994. 254-273. 

. 

46. Wind, Jerry. “Start Your Engines: Gear Up for Challenges Ahead with Innovative Marketing 

Research Products and Services.” Marketing Research 9.4 (Winter 1997): 4-11. 

. 

47. Mahajan, Vijay, and Jerry Wind. “Rx for Marketing Research: A Diagnosis of and Prescriptions 

for the Recovery of an Ailing Discipline in the Business World.” Marketing Research 11.3 (Fall 

1999): 7-13. 

. 

48. Mahajan, Vijay, Eitan Muller, and Yoram Wind. “New Product Diffusion Models: From Theory 

to Practice.” New-Product Diffusion Models. Eds. Vijay Mahajan, Eitan Muller, and Yoram 

Wind. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. 3-24. 

. 

49. Green, Paul E., Yoram (Jerry) Wind, Abba M. Krieger, and Paul Saatsoglou. “Applying 

Qualitative Data.” Marketing Research 12.1 (Spring 2000): 17-25. 

. 



50. Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: 

Reflection and Prospects.” Interfaces 31.3.2 (May - June 2001): S56-S73. 

. 

51. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), Abba M. Krieger, and Paul E. Green. “Marketing Research in the 

Courtroom: A Case Study Shows How Analytical Methods Can Be Applied to the Law.” 

Marketing Research 14.1 (Spring 2002): 28-33. 

. 

52. Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Survey Methods Help to Clear Up 

Legal Questions.” Marketing News 16 Sept. 2002: 34-36. 

. 

53. Green, Paul E., Wind, Yoram, and Abba Krieger. “Buyer Choice Simulators, Optimizers, and 

Dynamic Models.” Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects. Eds. Yoram 

Wind and Paul E. Green. Kluwer, 2003. 

54. Krieger, Abba M., Paul E. Green, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Dual Considerations.” Marketing 

Research 15.4 (Winter 2003): 8-13. 

. 

55. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), Abba M. Krieger, and Paul E. Green. “Applying Conjoint Analysis to 

Legal Disputes: A Case Study.” Wharton School Working Paper, 2006. 

 

56. DeSarbo, Wayne S., Rajdeep Grewal, and Jerry Wind. “Who Competes with Whom? A 

Demand-Based Perspective for Identifying and Representing Asymmetric Competition.” 

Strategic Management Journal 27.2 (Feb 2006): 101-129. [B] And Wiley InterScience, 21 

November 2005. www.interscience.wiley.com 

. 

57. Wind, Jerry. “Marketing by Experiment,” Marketing Research. Spring 2007: 10-16. 

 

G. International Marketing 

1. Wind, Yoram. "The Role of Marketing in Israel.” Journal of Marketing 31 (Apr. 1967): 53-57. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram. "Information Requirements for International Business Decisions." Prepared for 

and used in the introductory International Business course at The Wharton School, University 

of Pennsylvania, June 1967. 

 

3. Wind, Yoram. "Cross Cultural Analysis of Consumer Behavior.” Changing Marketing Systems: 

Consumer, Corporate and Government Interfaces. Ed. Reed Moyer. Chicago: American 

Marketing Association, Winter 1967: 183-185. [B] Reprinted in Wharton Quarterly 2 (Winter- 

Spring 1968): 1-3. < 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/6703_Cross_Cultural_Analysis_of_Consumer.pdf 

4. Wind, Yoram. "Marketing in Israel.” Comparative Marketing. Ed. Harper W. Boyd, Jr. Stanford, 

CA: International Center for the Advancement of Education, Stanford University, Jan. 1968. 

< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/6813_Marketing_in_Israel.pdf>. 

5. Wind, Yoram and Patrick J. Robinson. "Perceptual and Preference Mapping of Countries: An 

Application of Multidimensional Scaling.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

Association for Education in International Business, Dec. 1970. 



6. Wind, Yoram, and Susan Douglas. "On the Meaning of Comparison: A Methodology for Cross- 

Cultural Studies.” Quarterly Journal of Management Development 2.4.1 (June 1971): 105-121. 

. 

7. Wind, Yoram, and Susan P. Douglas. "International Market Segmentation.” European Journal 

of Marketing 6.1 (1972): 17-25. 

. 

8. Douglas, Susan, Patrick Le Maire, and Yoram Wind. "Selection of Global Target Markets: A 

Decision Theoretic Approach.” Marketing in a Changing World: The Role of Market Research. 

Ed. Proceedings of the 24th ESOMAR Congress. Cannes, France: ESOMAR Congress, Sept. 

1972. PAGES. 

. 

9. Wind, Yoram, Susan P. Douglas, and Howard V. Perlmutter. "Guidelines for Developing 

International Marketing Strategies.” Journal of Marketing 37 (Apr. 1973): 14-23. 

. 

10. Douglas, Susan P., and Yoram Wind. "Environmental Factors and Marketing Practices.” 

European Journal of Marketing 7.3 (Winter 1973/1974): 155-165. 

. 

11. Wind, Yoram, and Susan Douglas. "Some Issues in International Consumer Research.” 

European Journal of Marketing 8.3 (Winter 1974/1975): 209-217. 

. 

12. Robinson, Patrick J., and Yoram Wind. "Multinational Tradeoff Segmentation.” Moving Ahead 

with Attitude Research. Eds. Yoram Wind and Marshall Greenberg. Chicago: American 

Marketing Association, 1977. 50-57. 

 

13. Wind, Yoram. "Research for Multinational Product Policy.” Multinational Product Management. 

Eds. Warren J. Keegan and Charles S. Mayer. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 

1977. 165-184. 

. 

14. Wind, Yoram, and Howard Perlmutter. "On the Identification of Frontier Issues in Multinational 

Marketing.” Columbia Journal of World Business 12 (Winter 1977): 131-139. 

. 

15. Wind, Yoram, and Susan Douglas. "Comparative Methodology and Marketing Theory.” 

Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Eds. Charles W. Lamb and Patrick M. Dunne. 

Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1980. [B] Based on Wind, Yoram, and Susan P. 

Douglas. "A Theory and a Metatheory of Comparative Marketing Systems.” Marketing Science 

Institute Working Paper P-15-1, Sept. 1968. 

. 

16. Wind, Jerry and Josh Eliashberg. "Marketing Perspectives on International Risk Analysis and 

Risk Preference Measurement: Concepts, Methods, and Research Directions.” Wharton 

School Working Paper, 1983. 

 

17. Chakrabarti, Alok K., and Jerry Wind. "International Technology: Implications for Global 

Competitive and Cooperative Strategies.” Wharton School Working Paper, 1986. 



 

18. Wind, Yoram and Susan Douglas. "Toward the Development of a Global Marketing Strategy: A 

Dynamic Portfolio Perspective.” Wharton School Working Paper, 1987. 

19. Douglas, Susan P., and Yoram Wind. ‘The Myth of Globalization.” Columbia Journal of World 

Business 22.4 (Winter 1987): 19-29. [B] Earlier version published as Wind, Yoram. “The Myth 

of Globalization.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing 3.2 9Spring 1986): 23-26. [C] Reprinted 

as “The Myth of Globalization.” Strategy 4e & Strategy Synthesis 3e, Cengage Learning EMEA 

(March 2010). 

. 

20. Wind, Yoram. "Old-Line Manufacturing Needs Better Marketing.” Chief Executive 44 (Mar./Apr. 

1988): 44-48. 

. 

21. Mahajan, Vijay, Marcos V. Partini De Moraes, and Jerry Wind. “The Invisible Global Market.” 

Marketing Management 9.4 (Winter 2000): 30-35. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0009_The_Invisible_Global_Market.pdf 

22. Mahajan, Vijay, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Capturing the Ricochet Economy.” Harvard 

Business Review. Nov. 2006. 

. 

H. International Management Education and The Lauder Institute 

1. Wind, Jerry. "Global Management: Penn's Response.” Address to Board of Trustees of the 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Oct. 1983. [B] Reprinted as 

Wind, Jerry. "Global Management: Penn's Response." Wharton Alumni Magazine (Winter 

1984): 32-35. 

 

2. Wind, Jerry. "Coffee, Closets and Funeral Flowers.” Wharton News (1984): 1-3. 

. 

3. Gaudiani, Claire L., and Jerry Wind. "Educating for International Management: The Joseph H. 

Lauder Institute.” Foreign Languages and International Trade: A Global Perspective. Ed. 

Samia I. Spencer. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1987. 31-38. 

. 

4. Wind, Jerry. “International Business Education at the Lauder Institute.” Occasional Papers On 

International Educational Exchange: Hallmarks of Successful International Business 

Programs. Eds. Maryélise Lamet and Sterling Lamet. New York: Council on International 

Educational Exchange, Aug. 1988. 

. 

5. Wind, Jerry, and Barbara S. Thomas. "The Globalization of Management Education: Options, 

Trade Offs, and an Agenda for Implementation.” AACSB Occasional Papers. Montreal: 

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 1989. 

. 

I. Management Practice and Education in the 21st Century 

1. Wind, Jerry. "Marketing in the Year 2000.” Marketing 2000 and Beyond. Eds. William Lazer, 

Priscilla La Barbera, James M. MacLachlan, and Allen E. Smith. Chicago: American Marketing 

Association, 1990. 212-216. 

. 



2. Wind, Jerry. "The Restructured Wharton MBA: Inventing a New Paradigm.” University of 

Pennsylvania Almanac 37 (2 Apr. 1991): 1-4. 

. 

3. Wind, Jerry, and Alfred P. West, Jr. "Reinventing the Corporation." Chief Executive 71 (Oct. 

1991): 72-75. 

. 

4. Wind, Jerry. "The Next Paradigm?” Chief Executive 77 (June 1992): 62-65. 

< http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9206_The_Next_Paradigm.pdf>. 

5. Wind, Jerry. "JIT Learning: A New Concept for Executive Education.” Wharton School Working 

Paper, June 1993. 

 

6. Wind, Jerry, Robert Holland, Alfred P. West, Jr., and Robert Gunther. "Pace-Setting 21st 

Century Enterprises: A Glimpse of What Might Emerge.” Prepared for Seventh General 

Assembly and Exhibition of the World Future Society, 29 June 1993. 

. 

7. Wind, Jerry. "Downsizing and Layoffs: Miracle Cure or Prescription for Disaster." (8 Feb. 

1994). 

8. Wind, Jerry. “Marketing: Big Questions for the 21st Century.” Financial Times. 1996. 6-7. 

 

9. Main, Jeremy and Jerry Yoram Wind. “A Cynic’s Glossary.” Across the Board. 35.4. April 1998: 

12. 

10. Wind, Jerry. “Driving Change: Preparing for the 21st Century.” The Li & Fung Lecture, 

University of Hong Kong, 17 Apr. 1998. 

 

11. Wind, Jerry. “Creating a Successful 21st Century Enterprise.” Li & Fung Lecture on Commerce 

& Industry. Chinese University of Hong Kong, 17 Apr. 1998. 

 

12. Wind, Jerry and Pedro Nueno. “The Impact Imperative: A Manifesto for Closing the Relevance 

Gap of Academic Management Research.” International Academy of Management North 

America Meeting, 25 July 1998. 

 

13. Wind, Jerry. “Reinventing the Business School for the Global Information Age.” Keynote 

address at European Foundation for Management Development Conference of Deans and 

Directors, Helsinki, Finland, Jan. 2000. 

. 

14. Wind, Jerry, and Dave Reibstein. “Reinventing Training for the Global information Age.” 

Knowledge@Wharton. Sept. 2000. < http://knowledge.emory.edu/papers/975.pdf>. 

15. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “The Integrative Thinking Challenge for Management Education and 

Research.” Rotman Magazine Fall 2002: 18-19. [B] Reprinted in A New Way to Think: The 

Best of Rotman Magazine. Winter 2005. 

. 

16. Wind, Jerry. “Balancing Innovation and Conservative Values: Management as an Experimental 

Process.” Conservative Values and Effective Management. Eds. Peter Drucker and Peter 

Paschel. Frankfurt: Redline Wirtshaft, 2004. 



J. Convergence Marketing 

1. Wind, Jerry, Vijay Mahajan, and Robert Gunther. “The Power of Convergence in the Post- 

Dot.com Age.” Bn.com, 2001. 

. 

2. Wind, Jerry, Vijay Mahajan, and Robert E. Gunther. “The Convergence Challenge: Realizing 

the Complex Promise of New Technologies.” InformIT. (2001). 

. 

3. Wind, Jerry, Vijay Mahajan, and Robert E. Gunther. “The Power of Convergence: The 5 Cs.” 

InformIT. (2001). 

. 

4. Wind, Jerry, Vijay Mahajan, and Robert E. Gunther. “Digital Fabric: Organizing for 

Convergence.” InformIT. (Jan. 2002). 

. 

5. Wind, Jerry, Vijay Mahajan, and Robert Gunther. “The Consumer is King.” European Business 

Forum 9 (Spring 2002): 12-13. 

 

6. Wind, Yoram, and Vijay Mahajan. “Convergence Marketing.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 

16.2 (Spring 2002): 64-79. 

 

7. Wind, (Jerry) Yoram. “Convergence Marketing: Meeting the Challenge of the New Hybrid 

Consumer.” Critical Eye Review (Mar. - May 2005): 16-20. 

. 

K. Mental Models – Power of Impossible Thinking 

1. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Leadership as Making Sense,” Wharton School Working Paper, 2003. 

2. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Challenging the Mental Models of Marketing.” Financial Times 

Handbook of Management 3rd Ed. Ed. Stuart Crainer and Des Dearlove. FT Prentice Hall, 

2004. 327-335. 

. 

3. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Colin Crook. “Using the Power of Impossible Thinking to Build 

Prosperity.” Rotman Magazine Spring/Summer 2004: 28-31. 

. 

4. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Challenging the Mental Models of Marketing.” Does Marketing Need 

Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future. Eds. Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia. 

Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005. 91-104. 

. 

5. Wind, Yoram and Colin Crook. “Expanding Your Peripheral Vision by Embracing New Mental 

Models.” Wharton School Working Paper, 2005. 

6. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “The Silver Lining: Seeing Opportunities in Risk.” Presented at the 

Conference in Honor of Paul Kleindorfer on Recent Advances in Operations and Risk 



Management, Philadelphia, 5 May 2005. 

 

7. Wind, Yoram. “Rethinking the Board.” Directors & Boards 30.1 (Fourth Quarter 2005): 20-26. 

. 

8. Wind, Jerry, and Colin Crook. “Changing Mental Models in an Uncontrollable World.” Part of 

the FT Mastering Uncertainty Issue, March 17, 2006. 

. 

9. Wind, Yoram. “Managing Creativity.” Rotman Magazine Spring/Summer 2006: 20-23. 

. 

10. Wind, Jerry. “The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Knowledge Leadership at Thomas Group 

(KL@TG). Inaugural Issue. Winter 2006: 76-80. 

. 

11. Wind, Yoram. “Unleashing the Power of Impossible Thinking.” Leadership Excellence 2008. 

12. Wind, Jerry and Colin Crook. “From Mental Models to Transformation: Overcoming Inhibitors 

to Change.” Rotman Magazine, Spring/Summer 2009: 28-33. 

. 

13. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Why Mental Models Matter: The Big Barriers to Growth and Innovation 

are Self-Imposed,” Wharton School Working Paper, 2010. 

14. Wind, Yoram (Jerry) and Stephen D. Rappaport. “The End of Listening As We Know It: From 

Market Research Projects to Enterprise Value Creator,” Listen First! Turning Social Media 

Conversations into Business Advantage: A Playbook from the Advertising Research 

Foundation, April 2010. 

15. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Rethinking Innovation,” The Marker, October 2010: 40-41. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/1107_Rethinking_Innovation.pdf 

L. Network-Based Strategies 

1. Wind, Yoram. “Network Orchestration for a Flat World: Preparing for a Future of “Defining 

Moments” at Li & Fung,” Effective Executive, February 2008: 14-18. 

. 

2. Wind, Yoram and Paul Kleindorfer, “The Network Imperative: Community or Contagion?” 

introductory chapter in Kleindorfer and Wind (eds), The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit 

and Risk in an Interlinked World. Wharton School Publishing, 2009. 

 

3. Wind, Yoram, Victor Fung and William Fung, “Network Orchestration: Creating and Managing 

Global Supply Chains Without Owning Them,” a chapter in Kleindorfer and Wind (eds), The 

Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit and Risk in an Interlinked World. Wharton School 

Publishing, 2009. 

 

4. Wind, Yoram and Robert J. Thomas. “Symbiotic Innovation: Getting the Most Out of 

Collaboration” chapter in Evolution of Innovation Management, Brem and Viardot (eds), 

Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2012. 

5. Wind, Yoram and Catharine Gardner. “Portfolio Orchestration: Toward a New Advertising 

Model.” Wharton School Working Paper, forthcoming 2012. 



6. Wind, Yoram. “Orchestration as the New Managerial Model in the Digital Age,” Wharton 

Knowledge in Action column on Think with Google Forum, Google, 18 April 2012. 

 

M. Advertising 

1. Wind, Yoram, and Patrick J. Robinson. "Some Applications of Mathematical Analysis of 

Perception and Preference in Advertising.” Marketing Science Institute Working Paper P-45-1, 

May 1968. 

 

2. Wind, Yoram, and Stephen E. Silver. "Segmenting Media Buyers.” Journal of Advertising 

Research 13.6 (Dec. 1973): 33-38. 

. 

3. Tapiero, Charles S., Jehoshua Eliashberg, and Yoram Wind. "Risk Behaviour and Optimum 

Advertising with a Stochastic Dynamic Sales Response.” Optimal Control Applications & 

Methods 8 (1987): 299-304. 

. 

4. Burke, Raymond R., Arvind Rangaswamy, Jerry Wind, and Jehoshua Eliashberg. "A 

Knowledge-Based System for Advertising Design.” Marketing Science 9.3 (Summer 1990): 

212-229. [B] Earlier version published as "Expert Systems for Marketing.” Marketing Science 

Institute Report 87-107, Nov. 1987. 

. 

5. Gönül, Füsun F., Franklin Carter, and Jerry Wind. “What Kind of Patients and Physicians 

Value Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs.” Health Care Management 

Science 3 (2000): 215-226. 

. 

6. Sharp, Byron, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind, “Today’s Advertising Laws: Will They Survive the 

Digital Revolution?” Journal of Advertising Research Special Issue on What We Know About 

Advertising, Guest Editors Byron Sharp and Yoram (Jerry) Wind, June 2009, Vol. 49, No. 2: 

120-126. 

 

7. Sharp, Byron, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind, “Advertising Empirical Generalizations: Implications for 

Research and Action,” Journal of Advertising Research Special Issue on What We Know 

about Advertising, Guest Editors Byron Sharp and Yoram (Jerry) Wind, June 2009, Vol. 49, 

No. 2: 246-252. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/1003_Advertising_Empirical_Generalizations_Implicatio 

ns_for.pdf 

N. Entries in Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Handbooks 

1. Green, Paul E., and Yoram Wind. “Marketing, Statistics in.” Encyclopedia of Statistical 

Sciences. Eds. S. Kotz, N. Johnson, and Campbell Read. New York: Wiley, 1985. 227-248. 

. 

2. Wind, Jerry, and David Schmittlein. “Definitions of Marketing Models.” Dictionary of Marketing 

Terms. Ed. Peter D. Bennett. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1988. 1-30. 

. 



3. Rangaswamy, Arvind, and Yoram Wind. “Information Technology in Marketing.” Encyclopedia 

of Microcomputers. Eds. A. Kent and J. G. Williams. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 1992. 67- 

83. . 

4. Wind, Yoram (Jerry), and Gary L. Lilien. “Marketing Strategy Models.” Handbooks in 

Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 5: Marketing. Eds. J. Eliashberg and G. L. 

Lilien. Amsterdam; NY: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993. 773-826. 

. 

5. Yoram (Jerry) Wind, Eric T. Bradlow, Jehoshua Eliashberg, Gary L. Lilien, Jagmohan Raju, 

Arvind Rangaswamy, Berend Wierenga. "Marketing, Encyclopedia of Operations Research 

and Management Science 3rd Edition, Ed. Saul Gass, Michael Fu, New York, NY: Springer, 

2011. [B] First published in 1994 edition, Boston: Kluwer Publishers, 1994. 1-15. [C] Revised 

1998. . 

6. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Market Segmentation.” Companion Encyclopedia of Marketing. Ed. 

Michael J. Baker. New York: Routledge, 1995. 394-419. [B] Reprinted in Marketing Theory: A 

Short Text. Ed. M. Baker. London: Business Press, a Division of Thompson Learning, 2000. 

394-419. 

7. Green, Paul E., Jerry Wind, and Vithala R. Rao. “Conjoint Analysis: Methods and 

Applications.” The Technology Management Handbook. Ed. Richard C. Dorf. Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press, 1999. 12-66–12-72. 

. 

8. Wind, Jerry. “Creating a Vision.” The Technology Management Handbook. CRCnet Base, 

2000. . 

9. Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “The Ten Commandments of Marketing.” MBA in a Box. Eds. Joel 

Kurtzman, Glenn Rifkin, and Victoria Griffith. New York: Crown Business, 2004. [B] Previously 

“Marketing Strategy.” Wharton School Working Paper, 2003. 

 

10. Wind, Yoram. “Marketing Strategy Analysis,” The Handbook of Technology Management, Ed. 

Hossein Bidgoli, Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., January 2010. 352-365. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/1001_Marketing_Strategy_Analysis.pdf 

11. Wind, Yoram. “Yoram (Jerry) Wind’s Contributions to Marketing,” Review of Marketing 

Research Special Issue: Marketing Legends. 2011. Vol. 8, 269-315. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/Rev.Mktg.Res.Special.Legends.Issue.pdf 

V. EDITOR OF SPECIAL ISSUES 

Marketing Science – “Empirical Generalizations in Marketing” (with Frank M. Bass), Vol. 14, No. 

3, Part 2, 1995. 

http://marketingscience.info/assets/documents/209/4038.pdf 

• Journal of Marketing Research 

– “Market Segmentation,” August 1978. 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3150580?uid=3739864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4& 

uid=3739256&sid=56007102433 

 

– “Innovation and New Products,” February 1997. 

Marketing Research – “Marketing Research Forum: The State of the Art in Quantitative 

Research,” Winter 1997. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9702_Issues_and_Opportunities_in_New.pdf 

• Marketing Science – “Empirical Generalizations in Marketing” (with Frank M. Bass), Vol. 14, No. 

3, Part 2, 1995. 



• Management Science (with John Farley and Diana L. Day) – “The State of The Art in Theory and 

Methods for Strategy Research,” 1990. 

• The Wharton Quarterly, “Marketing,” Fall 1972. 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7201_The_Step_Children_of_Marketing.pdf 

• Wharton Knowledge in Action Column on Think with Google Forum, 2012. 

http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/insights/forum/ 

VI. 

EDITORIALS 

Journal of Consumer Research June 1977: 

"New Directions for JCR" 

Marketing News July 1978: "New Directions for JM" 

Journal of Marketing Winter 1979: “The Journal of Marketing at a Crossroad” 

Spring 1979: “Repositioning the Journal” 

Summer 1979: “Bridging the Gap Between Practitioners and 

Academicians” 

Fall 1979: “On the Status of Marketing Theory” 

Winter 1980: “Marketing in the 80’s” 

Spring 1980: “Strategic Planning and Marketing: Time for a 

Constructive Partnership,” with George Day 

Summer 1980: “International Marketing: The Neglect 

Continuous,” with John Farley 

Fall 1980: “Industrial Marketing: The Sleeping Giant,” with 

Frederick Webster 

http://www.marketingpower.com/ResourceLibrary/JournalofMarketin 

g/Pages/1980/44/4/4997918.aspx 

Winter 1981: “Journals and the Development of a Discipline” 

Spring 1981: “Research and Management” 

Summer 1981: “A Positive Perspective on Marketing” 

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/editorials/4996997/from-editorpositive-perspective-marketing 

Fall 1981: “Reflections” 

Summer 2009: “Is Marketing Academia Losing its Way?” 

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/library/PDFs/NICMAN/Is%20marketing% 

20academia%20losing%20its%20way.pdf 

The Lauder Quarterly All editorials from initiation in 1986 to July 1988. 

VII. 

ILLUSTRATIVE RECENT OP ED AND COMMENTARIES 

• Orchestra needs to change tune in contract negotiations: Settling the score must rest on the idea 

of working toward a collective goal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Commentary, November 4, 2004. 

• The Wisdom of the Flip Flop, Wharton School Publishing Newsletter, November 2004. 

• Rethinking our mental models for elections, Newsletter of the Wharton Fellows, November 2004. 

• “Reverse mentoring can solidify collaboration among functional groups, but it cannot be the only 

tool that enforces such teamwork or the sole catalyst for change.” Commentator on HBR “Too 

Old to Learn?” Case Study. Harvard Business Review. November-December 2000. 

• “E-Learning Crossfire,” Information Week, February 26, 2001. 

• “Capitalism 3.0: Commentaries” on Jed Emerson and Sheila Bonini, “Capitalism 3.0” in VALUE 

and www.valuenewsnetwork.com, February/March 2006. 

VIII. 

EDITED PUBLICATIONS OF THE SEI CENTER – ILLUSTRATIVE LIST 

• Creating and Implementing a Corporate Vision, January 1990. 



• Human Resources: Management for the 21 st Century, January 1990. 

• The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Management Decision Making and Organizational Design, 

February 1990. 

• Creating and Implementing Quality in Organizations, March 1990. 

• Corporate Governance: Who’s in Charge?, May 1990. 

• Strategic Information Architecture: Increasing Productivity, Managing Risks, June 1993. 

• Management in the 21 st Century: Predictions From Top Think Tanks, September 1990. 

• The Individually Empowered Organization, November 1990. 

• Innovation and New Product Development for the 21 st Century Enterprise, November 1990. 

• Ethical Standards for Global Corporations? December 1990. 

• Managing Infrastructure Costs; What is the Best Strategy for Long-Term Controls? February 

1991. 

• Lessons from the Malcolm Baldridge Award: Implications for Management Practice, Research, 

and Education, February 1991. 

• Innovation in Services, May 1991. 

• Visionary Leadership, October 1991. 

• The Impact of Information Networking on Organizational Design and Strategy, November 1991. 

• Frontiers in Electronic Commerce: Experimental Systems for Communication, Coordination, and 

Negotiation, February 1992. 

• Innovation and Learning, March 1992. 

• Historical Perspectives in Management Education, April 1992. 

• Decision Making in Highly Uncertain Political Environments: Investing in the Russian Oil and 

Gas Industry, March 1992. 

• Issues and Advances in New Product Development, June 1992. 

• Rewarding the Workforce of the Future: Competence-Based Performance Measures and 

Incentives, October 1992. 

• Designing Corporate Governance for the 21 st Century Global Enterprise: International 

Perspectives, January 1993. 

• Dr. Peter Drucker on “The New Organization,” April 1993. 

• Corporate Performances: Beyond Financial Measures, April 1993. 

• The Horizontal Organization, October 1993. 

• The End of Diversity: Rights, Responsibility and the Communication Agenda November 1993. 

• Deploying Strategic Assets: Beyond Core Capabilities, November 1993. 

• Research Challenges in Linking Quality: Profitability and Organizational Architecture, December 

1993. 

• Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, February 1994. 

• Beyond Quality: Organizational Transformation for the 21 st Century Enterprise, March 1994. 

• Exploratory Conference on Business Ethics: Building the Common Ground, March 1994. 

• Interactivity is Two-Way: Life on the Net April 1994. 

• Interactive Industry 2000: Who’s Gonna Buy this Stuff: Research for the Interactive Television 

Business, July 1994. 

• Leadership in the 21 st Century Enterprise, November 1994. 

• A New Management Paradigm for the 21 st Century, December 1994. 

• The Virtual University, January 1995. 

• Go West Young MBA, Far Far West: Adventures on the World’s Business and Management 

Frontier, January 1995. 

• Information Technology and the Changing Boundaries of the Firm, January 1995. 

• EMU – The Road to Europe, February 1995. 

• The New Science and Emerging Paradigms in Business, April 1995. 

• Innovation in New Product Development: Best Practices in Research, Modeling and 

Applications, May 1995. 

• The Bamboo Network, November 1995. 

• Corporate Growth Engines, December 1995. 

• A Trapezoidal Corporation, February 1996. 

• The Impact of Computers and Information on Management: 1946-1996-2001, May 1996. 

• European Venture Capital Industry, November 1996. 

• The CEO Challenge: Implementing Strategy in a Constantly Changing Marketplace, December 1996. 

• The Future of Impact of Information Management: A Lecture Series from July 1996-January 

1997. 

33


• New Media, February 1997. 

• From Detection to Action: Processes and Insights Gained from an Early Warning Signal System, 

March 1997. 

• Toward New Corporate Governance Models: Lessons from the Japanese and U.S. Experience, 

March 1997. 

• When Is It Worthwhile Targeting the Majority Instead of the Innovators in a New Product 

Launch? November, 1997. 

• Consumer Choice Behavior in On-line and Regular Stores: The Effects of Brand Name, Price, 

and Other Search Attributes, January 1998. 

• The Systems Approach: The New Generation, February 1998. 

• Managing Workteam Diversity, Conflict, and Productivity: A New Form of Organizing in the 21 st 

Century Workspace, September 1998 (by Etty Jehn, The Diversity Research program with Bob 

Holland). 

• GM for the 21 st Century: From “Make and Sell” to “Sense and Respond,” March 1999 (by Vince 

Barabba). 

• The Limits of Privacy, March 1999 (by Amitai Etzioni). 

• Japan at the Great Divide, April 1999 (by Yasuhisa Shiozaki). 

• Into the 21 st Century: The First Decade and Beyond: A Report on the SEI Center for Advanced 

Studies in Management, 1990-2000. 

• Insights and Impact: 20th Anniversary Report of the SEI Center for Advanced Studies in 

Management, March 2010. 

IX. EDITOR: WHARTON SCHOOL PUBLISHING BOOKS 

2008 

1. V. Kumar, Managing Customers for Profit: Strategies to Increase Profits and Build Loyalty 

2. Stewart Black, Hal Gregersen, It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations 

3. Russell E. Palmer, Ultimate Leadership: Winning Execution Strategies for Your Situation 

4. J.C. Larreche, The Momentum Effect: How to Ignite Exceptional Growth 

5. Yves Doz, Mikko Kosonen, Fast Strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the 

game 

6. Russell L. Ackoff, Daniel Greenberg, Turning Learning Right Side Up: Putting Education Back on 

Track 

7. Bernard Lewis, Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Islam: The Religion and the People 

8. Alexander B. van Putten, Ian C. MacMillan, Unlocking Opportunities for Growth: How to Profit 

from Uncertainty While Limiting Your Risk 

9. Vijay Mahajan, Africa Rising: How 900 Million African Consumers Offer More Than You Think 

10. Michael A. Roberto, Know What You Don’t Know: How Great Leaders Prevent Problems Before 

They Happen (Rough Cuts) 

11. Jon M. Huntsman, Winners Never Cheat: Even in Difficult Times, New and Expanded Edition 

2007 

1. Aswath Damodaran, Strategic Risk Taking: A Framework for Risk Management 

2. Rajendra S. Sisodia, David B. Wolfe, Jagdish N. Sheth, Firms of Endearment: How World- 

Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose 

3. Leondard M. Lodish, Howard L. Morgan, Shellya Archambeau, Marketing That Works 

4. Howard Moskowitz, Alex Gofman, Selling Blue Elephants: How to Make Great Products That 

People Want BEFORE The Even Know They Want Them 

5. Daniel M. Cable, Change to Strange: Create a Great Organization by Building a Strange 

Workforce 

6. Jagdish N. Sheth, The Self-Destructive Habits of Good Companies…And How to Break 

Them 

7. Bala Chakravarthy and Peter Lorange, Profit or Growth, September. 

8. Victor K. Fung, William K. Fung, Jerry (Yoram) Wind, Competing in a Flat World: Building 

Enterprises for a Borderless World, September. 

9. Barry Libert, Jon Spector, Don Tapscott, We Are Smarter Than Me: How to Unleash the Power 

of Crowds in Your Business, September. 

34


10. Hamid Bouchikhi, John R. Kimberly, Soul of the Corporation, The: How to Manage the Identity of 

Your Company, September. 

11. Hunter Hastings, Jeff Saperstein, Improve Your Marketing to Grow Your Business: Insights and 

Innovation That Drive Business and Brand Growth, October. 

12. Satish Nambisan and Mohanbir Sawhney, The Global Brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating 

Faster and Smarter in a Networked World, October. 

13. James F. Parker, Do The Right Thing: How Dedicated Employees Create Loyal Customers and 

Large Profits, November. 

14. Ellen Ernst Kossek and Brenda A. Lautsch, CEO of Me: Creating a Life that Works in the 

Flexible Job Age, December 

2006 

1. Peter Navarro, The Well Timed Strategy: Executing Strategy Through the Business Cycle for 

Competitive Advantage 

2. Stuart Lucas, Wealth: Grow It, Protect It, Spend It and Share It (Paperback, 2007) 

3. Peter Killing, Thomas Malnight, and Tracey Keys, Must-Win Battles: How to Win Them, 

Again and Again 

4. Neil Bender, Paul Farris, Philip Pfeifer, and Dave Reibstein, 50+ Marketing Metrics Every 

Business Executive Should Know 

5. Russell Ackoff, Herbert Addison, and Jason Magidson, Idealized Design: How to Dissolve 

Tomorrow’s Crisis…Today 

6. Lars Kolind, The Second Cycle: 7 Proven Tools for Revitalizing Your Business…Before It’s 

Too Late 

7. George Chacko, Anders Sjoman, Hideto Motohashi, and Vincent Dessain, Credit Derivatives: 

Introduction to Credit Risk and Credit Instruments 

8. Jerry Porras, Stewart Emery, and Mark Thompson, Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that 

Matters 

9. Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee, Marketing in the Public Sector: A Roadmap for Improved 

Performance 

2005 

1. Randall Billingsey, Understanding Arbitrage: An Intuitive Approach to Financial Analysis 

2. Tony Davila, Marc Epstein, and Robert Shelton, Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, 

Measure It, and Profit from It 

3. Sunil Gupta and Donald Lehmann, Managing Customers as Investments: The Strategic Value of 

Customers in the Long Run 

4. Stuart Hart, Capitalism at the Crossroads: The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the 

World’s Most Difficult Problems (2 nd Edition, 2007) 

5. Lawrence Hrebiniak, Making Strategy Work: Leading Effective Execution and Change 

6. Jon Huntsman, Winners Never Cheat: Everyday Values We Learned as Children (But May Have 

Forgotten) 

7. Eamonn Kelly, Powerful Times:Rising to the Challenge of Our Uncertain World 

8. Doug Lennick and Fred Kiel, Moral Intelligence: Enhancing Business Performance and 

Leadership Success (Paperback, 2007) 

9. V. J. Mahajan and Kamini Banga, The 86 Percent Solution: How to Succeed in the Biggest 

Market Opportunity for the Next 50 Years 

10. Alred Marcus, Big Winners and Big Losers: The 4 Secrets of Long-Term Business Success and 

Failure 

11. Kenichi Ohmae, The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World 

12. Michael Roberto, Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer: Managing for Conflict and 

Consensus 

13. Arthur Rubinfeld and Collins Heminway, Built for Growth: Expanding Your Business Around the 

Corner or Across the Globe 

14. David Sirota, Louis Mischkind, Michael Meltzer,The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies 

Profit by Giving Workers What They Want. 

15. Thomas Stallkamp, SCORE!: A Better Way to Do Busine$$: Moving from Conflict to 

Collaboration 

16. Glen Urban, Don’t Just Relate – Advocate!: A Blueprint for Profit in the Era of Customer Power. 

35


17. Craig Vogel, Jonathan Cagan, and Peter Boatwright, The Design of Things to Come: How 

Ordinary People Create Extraordinary Products. 

2004 

1. Bernard Baumohl, The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic 

Trends and Investment Opportunities (2 nd Edition, 2007) 

2. Sayan Chatterjee, Failsafe Strategies: Profit and Grow from Risks that Others Avoid 

3. Robert Mittelstaedt, Will your Next Mistake Be Fatal? Avoiding the Chain of Mistakes that Can 

Destroy your Organization 

4. Mukul Pandya, Robbie Shell, Susan Warner, Sandeep Junnarkar, Jeffrey Brown (2004), Nightly 

Business Report Presents Lasting Leadership: What You can Learn from the Top 25 Business 

People of our Time (Paperback, 2006) 

5. C.K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (Paperback, 2006) 

6. Scott Shane, Finding Fertile Ground 

7. Oded Shenkar, The Chinese Century: The Rising Chinese Economy and Its Impact on the 

Global Economy, the Balance of Power, and your Job (Paperback, 2006) 

8. Jerry Wind and Colin Crook, The Power of Impossible Thinking (Paperback, 2006) 

X. ILLUSTRATIVE PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS DELIVERED IN PROFESSIONAL 

MEETINGS 

• “Enduring Vs. Situation Dependent Customer Characteristics as Bases for Market Segmentation: 

An Evaluation,” in David L. Sparks, (ed.), Broadening the Concepts of Marketing. Proceedings of 

the American Marketing Association, August 1970 Conference. 

• “Preference of Relevant Others and Individual Choice Models,” in W.L. Nichols, ed., Proceedings 

of the 1974 AAPOR Conference and in Public Opinion Quarterly, 38. Fall 1974, pp. 447. 

• “Multivariate Decision-Making in the Setting of Pulmonary Outpatient Clinic,” with Lawrence Spitz 

and Ronald Daniele. Paper presented at American College of Physicians, San Francisco, April 

1975. 

• “Diagnosis Consumer Behavior: A Quantitative Approach,” in D. Rothwell, (ed.), Proceedings of 

the 30 th Annual AAPOR Conference May 1975 and in Public Opinion Quarterly, 39. Fall 1975, 

pp. 415. 

• “Segmentation and Positioning of Health Insurance Services Under Conditions of 

Heterogeneous Health Insurance Portfolios,” in TIMS/ORSA Bulletin for the S.F. Joint Meeting, 

May 1977, pp. 244. 

• “Alternative Approaches to Industrial Market Segmentation,” with Paul E. Green, in TIMS/ORSA 

Bulletin for the S.F. Joint Meeting, May 1977, pp. 234. 

• “Innovation and the R&D-Marketing Interface,” with Joel Goldhar, in TIMS/ORSA Bulletin for the 

Atlanta Meeting, November 1977. 

• “Measurement Issues in Portfolio Analysis,” with Vijay Mahajan, in R.P. Leone, (ed.), 

Proceedings of Market Measurement and Analysis, TIMS, 1980, pp. 50-53. 

• Aimagery Products: A Measurement Challenge,” with Lew Pringle, in J. Keon, (ed.), Market 

Measurement and Analysis, TIMS/ORSA, 1981. 

• “Standardized Portfolio Models: An Empirical Comparison of Business Classification,” with Vijay 

Mahajan and Donald J. Swire in Allan D. Shocker and R. Srivastava, (eds.), Proceedings of the 

1981 Analytical Approaches to Product and Marketing Planning Conference. 

XI. 

CASE STUDIES 

• During the academic year 1962-1963, I wrote a number of marketing cases at the Hebrew 

University, Jerusalem (Israel). One of these cases, The Ozi Ballpoint Pen III, was published in 

Harper W. Boyd, Jr. et al., (eds.), Marketing Management: Cases from the Emerging Countries 

(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company), 1966. 

• During the academic year 1968-1969, several marketing cases were written under my 

supervision at the Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv 

University. 

36


CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 

A. Marketing, Business Strategy, and Marketing Research Consulting 

1. Information and Telecommunication Industry 

AT&T & the Bell companies: Occasional consultant to various units, including: 

• AT&T Technologies Inc. – Design a market segmentation program (1986) 

• AT&T – Review and Design of Portfolio System (1981-1982) 

• Bell Atlantic – Marketing & pricing strategy (1983) 

• Bell Canada – Design of a segmentation study and product portfolio (1979-1980) 

Geometric Data: Segmentation/positioning studies (1981-1982) 

IBM: 

• ABS Division: Developing procedure for Integrating Marketing and R&D (1988-1989) 

• ES Division, Marketing Strategy and Segmentation (1991-1993) 

Motorola Broadband Sector: 1998-2004. Business Strategy consulting 

Next Level Communication: Business strategy consulting (2000) 

Newsweek, Inc.: Marketing consulting (1979-1980) 

Northern Telecom: Value Pricing and Business Strategy Consulting (1993-1995) 

RCA, Government Communications Systems: Design of a research program to assess 

the market response to new Electronic Mail System (1978-1979) 

Samsung, Management of Technological Innovation (2006) 

Telenet, Strategies for “Getting More with Less” (2006) 

Xerox: Marketing consulting to a design integration program (coordinated by Jay Doblin 

Associates) and design of a market segmentation project (1982-1983) 

2. Financial Services 

SEI: Marketing, Business and Corporate Strategy consulting (1986-) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Chase Manhattan Bank: Process for evaluation of mergers and acquisitions and design 

of segmentation studies (1978-1979) 

CitiBank: Statistical consulting (1980); marketing strategy consulting (1996-1997) 

Colonial Penn Group: Design and evaluation of most of the firm’s research activities and 

general consulting to marketing and top management (1973-1980) 

E. F. Hutton: Design and implementation of a marketing planning system and various 

marketing research projects (1979-1984) 

Edward Jones & Co.: Marketing and Business Strategy consulting (1984-2004) 

Reliance Insurance Companies: Marketing research consulting (1980-1981) 

3. Health Care 

ConvaTec: Marketing Driven Business Strategy (2008) 

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS): Marketing strategy consulting (1997-2002) 

Merck, Sharp, and Dome: General marketing research consulting (1981) 

Merck & Co.: Marketing Strategy and Marketing Research and Modeling (1991-1996) 

 

Pfizer, Inc.: 1975-1990. Design and analysis of most of the marketing research projects 

of Pfizer Laboratories and Roerig. Occasional marketing strategy consultant to the 

Hospital Products Group (1984-1986) and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (1987-1990). 

SmithKline Beckman: Marketing strategy development for TAGAMET (1987-1988); 

evaluation of strategy implementation (1989) 

SmithKline Clinical Laboratories: Marketing planning (1984) 

Sterling Drug, Inc.: Development of marketing driven portfolio of R&D projects (1986- 

1991); Pricing study for innovative new product (1991-1992) 

Upjohn: Strategic planning consulting (1981) 

West Jersey Health System: Marketing and Business Strategy (1985) 

37


4. Transportation 

Air Canada: Market segmentation, positioning and new product development (1973) 

Chrysler: Modeling the advertising budget (1978), advising regarding the analysis of 

customer satisfaction process (1995-1997) 

Conrail: Design of a positioning/segmentation study (1978-1979) 

5. Consumer Goods 

American Dairy Brands and Schreiber Foods, Inc.: Arbitration (2004) 

Campbell Soup: Advertising Strategy, 91-96, 2005-07; Taste Tests (2001-2003) 

Coors Brewing Company, Pricing and positioning (2001) 

DAYMON: Marketing Strategy (since 2003-05) 

Eastman Kodak: New product research approaches (1978) 

 

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.: Evaluation and design of a new product development 

system (1979-1980) 

S.B. Thomas: Marketing and research consultant (1979-1980) 

Simplicity Patterns, Inc.: Develop a business plan (1982) 

Pepsi: Research support for the Pepsi Challenge and related campaigns (1978, 1981, 

1990, 1995, 1999) 

6. Industrial Products and Services 

7. Retailing 

International Harvester: Designing a market segmentation process (1980) 

Stauffer Chemicals: General marketing consulting (1980) 

Exxon Chemicals: Marketing and Business Strategy (1985-1986) 

John Fluke Manufacturing Co., Inc.): Marketing and corporate strategy (1985-1988) 

ITT Water Technology Group (2004-2005) 

Sears Roebuck & Company: Advertising and marketing strategy (1972-1973) 

Wickes, plc: U.K. Marketing and Business Strategy Consulting (1988-1996) 

8. Professional Service Firms 

Applied Communication Research (1974-1976) 

BBD&O (on an occasional basis, 1974-1985) 

Cunningham and Walsh, Inc. (1978) 

DMB&B (1993) 

Doyle Dane Bernbach: Evaluation of a campaign claim (1980) 

Gahagan Research Associates, Inc. (selected projects, 1972-1978) 

Hakuhodo. Marketing Strategy for the 21 st Century (1992-1995) 

IMS America (1997) 

Market Research Corporation of America (MRCA) (1975-1987) 

McConnel Advertising (Montreal), (1974) 

Medicus (1989-1997) 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: Development of Business Strategy (1992-1994) 

MS&L: Marketing consulting (1995-1997; 2001-2002) 

National Analysts (1975-1976) 

Oxtoby-Smith (selected projects, 1972-1978) 

Price-Waterhouse Coopers LLP (marketing and corporate strategy consulting, 1996- 

2001). 

Professional Marketing Research, Inc. (1977-1978) 

Robinson Associates (1969-1975) 

Standard & Poors (1997-2000) 

Whittlesey and Partners (1972-1973) 

Y & R (1989) 

38


9. Trading Companies, Real Estate Development 

B. Directorship 

Li & Fung: Business Strategy consulting (1998-) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Dewey Companies: Marketing and Business Strategy consulting (2003) 

• IDT (2005-2008) 

• Ecquaria (2001-04) 

• Enhance Financial Services (1997 until acquisition by Radian Group, Inc. in 2001) 

• Credit 2B (2001) 

• CASA – Center for Adaptive Systems Applications Inc. (1999 Until acquisition by HNC in 2000) 

• Access Technologies Group, co-founder and chairman (1992-1996) 

• Contel Corporation, member of the Board of Directors (1988 Until acquisition by GTE in 1991) 

• Dover Regional Bank Shares, member of Board of Trustees (1986-1990) 

• Shooting Stars, Inc., member of the Board of Directors (1986-1990) 

• Reality Technologies, Inc. (1988-until acquisition by SEI Investments in 1990) 

• The Cortlandt Group, Inc., Co-founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors, (1979-1986) 

C. Illustrative Advisory Boards 

• Cisco Collaboration Consortium (2009-) 

• Arshiya (India) (2007-) 

• Decision Lens (2005-) 

• Mutual Art (2003-) 

• NetXentry (WebForPhone) (2000-) 

• Ad4ever (2000-2003) 

D. Expert Witness: Marketing and Marketing Research Consulting in Legal Cases 

• Alschuler, Grossman and Pines: Packard Bell vs. Compaq, 1995-1996 

• Arent, Fox, Kitner, Plotkin & Kahn: Marketing research consulting re: Estee Lauder, 1987 

• Arnold, Whiite and Dunkee: The Clorox Co. vs. Dow Brands Inc. re: Smart Scrub v. Soft Scrub, 

1995 

• Arnold & Porter: 

(a) Schering v. Pfizer, Perceived sedation of Zyrtec, 2000 

(b) Pfizer: Physicians’ beliefs concerning prescription antihistamine products in terms of their 

sedating/non-sedating characteristics 2002 

• Baker & McKenzie: 

(a) G.D. Searle & Co. and subsidiaries litigation in the U.S. Tax Court, 1982 

(b) American Republic Insurance Co. vs. Americare Inc. and American Dental Centers P.C., 

1988 

• Berle, Kass and Case: Evaluation of public attitude re: Burlington County Bridge Commission, 

1992 

• Bilzin Sumberg Attorneys at Law, Lennar Corporation vs. Michael C. Morgan, 2007 

• Bingham McCutchen LLP: Sharp Computer v. Dell Inc., 2010 

• Maurice Blackburn Cashman Commercial (Australia), Biota Holdings Limited vs. GlaxoSmithKline 

re. Relenza, 2007-2008. 

• Blanchard, Krasner & French, Consulting Re. Aerus, 2006-2007 

• The Calorie Control Council vs. FTC re: the Saccharin case, 1979 

• Covington and Burling: 

(a) The Proprietary Association vs. FTC re: over-the-counter (antacids) drugs, 1979 

(b) FTC Staff Report on cigarette advertising investigation 1981-1983 including appearance 

before congressional committee in hearing on H. R. 1824: “The Comprehensive Smoking 

Prevention Education Act” 

(c) International Telecharge Inc. vs. AT&T, 1992-1994 

(d) Dream Team Collectibles vs. NBA Properties (re: Dream Team), 1996 

(e) G. A. Modefine S.A. v. Armani.com, 2003-2004 

(f) Defence in Class Action Re: IBM REAP Educational Benefit, 2006- 

39


(g) Spirits Int Nv vs. S.S. Taris Zeytin Vezeytinyagi Birliei, Re: Moskovskaya, 2006-2008 

(h) Cunningham v. International Business Machines Corp., 2007. 

• Cravath Swain and Moore: 

(a) Amertech Corporation, et. Al. v. Lucent Technologies Corporation [Arbitration], 1997 

(b) Louis Vuitton v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2004 

• Crude Oil Resellers vs. U.S. Department of Energy Economic Regulatory Administration re: the 

proposed crude oil reseller price regulations, 1979, including presentation at public hearing 

• Darby and Darby. Proctor & Gamble vs. Colgate, Palmolive, and Y&R re: China advertising, 1997 

• Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 

(a) P&G and Sanofi-Aventis US vs. Hoffman-La Roche Inc and GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. Re. 

(b) 

Boniva, 2007 

Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, v. Hoffman-La 

Roche Inc. and Glaxosmithkline, Inc., 2006 

• Dechert Price & Rhoads: 

(a) The Mutual Assurance Co. vs. American Council of Life Insurance and Health Insurance 

Association of America (re: The Green Tree), 1983-1984 

(b) INC vs. Manhattan, Inc., 1985 

(c) Tunis Brothers Co. vs. Ford Motor Credit Co., 1988 

(d) Allerest vs. Alleract, 1988-1990 

(e) Campbell Soup Co. vs. Conagra, Inc. (Various deceptive advertising cases) 1991-1996 

• Department of Justice, Antitrust Division: Consulting in a number of cases since 1996, including 

Microsoft Network, ski resorts, Echostar’s proposed acquisition of DirecTV, and dental supplies 

• Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy and Kauffman: Prince Castle vs. Le-Jo Enterprises, 1977-1978 

• Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto: The Gap, Inc. and Gap (Apparel) LLC v. G.A.P. Adventures, 

Inc., 2010 

• Forrest, Hainline III, American Pasta Co. vs. New World Pasta Co. (re: “America’s favorite 

pasta”), 2002 

• Fulbright & Jahorski: Deere and Co. vs. MTD Holdings, 2003 

• Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher: 

(a) Pfizer, Inc. vs. International Rectifier Corp., 1982-1983 

(b) Thompson vs. General Nutrition Corp., 1985 

(c) New Vector vs. Metro Mobile, 1986;1992 

(d) Air Passenger CRS Antitrust Litigation vs. American Airlines, 1987-1990 

(e) Quintons/Mahurkar vs. Shiley 

(f) McCaffrey vs. Pfizer re: Plax, 1990 

(g) The Travel Difference vs. The Time Mirror Co. (LA Times), 1992 

(h) Toyota re: class action defense vs. Staples Stillwell on the “destination charge” on 

Monronery Stickers,1995-1996; 1999- 

(i) Hewlett-Packard vs. Nu-Kote Int. Inc., Anti-trust, 1998-1999 

(j) LA Cellular AT&T Wireless class action defense, 2002, 2004- 

(k) Hewlett Packard defense vs. Staple Stilwell in class action suit re economy cartridge, 2003 

• Gold, Farrel & Marks: Miramax Film Corp. vs. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, re: I Know What 

You Did Last Summer (1997) 

• Goodwin Procter LLP: 

(a) FTC vs. New Balance re: “made in USA”, 1995-1996 [FTC Hearing] and consulting, 1998 

(b) Public Media Center and People of the State of California vs. Tri-Union Seafoods, 

Delmonte Corp & Bumble Bee Seafoods. Re: Proposition 65 Mercury In Tuna, 2006 

(c) Environmental World Watch, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., Los Angeles 

Superior Court No. BC 338895; Council for Education & Research on Toxics v. 

McDonald’s Corp., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC 280980; and People of the 

State of California v. Frito-Lay, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC 337618, 2007. 

• Greenberg Traurig LLP 

(a) Chatham et al v. Sears Roebuk & Co. Re: Craftsman Made in USA, 2007- 

(b) Whirlpool Corp. vs. Sensata Technologies and Texas Instrument, Inc., 2011 

(c) Curt Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster, 2011 

(d) Santamarina , et. al. v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 2012 

• Hapgood, Calimafole, Kalil, Blaustein & Judlowe: Merrill Lynch vs. Paine Webber (re. RMA), 1985 

• Heller, Ehrman, White, and McAuliffe: Apple Computer Securities Litigation, 1985-1986. 

• Herling, Lindeman, Goldstein and Siegal: Roli Boli vs. Pizza Hut, 1997 

40


• Hill, Betts, and Nash: Fender Musical Instruments Inc. vs. E.S.P. Co., 1985 

• Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White: 

(a) Sands, Taylor and Wood vs. The Quaker Oats Co. re: Thirst-Aid, 1987 

(b) Syntex, Inc. vs. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. re: Femcare, 1992 

(c) Anheuser Busch (re Bud Dry commercials), 1993 

(d) Anheuser Busch vs. Labbatt (re: Ice Beer), 1994-1995 

(e) Anheuser Busch vs. Samuel Adams, 1995 

(f) Anheuser Busch vs. United Guiness Distillers (re: Red Label from Budweiser), 2002 

(g) Nissan North America vs. BMW (re: “Z“), 2002 

(h) Consulting Re: Schering Plough, 2007 

• IT&T Continental Baking vs. FTC re. Fresh Horizons advertising, 1977-1978 

• Jenner & Block: 

(a) General Dynamics vs. AT&T. re: Antitrust litigation, 1987-1990 

(b) AT&T vs. MCI re: Telemarketing Practices 1990 

(c) Recording Industry Association of America, Re: Adjustment of Rates & Terms for Satellite 

(d) 

Digital Radio Services (Copyright Royalty Board), 2006-2008 

In Re: Adjustment of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite 

Digital Audio Radio Services before the Copyright Royalty Board, 2007 

• Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler: 

(e) Automated Bread Dist. Corp. vs. General Foods Corp. (Re: Freihofer Baking Co.), 1991- 

1992 

(f) Zone Perfect Nutrition Co. vs. Hershey Foods Co., 2004 

• Kenyon & Kenyon: 

(a) Mead Data Control, Inc. vs. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S. re: Lexis vs. Lexus, 1988 

(b) Hiram Walker and Sons vs. White Rock Distilleries re: Kapala-Kahlua 

(c) America Online vs. AT&T Corp. re: ATT&T’s “You Have Mail”, 1999 

(d) Twentieth Century Fox Film vs. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. (re: Mutant X), 2002 

(e) Petition for Cancellation of the Registration of the Gakic Mark, 2006 

• Kirkland and Ellis 

(a) Kraft Foods Inc. and Capri Sun vs. Minute Maid, 1997 

(b) Time Inc. vs. Peterson Publishing Co. re: Teen vs. Teen People, 1997-1998 

(b) Brach and Brock vs. James River re: Royals candies, 1998-1999 

(c) Hermes vs. Lederer, re: the Kelly Handbag, 1998-2001 

• Kirkpatrick and Lockhart: McPalland et al v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc. (re: class 

certification of SeniorBlue Customers, 2001-2002 

• Kleinfeld, Kaplan and Becker: re: Iron-Kids Bread Package, 1991 

• K&L Gates LLP: 

(a) Quia Corp. v. Mattell Inc. and Fisher-Price Inc., 2010. 

(b) Sara Lee Corporation v. Kraft Foods, Inc. and Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2011 

(c) Sara Lee Corporation v. Kraft Foods, Inc. and Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2012 

Kramer Levin LLP: Finjan, Inc. v. McAffe, Inc., Symantec Corp., Webroot Software, Inc., 

Websense, Inc., and Sophos, Inc., 2012 

• Lee, Toomey, and Kent Pfizer Pharmaceuticals vs. the IRS, 1978-1979 

• Lempres & Wulfsberg and Kutak, Rock, & Campbell: Evaluation of Expert Reports, re: 

International Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 1985-1990 

• Liddy, Sullivan, Galway, and Begler: 

(a) Coopervision, Inc. vs. CTL, Inc. (re: Permatint), 1985 

(b) Johnson & Johnson, Inc. vs. Oral-B Laboratories (re: Minute-Gel), 1987 

(c) Soft Sheen’s Care Free Curl vs. Revlon’s I of Nature (Trademark), 1986-1987. 

(d) Oral-B Laboratories, Inc. vs. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (re: Reach Advertising), 1986- 

• Locke Lord Bissell Liddell: The Gap, Inc. and Gap (Apparel) LLC v. G.A.P. Adventures, Inc., 

2009. 

• Lowenstein, Sandler: Princeton Economics Group vs. AT&T (re: class action defense of spirit), 

1994-1995 

• Maurice Blackburn Cashman Pty Ltd: Biota Holdings Ltd and Anor vs. Glaxo Group Ltd. & Ors. 

Re: Relenza, 2006- 

• Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp: Stella Foods Inc. vs. Cacique IC, re: Ranchero, 1997-1999 

• Morgan, Lewis and Bockius: Scott paper defense in the Turnabout Marketing Case, 1983 

• Morison, Cohen, Siner, and Weinstein, Hertz v. Avis, 1994. 

41


• Morrison & Foerster [and Bingham McCutchen; Arnold & Porter; Goodwin Procter; Greenberg 

Traurig] 

(a) Prop 65 [Re Acrylanide in Potato Chips and French Fries]: Environment World Watch Inc. 

v. P&G Distributing Company 

(b) Council for Education and --- on Toxins v. McDonald’s Corp 

(c) People of the State of California v. Frito-Lay Inc., 2007-2008. 

• Moses & Singer: 

(a) THOIP (A Chorion Limited Company) v. The Walt Disney Company, 2009. 

(b) THOIP (A Chorion Limited Company) v. The Walt Disney Company, 2010 

• Munger, Tolles and Olson: 

(a) FTC vs. Polygram Holdings et al. re: Three Tenors Case 2001-2002 

(b) Universal vs. MGM (re: Rollerball) 2002 

Odutola Law: Spirits Int. Nv. vs. Distilleries Melville Ltd. Re: Moskovskaya vs. Moskova, 2007- 

• Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard, & Geraldson: 

(a) S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. vs. Carter Wallace (“Edge” vs. “Rise”), 1983 

(b) Anheuser Busch vs. Stroh Brewery Co. and vs. Miller and Heillman, (re: LA beer), 1984- 

1985 

(c) S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., re: L’envie, 1986-1987. 

(d) Shelby Motor vs. Ford, 1988. 

(e) GFA Brands Inc. and Fitness Foods Inc. vs. Canbra Foods Ltd. and Campbell Mithun/Esty, 

Inc. re Heartlight, 1990-1991. 

(f) AT&T vs. MCI (various deceptive advertising cases) 1991- 

(g) Walt. Disney vs. Good Times, 1993 

(h) Car Freshener Corp. vs. S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. (re:Glade Plug Ins Air Freshener Design), 

1994 

(i) International Telecharge, Inc. vs. AT&T, 1992-1994 

(j) S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. vs. Avon (re: Skin So Soft) 1996 

(k) GTE Card Services Inc. vs. AT&T, 1996 

(l) SunAmerica Corp. vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada 1993-1995, 1997-1998 [W.H. 

Covington and Burling] 

(m) Blue Cross Blue Shield vs. American Medical Association, re: CPT, 1998 

(n) Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. vs. Britannica Home Fashions, Inc., 1999 

(o) Simon Property Group, L.P. v. mySimon Inc., 2001- 

(p) Montblanc – Simplo Gmblt v. Savonerie et Parfumerie Bernard, 2001 

(q) Old World Industries, Inc. vs. AutoMeter Products, 2002 

(r) JLJ Inc. v. Santa’s Best Craft (Christmas tree lights), 2004 

(s) Energy Brands Inc. (Glaceau) vs. Pespico Inc. + South Beach Beverage Co., Inc Re: Sobe 

Life Water, 2006 

(t) Auto Meter Products Inc. v. Maxima Technologies & Systems LLC, 2007 

• Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wheaton and Grasser: 

(a) Revlon vs. L’OREAL re: Colour Endure Commercials 1995 

(b) Revlon vs. Cover Girl self-renewing lipstick advertising, 1996 [NAD] 

(g) Castrol vs. Penzoil (re comparative advantage) 2008. 

• Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz: 

(a) Del Monte Corp. vs. Sunkist Growers, Inc. Arbitration, 1990-1991 

(b) Sun Oil Company defense against class action certification, 1996-1997 

• Pennie & Edmonds IT&T Continental Baking (C&C Cola): defense against Coca Cola re: C&C 

Cola, 1978 

• Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro: Consulting re: 

(a) Thrifty Rent-A-Car vs. Elder, 1991-1992 

(b) Green Giant American Mixtures, 1994 

(c) Chrysler Corp. vs. Replacement Sheet Metalparts Distributors, 1992-1993 

• Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 

(a) Mulligan v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (inside wiring), 2004 

(b) State of California vs. Tri-Union Seafoods, et al. (Canned Tuna, Proposition 65) 

• Quinn Emanuel: Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Hyundai Motor American, 2011 

• Rogers and Wells [and the Italian Trade Commission], re: Italian pasta dumping case, 1996 

42


• Sidley and Austin: 

(a) Industrial Gas litigation, 1986 

(b) Land O’Lakes, Inc. vs. Bakers Franchise Ltd., 1987 

(c) Ultramar, Inc. vs. CITGO Petroleum Corporation, 1997 

(d) AT&T vs. US West Communications, re: US West advertising, 1998 

• Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein and Gross: E.R. Squibb and Sons, Inc. vs. 

Stuart Pharmaceuticals, 1991. 

• Skadden, Arps, Meagher, & Flom: 

(a) American Home Products vs. Beecham re: Delicare commercials, 1986 

(b) Tambrands, Inc. vs. Warner-Lambert Co. re: EPT commercials, 1986-1987 

(c) Beecham Inc. vs. Yankelovich, Clancy, Shulman and Saatchi & Saatchi Holdings, Inc., re: 

projections for Delicare, 1986-1988 

(d) American Express vs. MasterCard re: Goldcard, 1988 

(e) Challenge to the networks by Sterling Drug re: Bristol Myers Tribuffered Bufferin 

commercials, 1988 

(f) Challenge by Dow Brands, Inc. of the TV advertisement for Reynolds Metals Company’s 

(g) 

“SURE-SEAL” food storage bags, 1989 

Anheuser-Busch Company vs. Coors Brewing Company (various deceptive advertising 

cases) 1991-1993 

(h) R.H. Donnelley vs. Sprint Publishing and Adv. Inc., re: Sprint Yellow Pages, 1996 

(i) Anheuser Busch vs. Boston Beer re: A-B advertising [NAD], 1997 

• Spirits International BV: N.V. vs. S.S. Taris Zeytin, Opposition No. 91163779 before the 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 2006 

• Steptoe & Johnson LLP: DirectTV Inc. and EchoStar Satellite LLC v. William W. Wilkins,Tax 

Commissioner of Ohio 2006-2007 

• Sullivan & Cromwell: Remington Rand Corp. vs. Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank N.V., 1991 

• Van Hagey & Bogan, Ltd.: Consulting re: The Quaker Oats Co, 1991 

• Vinson & Elkins LLP: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. GFA Brands, Inc., 2009. 

• Weil, Gotshal and Manges: 

(a) Johnson & Johnson vs. SmithKline Beecham, Re: Tums Advertising, 1991 

(b) Schering-Plough Healthcare Products vs. Johnson and Johnson, Inc. re: Neutrogena 

Chemical-Free Sun Block, 1996 

(c) Pharmacia Corp. vs. Glaxosmith Kline Consumer Healthcare (re: NicoDerm advertising), 

2002-2003 

(d) Priceline.com re: NAD, 2003 

• White & Case: 

(a) Trovan Ltd. and Electronic Identification Devices vs. Pfizer Inc. re: Trovan’s trademark, 

1999 

(b) Frederick E. Bouchat vs. Baltimore Ravens, Inc. and NFL Properties Inc., (re: the Ravens 

Logo), 2001-2002 

(c) Oakland Raiders vs. TBB and NFL, 2003 [with Bingham McCutchen] 

43


• Whiteman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan: 

(a) Pepsi Cola Company: Defense against Coca Cola Co. re: The Pepsi Challenge, 1978; 

1981; 1995 [Mostly with the NAD] 

(b) Burger King Comparative Advertising Campaigns vs. McDonald’s and Wendy’s, 1982- 

1990 

• Winston & Strawn, LLP 

(a) Verizon Directories Corp. vs. Yellow Book USA, Inc., 2004 

(b) Merix Pharmaceuticals vs. GlaxoSmithKline, Re: Releev, 2006 

(c) Dyson Technology Ltd. vs. Maytag Corp., 2006-2007 

(d) Procter & Gamble Co. vs. Ultero Inc. 2007 

(e) Dyson Technology Limited v. Hoover, Inc. and Maytag Corp., 2007 

(f) GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare LP v. Merix Pharmaceutical Corp, 2007 

(g) Doctor’s Associates Inc. vs. QIP Holders LLC & iFilm Corp.: Subway vs. Quiznos, 2008 

(h) LG Electronics USA, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 2009. 

(i) The Scotts Company LLC v. Central Garden & Pet Company and Gulfstream Home & 

Garden, Inc., 2009. 

(j) Dyson, Inc., v. Oreck Corporation, Oreck Holdings, LLC, Oreck Direct, LLC, Oreck 

Merchandising, LLC, Oreck Sales, LLC, Oreck Homecare, LLC, and Oreck@Home, LLC 

2009. 

(k) LG Electronics USA Inc. v. Whirlpool Corporation, 2010. 

E. Illustrative Marketing Research Clients: 

1. Air Canada (1973)* 

2. American Cyanamid (1972-1973)* 

3. Atlantic Richfield Company (1971-1972)* 

4. Bankers Trust Company (1973-1974)* 

5. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (1974;1977) 

6. BBD&O (1974-1982) 

7. Bissell, Inc. (1969-1971)* 

8. Bristol Myers Squibb (1998-) 

9. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1978-1979) 

10. Bureau of Newspaper Advertising (1974)* 

11. CBS (1972) 

12. Campbell Soup Company (1972-1973)* 

13. Chrysler (via BBD&O) (1975-1978) 

14. Clorox Company (1975-1976) 

15. Colonial Penn Group, Inc. (1973-1979) 

16. Commercial Union Assurance Companies (1974-1975) 

17. Connecticut Bank and Trust Company (1972)* 

18. Downe Publishing, Inc. (1972-1973) 

19. Eastman Kodak Company (1973)* 

20. E.F. Hutton (1981-1984) 

21. Edward D. Jones (1985-1987) 

22. First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Company (1971-1972; 1974-1975)* 

23. General Electric (via BBD&O 1977) (1982) 

24. General Foods Corporation: the Jell-O and Kool-Aid divisions and various departments of the 

corporate product development division (1969-1972)* 

25. Geometric Data (1981) 

26. International Air Transport Association (1973-1975)* 

27. International Harvester Credit Corporation (1973-1974)* 

28. International Harvester Company (1975) 

29. IT&T Continental Baking Company (1972-1978;1982) 

30. Lever Brothers Company (1971-1973)* 

31. Marriott Corp. (1982) 

32. Modern Medicine (1970)* 

33. MRCA (1975-1987) 

34. Pacific Bell (1981-1982) 

44


35. Pepsi Cola (1981) 

36. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1975-) 

37. Pillsbury (1975) 

38. Pioneer Electronics of America (1978) 

39. RCA Computer Division (1972)* 

40. Sears Roebuck & Company (1972-1973)* 

41. SEI Investments (1988-) 

42. Singer (1973) 

43. SmithKline and French (1971)* 

44. Snelling and Snelling, Inc. (1973-1974) 

45. Sterling Drugs (1985-1986; 1990-1992) 

46. Stroh Brewery Company (1970)* 

47. Sun Oil Company (1972)* 

48. Syntex Laboratories, Inc., (1976-1977) 

49. Twentieth Century Fox (via the Data Group, Inc.) (1972) 

50. UNICOM (1973) 

51. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Telecommunications (1972) 

52. The Wool Bureau, Inc. (1975) 

53. Western Airlines (via BBD&O) (1979) 

The research projects designed and conducted for these firms covered variety of consumer and 

industrial marketing problems including product positioning and market segmentation, new product 

development, generation and evaluation of new products, and promotional concepts. Projects with * 

were conducted via Robinson Associates. 

F. Illustrative Marketing Research Program Evaluation and Redesign: 

1. IT&T Continental Baking: copy and concept testing, segmentation studies (1972-1978) 

2. Brown and Williamson: copy and concept testing (1978-1979) 

3. Colonial Penn: all aspects of research (1973-1980) 

4. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: image studies, new product selection models, etc. (1975-1990) 

5. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco: new product development system (1979-1980) 

6. Bristol Meyer Squibb: Redesign of the Marketing Research function and various research and 

modeling procedures (1999-) 

G. Illustrative Intra-Company Marketing Strategy (and Marketing Research) Workshops: 

1. American Medical International (1978) 

2. Amoco Fabrics Co. (1984; 1988) 

3. ARA (1983) 

4. Associacion Mexicana de Ejecutivos en Planeacion (1979) 

5. Atlantic Richfield Company (1971) 

6. AT&T (1972-1978) 

7. Bank of East Asia (2005) 

8. BBD&O (1974-1983) 

9. Bell Atlantic (1983) 

10. Bell Canada (1980) 

11. Black and Decker (1981) 

12. Bristol Myers Squibb (1998) 

13. The Bunge Group (1982) 

14. Campbell Soup (1972) 

15. Career Futures, Inc. (1975) 

16. Certain-Teed Corporation (1983) 

17. The Clorox Company (1975) 

18. Colonial Penn Group (1975-1980) 

19. Computer Science Corporation (1975) 

20. Contel (1989) 

21. Daymon (2004) 

22. Di Giorgio Corp (1980-1981) 

45


23. Deutsche Bank (2004) 

24. Edward D. Jones & Co. (1983) 

25. E.F. Hutton (1979-) 

26. Ethicon, Inc. (1979) 

27. The Executive Forum (1979) 

28. General Foods (1970) 

29. Gray Advertising, Inc. (1977) 

30. IBM – Applied Business Systems (1988) 

31. International Harvester (1974-1975) 

32. Intermountain Health Care, Inc. (1978) 

33. ITT Water Technology Group (2004) 

34. Li & Fung (2005) 

35. Los Angeles Times (1993) 

36. Machinist Publishing Co., Ltd., Japan (1977) 

37. Miles Laboratories Ltd., Canada (1973) 

38. MRCA (1978) 

39. New York Telephone Company (1976) 

40. Pfizer Pharmaceutical, Inc. (1975-1987) 

41. Phillips Petroleum Company (1992-1993) 

42. The Pillsbury Company (1976) 

43. Rhodia, Brazil (1979) 

44. Schlachman Research, U.K. (1975) 

45. SEI Corporation (1990-) 

46. SmithKline & French (1970) 

47. Spectra-Physics (1983) 

48. Standard & Poors (1998) 

49. Syntex Laboratories, Inc. (1976) 

50. 3M’s Marketing Council(1986) 

51. Tektronix, Inc. (1978) 

52. Unilever, U.K. (1975) 

53. Union Mutual (1981) 

54. Wyeth International Ltd. (1980) 

55. Xerox (1981) 

H. Selected International Consulting 

1. UNIG, Singapore, Business Strategy (2000) 

2. Li & Fung, Hong Kong: Business Strategy (1998-) 

3. Wickes, plc., UK: Marketing and business consulting (1988-1996) 

4. Hakuhodo, Japan: Design of a 21 st Century Advertising Agency (1993-1997) 

5. McKinsey, Milan: New Developments in Marketing Strategy, Research, and Modeling (1988) 

6. Sunstar, Japan: Marketing and Business Strategy (1985) 

7. Bunge Group, Brazil: Marketing planning (1982-1986) 

8. Meridian Group U.K.: Marketing and Business Strategy (1985-1986) 

9. P.E. Consulting Group, South Africa: Strategic planning & Marketing Consulting and Conducting 

Executive Seminars (1982) 

10. Bell Canada, Canada: Market Segmentation Study (1979-1981) 

11. Cooperative de Seguros de Vida, Puerto Rico: Design of a marketing planning system (1980) 

12. Discount Bank, Israel: Marketing planning (1980) 

13. Bank Leumi Ltd., Israel: Marketing planning (1978) 

14. Fuji electric, Japan: Design of a management planning process (1977) 

15. Koor Industries, Israel: Designing and organizing the marketing function for the corporation’s 34 

companies (1968-1969) 

I. Consulting to Government Agencies 

1. FinCen/BENS project on Terrorist Financing, 2003-2004 

2. U.S. AIR FORCE: Evaluation of the Air Force resource allocation procedure (1980-1981) 

46


3. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: Industry, Trade & Commerce Design and execution of a study for 

evaluation of the U.S. market potential for selected Canadian medical diagnostic and therapeutic 

products (1980-1981) 

4. U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE: Designing a strategic planning system (1981) 

5. NASA: Evaluation of NASA’s IAC’s 1976 advertising campaign and recommendations for its 

future advertising and marketing strategy (1977) 

6. ISRAEL DEFENSE MINISTRY: Analyze and evaluate the marketing system of the Administered 

Areas (Arab territory prior to the 6-Day War). The findings and recommendations of this study 

were submitted in classified report to the Israeli Defense Ministry (1968-1969) 

J. Consulting/Advising to Research Organizations 

1. Member of the advisory committee of the Diebold Institute study of the impact of public policy on 

entrepreneurial startup companies: the U.K. and U.S. in biotech and IT, 1998 - 

2. Institute of Business and Economic Research, University of California, Berkeley. Consultant on 

the Coping Behavior (an empirical study of the consumer-technology interface) project, 

sponsored by the National R&D Assessment Program, NSF. (1976-1981) 

3. Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Foundation, Temple University/Applied Communication 

Research, Inc. Research consultant for design, analysis, and evaluation of an NSF (Office of 

Science Information Services) sponsored project concerning the design and evaluation of 

experiments for the marketing of scientific and technical information services. (1974-1977) 

4. EDUCOM: Inter-university Communications Council, Inc. Participant in an interdisciplinary 

seminar to identify and measure special interest audiences for public television. (1974) 

5. The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation. 

6. Participated in a workshop for design of “Quality Ratings of TV Programs.” (1979) 

7. Participated in the design of a study on special interest audiences. (1975) 

8. Marketing Science Institute Consultant from February 1967 to December 1968. Conduct and 

plan research projects primarily in the areas of industrial buying behavior, advertising, and 

international marketing. 

9. Marketing Science Institute U.S. Department of Agriculture Study Group on Marketing 

Performance Principle investigator, March-December 1968. Developed a model for the 

evaluation of the performance of the U.S. marketing system. 

10. Management Science Center University of Pennsylvania Senior staff member September 1967 

to July 1968. Engaged in the development of a marketing model for Anheuser-Busch. 

University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School 

A. Program Development 

UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES 

1. Help the MBA Review Committee to develop a Fast Track MBA, 2010. 

2. The Wharton Fellows 

In 2010, Wharton Fellows created a partnership with the Conference Board 

(http://www.conference-board.org/wharton/) to enhance the Wharton Fellows approach of 

combining experiential learning with visits to best-practice companies around the globe. 

Wharton Fellows Master classes Dr. Wind designed and directed included: 

November 27-December 2, 2000: Philadelphia 

January 7-January 12, 2001: Silicon Valley 

February 18-February 24, 2001: Barcelona 

March 15-March 17, 2001: Philadelphia 

May 6-May 12, 2001: Philadelphia, Wharton Fellow in e-Business 

June 3-June 7, 2001: Barcelona 

June 8-June 9, 2001: Helsinki 

July 8-July 14, 2001: Silicon Valley 

March 17-March 22, 2002: CEO Forum & Foundations I: Philadelphia 

April 21-April 25, 2002: Foundations II: Silicon Valley/San Francisco 

47


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 9-June 11, 2002; Munich 

November 3-November 8, 2002: Foundations I: Philadelphia 

January 5-January 9, 2003: Foundations II: San Francisco 

September 7-Spetember 9, 2003: Top Line Growth in Turbulent Times: Philadelphia 

January 7-January 9, 2004: Success: What’s Next?: Seattle 

April 25-April 28, 2004: Milken & the Media: Los Angeles 

June 1-June 8, 2004: Leveraging Japan: Tokyo; China: Transformation from the Inside: 

Shanghai 

September 12-September 14, 2004: Toward a New Europe: Prague, Czech Republic 

December 12-December 14, 2004: Merger, Acquisition and Renewal: New York 

March 6-March 9, 2005: Market & Sourcing Opportunities in India: Mumbai & 

Bangalore, India 

June 26-June 27, 2005: Working with Government, Washington D.C. 

September 22-September 27, 2005: Design, Innovation and Strategy: 

Copenhagen/Milan 

December 4-December 6, 2005: Opportunities in Latin America and the US Hispanic 

Markets: Miami 

February 25-February 27, 2007: Doing Business in an Evolving World, Philadelphia 

May 21-May 23, 2007: Globalization Revisited, Shanghai 

October 14-October 16, 2007: The Next Big Thing, Silicon Valley 

January 7-10, 2008: Marketing to Electronics Savvy Consumers, with David Reibstein, 

Las Vegas. 

May 4-6, 2008: Creativity and Innovation, with Karl Ulrich, Philadelphia. 

October 11-14, 2008: Islam and the West: Insights and Opportunities, with Bulent 

Gultekin, Dubai. 

May 17-18, 2009: Philadelphia: Finding Opportunity in Times of Economic Crisis 

October 25-27, 2009 Washington DC: Opportunities in Times of Crisis: The Changing 

Relationship between Business and Government 

July 6-10, 2010: China: Insights and Opportunities, Shanghai, China. 

October 8-12, 2010 Israel: The Holy Land of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 

February 20-22, 2011 Philadelphia: What’s Next in Management Disciplines and 

Business Transformation? 

October 9-11, 2011 Buenos Aires: Argentina: Insights and Opportunities 

October 13-15, 2011 São Paulo: Brazil: Insights and Opportunities 

3. The MBA X-Functional Integration Initiative (2003-2005) 

4. A number of Executive Development Programs including : 

Winning in the Next Millennium: Strategies for Driving Change: Initiator and Director, 

December 1998. 

Wharton on the New Reality of Business: Co-Academic Director with Bob Mittlestaedt, 


IDC’s MBA @ Wharton Program, 2003-2004, October 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (codirector 

with Ziv Katalan). 

5. The e-Curriculum R&D Initiatives. Initiator/Chair of the Committee that designed the new 

program platform and the e-Curriculum R&D Initiatives (1999-2000) and continued direction and 

reinvention of the program. 

6. The Advanced Management Program (AMP) Design Team (1998). 

7. Wharton’s Information Management Initiatives (1998-1999). Founder and co-chair (with Paul 

Kleindorfer) of its faculty council. 

8. The Revised MBA Curriculum (1990-1991). Chaired the committee that developed the new 

curriculum. 

9. The SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management, founding Director. Develop and direct all 

Center activities and chair its faculty council, 1988-. 

10. The Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, founding Director and 

chairman of its faculty council. Designed and directed all the Institute’s programs, including the 

establishment of the Institute MBA/MA program which admitted its first class of 50 students in 

May 1984, February 1983-July 1988. 

48


11. Wharton International Forum. Initiated and designed the original program and chairman of its 

faculty council, 1987-1998. 

12. Wharton Ph.D. with M.A. in International Studies. Initiated the joint program, 1988. 

13. Wharton Center for International Management Studies (renamed as the Wurster Center, 1988) 

founding director. Designed/directed all the Center’s activities aimed at the stimulation of 

international research at Wharton and the internationalization of the faculty and programs, 

1980-1983. 

14. The Wharton/SIA (Security Industry Association) Marketing Program. Initiated and designed the 

program which held sessions on April 1982 and November 1982. 

15. The Wharton Recanati Multinational Marketing and Management Program, Co-founder, 1978. 

16. The Wharton Executive MBA (WEMBA) program, chaired the committee that developed the 

program, 1974. 

17. Marketing Programs, participated in the redesign of the marketing MBA programs, 1970; Ph.D. 

1971; and Undergraduate, 1973 and 1981; including the initiation of The Wharton Dual MBA 

Major in Marketing/Multinational Enterprise. 

B. Courses Developed and Taught 

a. Developed (courses developed by me are indicated by an *), modified and taught courses 

and seminars in: 

Advertising Management (MBA) 

Channel Management (MBA) 

Communication Processes in Marketing* (MBA) 

Consumer Behavior* (MBA and Ph.D.) 

Creating an e-Business (MBA)*[A binational e-course to Wharton and IDC students) 

Creativity* (MBA) 

Health Care Marketing* (MBA) 

Industrial Marketing* (MBA) 

Integrating Marketing and Operations* (MBA) [developed jointly with P. Kleindorfer] 

Interactive Marketing in the Age of the Empowered Consumer (MBA)* 

International Marketing* (MBA) 

Marketing Management (MBA) 

Marketing Methods and Applications for Business Consulting* (MBA) [with P. Green] 

Marketing Research (MBA and Evening School) 

Marketing Strategy (WEMBA*, MBA) 

Multinational Management 

Necessity and Experimentation: Lessons from Israeli Innovation: Global Modular Courses 

Planning Marketing Strategy Projects (MBA) 

Product Policy* (MBA) 

Promotion Policy (MBA) 

Research Seminar (MBA and Undergraduate) 

b. Course head: MBA advanced study project (1967-1968, 1974-1979), Marketing 

Management for non-majors (1967-1968, 1970-1971), the MBA Core Marketing 

Management Course (1970-1971, 1971-1972), Marketing Strategy Seminar (1974-1975) 

c. Guest lecturer in various departments of the Wharton School including the Multinational 

Enterprise Unit, the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, the Management 

Department, Management of the Arts Program, Decision Science, Public Policy and 

Management. 

C. Committee Responsibility: 

1. Marketing Department Committees: 

• Founding Director and Member, SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management Board of 

Directors, 1989- 

• Computer Committee 2009-2010. 

• Curriculum Committee 2008-2010. 

49


• 5 Year Plan Committee (chair), 2004-2005. 

• Initiator and Chair of a Committee to develop a marketing certification program, 2004-2005 

• Recruiting/Personnel Committee, since 1971. Chairman Recruiting Committee, 1978-1979; 

1981-1983; 1987-1988; Co-chair of the subcommittee for recruiting of STARS 2007- . 

• Curriculum Committee, Member of Committee and Chairman of a number of its 

subcommittees 1967-1978, and 1996-1998. Chairman of the committee 

1970-1971,1973-1975, 1976-1978, and 1980. 

• Ph.D. Program Coordinator, 1972-75. Doctoral Committee, 1988-1989. 

• External Boards/Affairs Committee, 1987/88; Chair 1988-1989. 

• Member and Chairman of various departmental Committees, including all the department’s 

advisory committees since 1971, Marketing Fund Committee since 1983, and its Long 

Range Planning Committee, 1970-1971. 

• Senior Faculty Recruiting, Chairman 1995-1997. 

2. Wharton School Committees: 

• Founder and Member, Wharton Fellows Program CEO Global Advisory Board, 2009- 

• Dean Advisory Council (since its inception in 1983 to 2000) and 2007/2008; 2008/2009; 

2009. 

• Initiator of a faculty group to generate creative curriculum options as input to the MBA 

Review Committee 2010. 

• Co-Chair, Search Committee for the new Director of the Lauder Institute (2006) 

• Initiator and developer of Wharton School Publishing in conjunction with Pearson/FT, 

Founding Editor and member of the Faculty Editorial Board (2003-) 

• Chairman, Dean’s Committee on Cross-Functional Integration (2002-2004) 

• Member of the Executive Development Faculty Advisory Board (2002-2004) 

• Member of the Alfred West, Jr. Learning Lab Faculty Committee (2001-2005) 

• Chairman of a Faculty Committee to assure cross program dissemination of e-Curriculum 

Developments (2000) 

• Member of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, 1999-2000 

• Member of the Committee to prepare the strategy for “Management, Leadership, and 

Organizational Priority” area of the University’s Agenda for Excellence, 1998 

• Senior Faculty Committee to Review the Global Presence strategy (Summer 1997) 

• Chairman of the Graduate Curriculum Committee focusing on a critical examination of the 

MBA program and its appropriateness for preparing the leaders of the 21 st century 

enterprises. The Committee developed the new MBA curriculum which was tested in 

1991/1992 and 1992/1993 and which was fully implemented starting in 1993/1994. 

• Initiated and organized the Management Education Council – the vehicle for corporate 

support and funding of the new MBA curriculum, 1992- 

• The Wharton International Committee: Chairman, 1978-1981, 1982/1983, 1995-1997. [The 

1995-1997 committee developed the Wharton globalization strategy.] Member: 1967-1968, 

1983-1987, 1989-1991. 

• Member of Boards of the following Wharton Centers: 

The SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management (Founder), 1988- 

The Lauder Institute (Founder) 1983- 

Knowledge@Wharton (2011-present) 

The Alfred West, Jr. Learning Lab (Initiator of the Lab and Founder of the External 

Advisory Committee), 2001-2005 

Risk and Decision Process Center, 1984- 

The Manufacturing and Logistics Forum, 1992-2000 

The Wharton/PIMS Research Center (Co Founder), 1985-1998 

U.S. Japan Management Studies Center, 1989-1992 

Wharton Emerging Economics Program, 1992-1995 

The Wharton Center of International Management Studies (Founder), 1981-1983 

• Member of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Personnel, 1976-1978; 1984-1985; 1987- 

1989; 1994-1995. 

• Dean’s Planning Task Force (1986). 

• Member of the School’s Executive Education Policy Committee, 1987-1989. 

50


• Member or chairman of a number of Chair Search Committees, including seven chairs in 

Marketing (1985, 1987, 1988-1990, 1992, and 1997), Entrepreneurship (1984-1985, 1997- 

1998), International Management (1984-1985), Operations Management (1986), the chair 

and director of the US-Japan Center (1988-1991), the chair in Managerial Economics 

(1989), the chair in Information Technology (1996-1997), and the chair in Electronic 

Commerce (1999). 

• Member of the (ad hoc) Committees to Review Various Units and Departments: 

The Snider Entrepreneurial Research Center, 2004-2005 

Finance Department, 2001-2002 

The Real Estate Center, 1988 

Social Systems Science, 1985-1987 

U.S. Japan Center, 1985-1986 

Multinational Enterprise Unit, 1977-1978 

• Member of the School’s Faculty Personnel Committees of: 

The Health Care Systems Unit, 1974-1975. 

The Multinational Enterprise Unit, 1978-1979. 

• Member of the Committee on Academic Freedom, 1977-1978. 

• Chairman of the Advisory Committee for the Wharton Executive MBA Program, 1974-1975. 

• Chairman of the Wharton School Doctoral Admissions Committee, 1974-1975. 

• Graduate Academic Standards Committee, 1969/1970 – 1971-1972. Chairman of its 

subcommittee for the evaluation and redesign of the school’s grading system. 

• A number of Ad Hoc Committees and task forces for the: 

• development of a core Ph.D. Behavioral Science Course, 1972-1973, 

• redesign of the International Business program, 1971, 

• review of the Economic Offerings for Business and Applied Economic doctoral 

students, 1970-1971, 

• development of a Continuing Education Program in Health Care Administration, 

November 1971-October 1973. 

• Evening School Committee, 1972-1973. 

• Behavioral Lab Planning and Implementation Committee, 1989-1990. 

D. Doctoral Dissertations Supervised 

Bent Stidsen (1972); Yehoshua Buch (1972); Kathy Villani (1973); Rene Y. Darmon (1973); Arun K. 

Maheshwari (1973); Chris Hetzel (1973) winner of the AMA Doctoral Dissertation Competition; Arun 

K. Jain Honorable mention at the AMA Doctoral Dissertation Competition; Joel Huber (1974); Irwin 

D. Reid (1975); Chris Buss (1979) winner of the AMA Doctoral Dissertation Competition; Robert J. 

Thomas (1980) Winner of the Academy of Marketing Doctoral Dissertation Competition; Cynthia 

Fraser (1980); Joel Steckel (1981) Honorable Mention AMA Doctoral Dissertation Competition; John 

Deighton (1983); Rajeev Kohli (1984); Oliver Heil (1988); Kamel Jedidi (1988); Bari Harlam (1989); 

Kris Helsen (1990); Nino Buran (1991); Hoon Young Lee (1992); Rajeev K. Tyagi (1994); Amy 

Kallianpar (1998). 

E. Addresses to Alumni Club and Other Groups Regarding The Joseph H. Lauder Institute 

Illustrative addresses to alumni clubs and other groups on the changing needs for management 

education and the University’s response -- The Joseph H. Lauder Institute. 

1. Alumni Clubs addressed include: 

• Dallas (December 1984) 

• Cleveland (April 1986) 

• Hong Kong (July 1985) 

• London (May 1984) 

• Long Island (January 1984, March 1986) 

• Milan (October 1987) 

• Philadelphia (January 1984, January 1986) 

• Paris (December 1983) 

• San Francisco (November 1983) 

• Taipei (July 1985) 

51


• Tokyo (June 1985) 

• Toronto (August 1987) 

2. University Groups: 

• Board of Directors of the Association of Alumnae, March 1984 

• The Vice Provost Advisory Board, February 1984 

• Wharton Board of Overseers, January 1984, 1997 

• Trustees (October 1983, January 1984) 

3. Other Groups (partial list): 

• University of Pennsylvania Trustee Committee on Academic Policy (January 1988). 

• 40 th National Conference of the Council on International Education Exchange, San 

Francisco (November 1987) 

• Title VI Center Lauder conference on International Studies and Foreign Language 

for Management. Philadelphia (May 1986) 

• University of Pennsylvania Alumni (Alumni day, Philadelphia, May 1985) 

• Delaware Valley Faculty Exchange Program on International Business and 

Language Studies (December 1984) 

• AIESEC-Northeast regional conference (October 1984) 

• Deans of 50 schools in an AACSB seminar on Internationalizing the Business 

Curriculum (March 1984) 

F. Illustrative presentations to alumni groups and others regarding the Management 2000 project, 

the SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management, and the revised MBA curriculum 

• Wharton-Recanati Program, 1993 

• International Forum, 1993 

• Erasmus University – Faculty and Administration, 1993 

• Marketing Advisory Board Meeting, 1993 

• Board of Directors of the Wharton Alumni Association, September 1988; May, 1993 

• The Wharton Board of Overseers, April 1988 

• Wharton Advanced Management Program Participants, 1990, 1991 

• The Wharton Graduate Advisory Board 1990 

• Wharton’s European Advisory Board 1991 

• Alumni attending the May 1991 Alumni Reunions 

• The SEI Center Board of Directors 1990-1991 

• The Joseph H. Lauder Institute Board of Governors 1991 

• College of Business Administration, University of Texas at Austin C Advisory Board and Faculty, 

February 1992 

• INSEAD Faculty and Administration, February 1992 

• Security Industry Institute, 40 th Anniversary Program, Wharton, March 1992 

G. Illustrative presentations regarding Wharton’s Globalization Strategy 

• Dean’s Advisory Board, February 1997 

• Wharton Board of Overseers, March 1997 

• Wharton Graduate Executive Board, March 1997 

• Wharton Executive Education Advisory Board, May 1997 

• European Advisory Board 1997 

• Wharton Faculty 1997 

H. Illustrative presentations regarding Wharton’s Information Management Initiatives (WIMI) 

• Dean’s Faculty Lunch, April 1998 

• All Wharton Departments 1998 – 2001 

• The 1 st Conference of the Wharton Alumni Club of Israel March 2001 

52


I. Illustrative presentations regarding Cross-Functional Integration of the MBA Curriculum 

• Wharton Faculty (Feb 2003) 

• Graduate Executive Board (March 2003) 

• CEO Panel for the entering 2004 class (August 2003) 

• Ph.D. Proseminar (Fall 2003) 

J. Illustrative presentations regarding the Wharton Fellows Program 

• Wharton Executive Education Advisory Board (April 2004) 

• Wharton Alumni Club of Atlanta (November 2001) and Israel (December 2001) 

K. Illustrative presentations regarding Wharton School Publishing 

• Jay H. Baker Retailing Initiative Board (October 2005) 

• Wharton Executive Education Group (January 2005; May 2006) 

• Wharton School External Affairs group (February 2004) 

L. Illustrative presentations regarding The Power of Impossible Thinking 

• Alumni Leadership Conference, Hong Kong (May 2007) 

• Wharton Connect: On Campus (March 2007) 

• Wharton Connect (October 2006) 

• Organizational Development Network of Greater NYC (October 2006) 

• Wharton Staff Workshop (September 2006) 

• The Wharton Club of New Jersey (July 2006) 

• CEIBS @ Wharton (July 2006) 

• Wharton Sports Business Initiative (May 2006) 

• Microsoft’s Latin America Financial Services CEO Roundtable (March 2006) 

• LinKS@Wharton (November 2005; August 2006) 

• Merrill Lynch, Investment Banking Institute at Wharton (August 2005) 

• The Greater Glenside Chamber of Commerce Meeting (June 2005) 

• Wharton Fellows Event, Singapore (March 2005) 

• EMTM Alumni Council (February 2005) 

• Miami Wharton Club (December 2004) 

• Advertising Research Foundation Breakthrough Conference (November 2004) 

• Washington, D.C. Clubs of Wharton and AFLSE (September 2004) 

• Deutsch Bank External Insights, New York (September 2004) 

• Executive Briefing to Federal Express (September 2004) 

M. Illustrative presentations regarding Competing in a Flat World 

• Links @ Wharton, Philadelphia (October 2008) 

• University of Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico (October 2008) 

• American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, Hong Kong (July 2008) 

• The Wharton Club of Spain, Madrid, Spain (June 2008) 

• CASRO International Research Conference, New York (May 2008) 

• Wharton Club of Southern California, Santa Monica, California (April 2008) 

• Wharton Club of New York, New York, New York (February 2008) 

• Wharton Fellows, New York, New York (February 2008) 

• FirstCaribbean Leadership Programme, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (November 2007) 

• Wharton Marketing Conference: Back to Class Session (October 2007) 

• Milken Institute Global Conference, (April 2006) 

University of Pennsylvania – University Committees: 

Chair, Penn Social Responsibility Advisory Committee, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. 

53


Committee for generating new revenues by medical education initiatives, University of 

Pennsylvania Health System, 2007-2008. 

Member of the Institute for Strategic Threat Analysis & Response @ Penn (ISTAR) Advisory 

Board, 2007- 

Integrated Product Design – Overseer, 2008- 

• Research Foundation Committee, Social Science and Management Review Panel, 1999-2006. 

• Member of the Faculty Advisory Group to Campus Development Planning Committee, 2005- 

2006. 

• Member of the Committee on International Programs, 2002-2006 

• Member of The Ackoff Center Advisory Board, 2001-2006 

• Member of the Provost Art and Culture Committee, 2002-2004 

• Faculty Senate Committee on Administration, 1995-1998. 

• Chair, Subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty Teaching Evaluations, 1997- 

1998. 

• Chairman of Special Presidential Committee on Borderless Education, 1997-1998. 

• Provost’s Task Force on the University of the Global Information Age, 1996-1997. 

• Faculty Editorial Board, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996-1997. 

• Member of the Provost’s Committee on Information Science and Technology, 1996-1997. 

• Member of the Provost’s Committee on Distance Learning, 1996-1997. 

• Chairman of a new university committee focusing on innovative revenue generation, 1992/1993 

and 1993/1994. Members include the President, Provost, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, 3 

deans, 3 trustees, and 3 faculty members. 

• Member of the Provost International Council, 1990-1992. 

Chairman of a Subcommittee for the Evaluation of the University Office of International 

Programs, 1990-1991 and of a Subcommittee to Evaluate the University’s Off-Campus 

Programs, 1991-1992. 

• Member of the Provost Task Force on International Programs (1992/1993; 1993/1994). 

• Member of the Commission for the 250 th Anniversary Celebration of University of Pennsylvania 

(1987-1990) 

• Advisory Board of the PBS series on The Global Economy, 1990. 

• University of Pennsylvania correspondent for PBS program on Geo-economy, moderated by Ted 

Koppel, May 1990. 

• Chairman of the Faculty Council of the Joseph H. Lauder Institute, 1983-1988. 

• Member of the Board of Directors of the Joseph H. Lauder Institute, 1983 to present. 

• Member of the Advisory Board of the office of International Programs, 1980 to present. 

• Chairman, the Wharton Dean Search Committee, (selected Russ Palmer)1982/1983. 

• The Senate Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty, 1978/1979 (member); 1979/1980 

(chairman). 

• Member of the FAS – Wharton Committee, 1975-1977. 

• Member of the University’s Committee on Research, 1977/1978. Chairman of its subcommittee 

for evaluation of the University’s Policy and Conduct of Research Programs. 

• Member of the subcommittee of the University’s Academic Planning Committee for the 

Measurement of Academic Performance, 1972/1973. 

The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel 

• Co-founder (1994) 

• Chairman, International Academic Advisory Board, 1994- 

• Faculty Promotion and Appointment Committee: Chairman 1999-2005; Member 2005- 

• Chairman, Higher Academic Council 1999- 

• Delivered the first Graduation Address, October, 1998 

• Delivered the first Zoltan Wind lecture, 1996 

• Delivered the first graduation address of the Wharton IDC Marketing Communication Program, 

March 1999 

• Occasional lectures in various courses, faculty seminars, and public addresses since 1995 

• Founder of the American Friends of IDC 1998 and a Member of the Board, 2003- 

• Designed the week-long programs at Wharton for its visiting MBA class (2002, 2003, 2004, 2007 

and 2008) and the Zell Entrepreneurial Program, (2002) 

• Member, Advisory Board of IDC’s New School of Communication (2005-) 

54


Other Universities 

1. Courses Taught 

• Erasmus University (The Netherlands) – A variety of courses on marketing strategy and 

marketing science (1993). 

• University of Tokyo (Japan) – Marketing Science (1992). 

• University of New South Wales (Australia) – Doctoral Seminar in Marketing (1977). 

• University of California at Berkeley – Product Policy, Doctoral Seminar (1975). 

• University of Tel Aviv (Israel) – Consumer Behavior, Marketing Seminar (1968). 

2. Faculty Promotion Review – Illustrative Universities 

Columbia University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York 

University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Tel Aviv University, University of 

California at Los Angeles and at Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Georgia, 

University of Illinois, University of Pittsburgh, University of Rochester, University of Southern 

California, University of Texas, Yale, and others. 

3. Program/School Review 

• Indian School of Business – Organization of the Wharton Planning Meeting, April 2002. 

• Rice University – member of the external review committee, 1996. 

• University of Santa Clara – member of a Site Review Team for the evaluation of the school’s 

marketing department, 1981. 

• University of Tel Aviv – Initiator and organizer of the school’s faculty colloquium, working paper 

series, planned and organized a number of the school’s executive development programs and 

various other activities, 1968/1969. 

• The Technion, Israel Institute of Technology – Outside examiner at the Graduate Division of the 

Technion – The Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 1969. 

55


OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES 

A. Development of Research Programs [Illustrative List] 

1. The Future of Advertising (2007- )* 

2. Network-Based Strategies and Competencies 2007-* 

3. Creativity and Innovation 2006-* 

4. SEI Center project Toward a New Theory of the Firm (2004-2008) 

5. SEI Center project with Business Executives for National Security and FINCEN using the 

Suspicious Activity Reporting System (SARS) for identifying terrorist financing (2003-2004) 

6. SEI Center project, Assessing the True Value of the Firm, Co-Directed with David Larcker (2002- 

2003) 

7. The Wharton Office of Homeland Security (OHS) Project, Economic Vulnerability to Terrorism: 

Assessment, Prioritization and Action Implications, Co-Directed with Paul Kleindorfer (2001- 

2002) 

8. Digital Transformation Project in Collaboration with McKinsey, WeBI and the Fishman-Davidson 

Center for Service and Operations Management (2001-) 

9. e-Curriculum R&D Initiatives (2000-2002) and Curriculum R&D for the Wharton Fellows Decision 

Support Network (2001-___) 

10. The SEI Center’s research program on Creating a 21 st Century Enterprise. (1990-____) 

11. Established the Value of Marketing program. (1993–1997) 

12. Initiated (with Frank Bass) the Empirical Generalizations in Marketing program. (1993–1995) 

13. Co-founded (with Greg Farrington) the Virtual University Lab program (1995–1997) 

14. Initiated the Computers and Art program for the ENIAC at 50 celebration (1998–1999) 

15. Co-developed (with Bob Holland) the SEI Center’s George Harvey Program on Value Creation 

Through Diversity (1996____-) 

16. Co-founded (with Paul Kleindorfer) the Information Management Initiatives Research Program 

(1998-1999) 

B. Editorial Activities 

1. Founding editor, Wharton School Publishing, 2003-2008 [published books are listed on pages 

24-26] 

2. Initiator and editor of Advances in Marketing Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects – 

A Tribute to Paul E. Green, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. 

3. Initiator and editor of The Wharton School Publishing Newsletter (monthly since July 2005) 

4. Initiator and Co-Editor of the Wharton Fellows Newsletter (quarterly 2003-4; monthly January- 

December 2005). 

5. Initiator and editor of Wharton Executive Library (published by Oxford University Press), 

1984-1987. The series was aimed at familiarizing top management with recent developments in 

the various management disciplines. Books published include: 

• Gerard Adams, The Business Forecasting Revolution, Nation-Industry-Firm, 1986. 

• Leonard M. Lodish, The Advertising and Promotion Challenge, Vaguely Right or 

Precisely Wrong?, 1986. 

• David Solomons, Making Accounting Policy: The Quest for Credibility in Financial 

Reporting, 1986 

• James C. Emery, Management Information Systems: The Critical Strategic Resource, 

1987. 

6. Initiator and editor of the Scientific Press Computer Based Marketing Series. 1984-90. The 

series offers short books on specialized marketing topics with accompanying PC software. 

Books published include: 

• Paul E. Green, CAPPA Electronic Questionnaire Display and Analysis, 1986 

• Gary Lilien, Marketing Mix Analysis with Lotus 1-2-3, 1987 

• John Hauser, Applying Marketing Management: Four PC Simulations, 1987 

56


• Darral G. Clarke, Marketing Analysis and Decision Making: Text and Cases with Lotus 1- 

2-3, 1987. 

• Gary Lilien, Marketing Management: Analytical Exercise with Lotus 1-2-3, 1988. 

• Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Marketing 1978-1981 (Vol. 43-45) 

• Area Editor, Marketing Science, 1981-83 (Vol. 1-2); occasional Area Editor (2002-) 

• Advisory Editor of the Addison-Wesley Marketing Series, 1974-1981. Books published under 

my editorship include: 

• G. David Hughes, Marketing Management, 1978. 

• James Bettman, An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, 1979. 

• Richard N. Cardozo, Product Policy: Cases & Concepts, 1979. 

• F.E. Brown, Marketing Research: A Structure for Decision Making, 1980. 

• Member of the Editorial Boards of: 

• Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 2004 

• Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1998-____ 

• Journal of Global Marketing, 1986-____ 

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1982-____ 

• Annual Review of Marketing, 1980-1982 

• Computer Operations, 1968-1970 

• Journal of Business Research, 1974-1977 

• Journal of Consumer Research, 1973-1984 

• Journal of High Technology Management and Market Research, 1988 

• Journal of Marketing Research, 1978-1981 

• Journal of Marketing, 1971-1978 

• Journal of Organizational Behavior and Statistics, 1983 

• Journal of Pricing Management, 1989 

• Journal of Segmentation in Marketing, 1997 

• Occasional reviewer for: 

• Decision Sciences 

• IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 

• Journal of Management Studies 

• Journal of Marketing 

• Management Science 

• Marketing Science 

• Operations Research 

• Public Opinion Quarterly 

• R&D Management 

• The Journal of Economics and Business 

• The Wharton Quarterly 

• Screening editor, Journal of Consumer Research, 1973-1974. 

• A judge of competitive research papers submitted to the National Conference of The AMA 

Academic (August) Conference in - Minnesota (1971), Houston (1972), Washington (1973), 

Portland (1974), Rochester (1975), Memphis (1976), Chicago (1980), Chicago (1984). 

• A judge of Ph.D. dissertations submitted to the AMA Doctoral Dissertation Competition, 1974, 

1976, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1983. And the MSI Dissertation, and other award competitions 1984, 

1985, 1990 

• Reviewer of papers submitted to the Market Measurement and Analysis Conference (renamed 

Marketing Science Conference) since 1981. 

57


• Occasional reviewer of applications for research grants for the Social Science Research Council 

(London, England) since 1972; and the National Science Foundation, Division of Science 

Information and Advanced Productivity Research and Technology, since 1977. 

• Reviewer of manuscripts for a number of publishers and universities, including the MacMillan 

Company, the Center for Research of the College of Business Administration of Pennsylvania 

State University, the Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, Prentice Hall, Jose 

Bass and others. 

C. Offices Held in Professional Associations 

AMA 

TIMS 

1. Member of the Board of Directors, The Philadelphia Chapter of the AMA, 1979-1983. 

2. Program Chairman of: 

a) The 1977 AMA Doctoral Consortium Philadelphia, August 1977. 

b) The 1975/1976 AMA Attitude Research Conference, Hilton Head, SC, February 1976. 

c) The National Educators AMA Conference, Washington, D.C., August 1973. 

3. Member of a number of AMA councils including the Advisory Council of the National 

Marketing Honorary Society of the AMA - Alpha Mu Alpha, 1980/1981 and the Educational 

Policy Council, 1977/1978. 

1. Chairman, 1974/1975; Chairman Elect, 1973/1974; and Vice Chairman, 1971/1972 of the 

Institute of Management Science College of Marketing. 

2. Program Chairman of: 

a) Marketing track on "Marketing Science for Increased Competitiveness of Firms and 

Countries,” 1988 Washington, D.C., TIMS/ORSA Conference. 

b) The 1981 Market Measurement and Analysis Conference (with Vijay Mahajan). 

c) The Delaware Valley Chapter, 1967/1968. 

3. Member of the Program Committees of the Market Measurement and Analysis Conference: 

University of Texas, 1980; New York University, 1981; and the Marketing Science 

Conference: University of Chicago, 1983; Vanderbilt University, 1985; University of Texas at 

Dallas, 1986; Centre HEC-ISA, Jouy-en-Josas, France, 1987; Washington University, 1988. 

4. Member of the Advisory Board of Marketing Science, 1983-____ 

IAM – The International Academy of Management 

1. Chancellor, 2000-2006. 

2. Vice Chancellor for the Americas, 1995-2000. 

3. Program chairman, the Americas Conference, 1994, 1998. 

MASB – Marketing Accountability Standards Board 

1. Member of the Board of Directors since 2010. 

MSI – Marketing Science Institute 

1. Chair of a task force on e-business evaluation (part of the Metrics program), 1999. 

2. Academic Trustee (1989-1995). 

3. Member of the Academic Advisory Council (1983-1987). 

4. Member of a number of steering groups, including 

• Marketing Strategies Steering Group, 1983-1987. 

• The International Advisory Steering Committee (1985-1987). 

• Information Technology Steering Committee (1990-1992). 

58


Other 

1. The Diebold Institute Entrepreneurship and Public Policy Project, Committee of Advisors (1999-____ ). 

2. World Management Council. Member of the Academic Advisory Board (1988–1989). 

3. Member of the interdisciplinary task force (organized by AMA) for the design of the Journal of Consumer 

Research, (October 1971–July 1972). Founding member of the Policy Board of the Journal of Consumer 

Research (1972–1983); Chairman of the Board (1977–1978); Chairman of the 1976 and 1981 Editor 

Search Committees. 

4. Member of the Philadelphia's International City Steering Committee (1983–1985, 1987–1988). 

5. Member of the Publication Committee of AAPOR (1973-1974). 

6. Member of Program Committee of 1979 ACR Conference. 

7. Member of the Advertising Research Foundation 75 th Anniversary Convention Program Committee 

(2010) 

D. Planning and Organizing Professional Programs at the University 

1. Chair, “Network-Based Strategies and Competencies,” a joint project with INSEAD co-directed 

with Paul Kleindorfer, Initial Workshop, May 3, 2007. Conference, November 2007. 

2. Chair, “The Future of Advertising,” a joint project with the ARF, Workshop, March 30, 2007. 

Conference, December 2008. 

3. Initiated and chaired a task force to develop a Marketing Certification Program (2003- ____) 

4. Co-Designed with Bob Mittelstaedt an executive education program on “Wharton on the New 

Reality of Business,” December 2001 [including the design of the “Wharton Post 9/11 Business 

Scenario” (October 2001-)] and May 2002. 

5. Designed and directed the executive programs, “Winning in the Next Millenium,” December 

1998. 

6. Initiated “The Impact of Computers and Information Technology on Management: 1946, 1996, 

2001,” May 13-14, 1996 program for the ENIAC at 50 celebration (1994-____ ). 

7. Initiated the “Computers and Art” program for the ENIAC at 50 celebration (1994-____ ). 

8. Participated in the original design of the Wharton – AT&T Marketing Management Program. 

Taught in the 1973, 1975 -1980 programs. 

9. Developed, organized and taught a Marketing Research Seminar for U.P. Clinical Scholars 

Group (February–May 1975 and February–April 1976). 

10. Planned and taught the marketing management section of a number of advanced management 

programs of the University of Pennsylvania: 

• Dean Witter - Wharton Account Executive Program, 1986. 

• Securities Industry Association Program, annually since 1982. 

• Advanced Management Program for Overseas Bankers, 1975, 1976. 

• Program for Health Care Executives, 1973, 1975, 1982. 

11. Participated in various executive development programs of the Marketing Department of the 

University of Pennsylvania: 

• Marketing for the Postal Service, 1983. 

• Marketing Strategy Seminar, since 1981 (January & May). 

• Pharmaceutical Advertising Council, 1980/1981. 

• Wharton Salesforce Management Seminar, since 1980 (January & May). 

• Dixie/Marathon (American Can Company), May 1977. 

• Marketing Research Seminar 1977-1983. 

• General Building Contracting Association, Inc., January 1977. 

• Center de Promotion du Commerce International, Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie de 

Nantes, 1976, 1978-1980. 

12. Planned and taught (with Thomas Robertson) a number of seminars on Health Care Marketing 

for: 

• The Virginia Hospital Association, February 1978. 

• The New York Management Center, September and November 1977. 

• The Wharton School's Lifelong Education Program, October 1976. 

13. Co-founder, organizer of the Wharton teaching component, and frequent lecturer in the 

Wharton/Israel Binational Marketing Management Program [The Consulting Practicum] 

1979-1995. 

59


E. Award Committees 

1. Member of the Sheth Award Committee to select the winning Journal of Marketing article that 

had the greatest long-term impact on the marketing discipline, 2009-______ 

2. Member of the Parlin Board of Governors, 1978-1983, 1995-_____ ; Chairman of the Board, 

1980/1981. 

3. Member of the selection committee for MIT’s Sloan Management Review/Price-Waterhouse 

Company, 2003 – Best Article Award. 

4. Member of the “Global Marketing Scholar’s Prize” Selection Committee, 2011, hosted by Korean 

Academy of Marketing Science 

5. Nominator for the Marketing Communications Award of the World Technology Network, 2002- 

6. Initiator of the Lauder Institute Award for the Research Paper that Best Advances the Theory & 

Practice of International Management Science. Administered by TIMS and Chairman of the first 

award, 1989. 

7. Member of the W. Arthur Cullman Executive Award Selection Committee (Ohio State University), 

1985-____ 

8. Member of a panel of judges for the evaluation of nominees for the Paul D. Converse Awards for 

Outstanding Contributions to the Development of Theory and Science in Marketing, 1974, 1977, 

1981, and 1986. 

F. Planning and Organizing Professional Programs Outside the University 

1. KMDC Program, Kuala Lumpur, The Power of Impossible Thinking and Its Implications for 

Marketing Innovations, March 15-16, 2005. 

2. Co-director (with Hotaka Katahira) of the Marunouchi Global Center Management Program, 

2002. 

3. Planned and taught a number of two-day seminars on "Recent Developments in Marketing 

Research Methodology" for: 

The Management Center, University of Bradford, February 1975 and May 1976. 

The University of Laval, Canada, November 1973. 

The University of Social Sciences at Grenoble, France with (Paul E. Green), May 1973. 

4. Planned and taught various AT&T Executive Development Seminars on: 

• "Multivariate Analysis in Marketing,” March and August 1975. 

• "Market Analysis,” December 1974, and June 1975. 

• "Market Segmentation,” September 1974, November 1975 and March 1976. 

• "How to get the Most Out of Your Marketing Research,” Spring 1974. 

• "Consumer Behavior,” October 1972, January 1978. 

5. Planned and taught two one-day executive seminars on Conjoint Analysis and New Product 

Policy at the University of New South Wales (Australia), June 1977. 

6. Planned and taught a number of executive seminars at the University of Tel Aviv: Marketing 

Strategy (1969); Product Policy (1977); Marketing and Corporate Strategy (1978, 1980); New 

Development in Product and Marketing Research (1980). 

7. Planned and taught the marketing research section of the Bank Marketing Program of the 

Graduate School of Bank Marketing, April 1977. 

8. Planned and taught a series of two-day seminars on Marketing Strategy for the New York 

60


Telephone Company, February and April 1976. 

9. Initiated, planned and organized a number of two day workshops on: 

Concept Testing, University of Pennsylvania, March 1972. 

Industrial Buying Behavior (with Frederick E. Webster and Richard N. Cardozo), 

sponsored by the AMA & the University of California at Berkeley, April 1971. 

Research Utilization, (with Steve Greyser and Randy Batsell), sponsored by the AMA and 

MSI, April 1979. 

Advances and Applications in New Product Forecasting: Innovation Diffusion Models 

(with Vijay Mahajan) sponsored by MSI, October 1983. 

 

 

 

 

Organizer and chairman of various sessions at annual conferences of various professional 

associations (illustrative list): 

“Design Meets Marketing: Service Innovation by Design,” Marketing Science Institute and 

Corporate Design Foundation Conference, Stanford University, October 17, 2007. 

“Marketing science: Accomplishments and challenges in the global information age,” 

plenary session at Informs, Philadelphia, November 1999. 

“Consumer Labs,” Marketing Science Conference, March 1997. 

“Global Marketing Strategy,” 1991 ORSA/TIMS Meeting 

“Creation of Innovative Marketing Knowledge: An Interdisciplinary Perspective,” 1989 

AMA Marketing Educators Conference, August 1989. 

Strategic Alliances,” TIMS Osaka, Japan, July 1989. 

“Industrial and New Technologies Marketing: Lessons from Industry,” International 

Research Seminar in Marketing, La Londe les Maures, France, May 1989. 

“New Product Development Models,” ORSA/TIMS, San Diego, October 1982. 

“Product/Market Portfolio Models,” ORSA/TIMS, Colorado Springs, November 1980. 

“The Role of Multivariate Analysis in Consumer Research,” APA, Toronto, 1978. 

“Applications of Management Science to Market Segmentation,” TIMS, Miami, 1976. 

“Recent Developments in Management Science Application in Marketing,” TIMS, Las 

Vegas, 1975. 

“Multidimensional Scaling and Conjoint Measurement in the Study of Multidimensional 

Psychophysics,” ACR, Boston 1973. 

“Implementation of Management Science in Marketing,” TIMS, Houston 1972. 

“On the Teaching of Consumer Behavior,” AMA, Houston, 1972. 

“Family and Industrial Buying Behavior,” AMA, Minneapolis, 1971. 

“Multidimensional Scaling in the Study of Consumer Behavior,” ACR, 1970. 

Planned, organized and taught a Marketing Management Program for the top executives of the 

Union of Cooperative Societies (Israel), April to July 1969. 

Planned and taught marketing courses at a Graduate Program for Marketing Consultants at the 

Israel Institute of Productivity, September 1968 to January 1969. 

Academic advisor to a number of organizations engaged in Management Training in Israel. 

Primarily the Israel Institute of Productivity, and the Technion Research and Development 

Foundation Ltds., January to August 1969. 

G. Lecturing 

Illustrative Keynote Addresses at various conferences including: 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Opening Session: Transform Your Business with 

New Thinking and New Models, The 51 st Annual ARF Convention, Research Powered 

Marketing: New Models for Growth, April 2005. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” A Wharton Fellows Dinner Event, Kuala Lumpur, 

March 2005. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking in Meeting the Jim Stargel Challenge,” ARF 

Breakthrough Conference, November 4, 2004. 

61


“Should We Challenge Our Mental Models for Building Better Brands?” Med Ad News 

Conference on Building Better Brands, Philadelphia, July 28, 2004. 

“The Changing Nature of Marketing: Implications for Research, Teaching, and Practice,” 

The Elsevier Science Distinguished Scholar Award Lecture at the Society for Marketing 

Advances, November 6, 2003, New Orleans. 

“The Challenge of Corporate Governance,” IAM Conference, Barcelona, Fall 2003. 

“Corporate Transformation: Lessons for Japan,” Marunouchi Global Center First 

Executive Program, November 2002. 

“Convergence Marketing: The Challenge for the On-Demand Era,” IBM’s 2002 WW 

Summit for the On-Demand Era, 2002. 

“Leading Transformation Lessons for Mexico,” TeleTech’s Top Executive Program, 

October 2002. 

“Disruptive Technology—Rethinking Your Mental Models,” Forbes Global CEO 

Conference, Singapore, September 19-21, 2001. 

 

“e-Business: The Lessons to Date and Implication to Management Practice, Research 

and Education,” opening lecture of the PriceWaterhouseCoopers Management 

Consultants 

e-Bus Chair at the Graduate School of Business Studies at Katholieke Universiteit 

Leuven, Belgium, February 2001. 

“Reinventing Training for the Global Information Age,” Delphi e-Learning Summit, 

Phoenix, AZ, January 2001. 

“Customerization: The New Management Challenge,” The President’s Forum of the 

Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel, September 2000. 

“e-Transforming an ‘Old Economy’ Business,” Wharton-Singapore Management 

University Conference: e-Business in the New Millennium, July 2000. 

“Creating a University for the Global Information Age,” The Inaugural Lecture of the 

Wharton-Singapore Management University, July 2000. 

“Implications of the New e-Business Environment and Models for Management Research 

and Education,” International Academy of Management, Barcelona Meeting, March 2000. 

“New Trends in Marketing Research,” IDC, Herzliya, March 2000. 

“Reinventing the Business School for the Global Information Age,” plenary session, The 

EFMD Deans and Directors Meeting 2000, Helsinki, Finland, January 2000. 

“Digital Marketing: Implication for the Future of Marketing Management Research and 

Research in Marketing,” plenary session presentation AMA Marketing in the 21 st Century, 

San Francisco, August 1999. 

“Towards a New Marketing Paradigm,” AMA Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference, 


“Creating a 21st Century Enterprise: Implications for Marketing Practice, Research and 

Education,” Keynote Address, 2nd International Workshop on Economics and 

Management, Santiago, Chile, October 1996. 

“Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities,” 

P.A.C. Pharmaceutical Meeting: New Thinking, New Customers. February 28, 1995. 

 

 

“Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities,” The 

Keynote address of The International Conference on AHP Washington, DC, July 11, 1994. 

“AHP in Top Management Decisions,” The Keynote address of The International 

Conference on AHP Washington, DC, July 11, 1994. 

Neuhauf Lecture, “The Impact of Marketing Science on Industry and Academia: 

Applications, Results and Lessons,” at Rice University, March 23, 1994. 

Third Workshop on Marketing and Competitive Advantages with Ambrosetti Group, Milan 

on "The Customer Driven Company: From Concept to Reality,” November 27-28, 1992. 

Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Co-Leadership Council, address on "What a Difference a 

Difference Can Make,” May 1988. 

A special meeting of the Chinese Management Association and the Taiwan Ministry of 

Trade, address on "Marketing to the U.S." (Taipei), July 1985. 

MRCA Conference on "The Affluent Market: New Data and Methodologies in Financial 

Services Planning,” November 1984. 

62


The 1983 ESOMAR congress August 1983 at Barcelona. Keynote address on "The 

contribution of Research to Product Management and New Product Development. 

The 1983 Research and Planning Conference of the Bank Marketing Association. 

Keynote address on the Integration of Marketing into Strategic Planning,” April 1983. 

The 1982 AMA Faculty Consortium on "Industrial Marketing and the Changing 

Environment." Ohio State University, July 1982. 

S.F. Chapter of the AMA, address on "Increasing Marketing Productivity, March 1982. 

Philadelphia Chapter of the AMA, Conference on Market Segmentation, January 1981. 

The First Delaware Valley Meeting of the Product Development and Management 

Association (PDMA), December 1980. 

AMA International Conference Workshop, Philadelphia, June 1978. 

National Agricultural Marketing Association, Philadelphia, March 1977 and February 1978. 

Marketing Planning Conference, The AMA Western Michigan Chapter, Grand Rapids, 

March 1976. 

The 11th Annual "New Horizons in Science,” Conference of the Council for the 

Advancement of Science Writing, New York, November 1973. 

Presented papers at various national conferences of the American Marketing Association, 

December 1967; June and August 1968; August 1969; August 1970; June and August 1974; 

April and August 1975; August 1976; August 1977; June and August 1978; June and August 

1979; June and August 1980; August 1981-1990, March 1990, August 1991; August 1991, April 

1993; February & August 1994, August 1995, August 1996, August 1997, February 1998, 

August 1999. 

Speaker in various conferences and workshops of: 

Association for Consumer Research (ACR), 1968, 1970/1973, 1975, 1977, 1984. 

The Institute of Management Science (TIMS), 1969, 1972, 1974-1978, 1980- . 

American Institute of Decision Sciences (AIDS), 1974, 1976. 

American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 1974/1975. 

American Psychological Association (APA) DIV 23, 1978. 

American Statistical Association (ASA), 1978. 

AMA Philadelphia Chapter, 1980/1981. 

Annual Conference of the Strategic Management Society, 1984. 

Annual Conference of the Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Group (PMRG), 1986, 

1987. 

Annual Conference of the World Future Society Assembly, Washington, D.C., 1993. 

Speaker in a number of the AMA Attitude Research Conferences, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1976, 

1987. 

Member of the Faculty of the AMA Doctoral Consortiums 

University of Colorado, 1996 

University of Santa Clara, 1994 

University of Southern California, 1991 

New York University, 1987 

University of Notre Dame, 1986 

University of Michigan, 1983 

University of Minnesota, 1982 

Pennsylvania State University, 1980 

University of Maryland, 1981 

University of Wisconsin, 1979 

University of Chicago, 1978 

University of Pennsylvania, August 1977 

University of Texas, August 1976 

University of Illinois, September 1971 

63


Member of the AMA Faculty Consortium, Chicago 1997 

Illustrative papers delivered in various professional workshops 

Applications of Multidimensional Scaling to Marketing and Business, sponsored by the 

University of Pennsylvania and Bell Laboratories, June 1972. 

Planning Data for STI Managers, Sponsored by NSF office of Science and Information, 


Synthesis of Knowledge of Consumer Behavior, sponsored by the RANN Program 

National Science Foundation, April 1975. 

Multinational Product Management, sponsored by the Marketing Science Institute and the 

AMA International Marketing Division, January 1976. 

Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, sponsored by the University of South Carolina, 

March 1976. 

Organizational Buying Behavior, sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh, April 1976. 

Consumer Research for Consumer Policy, sponsored by the MIT Center for Policy 

Alternatives, July 1977. 

Analytical Approach to Product-Marketing Planning, sponsored by the AMA and MSI, 

University of Pittsburgh, November 1977, October 1981. 

Interfaces Between Marketing and Economics, sponsored by the University of Rochester, 

1978, 1983. 

Industrial Marketing, Penn State University, May 1982. 

Market Measurement and Analysis, renamed Marketing Science Conference sponsored 

by ORSA/TIMS: 

Centre HEC-ISA, Jouy-en-Josas, France, 1987. 

University of Texas at Dallas, 1986 

Vanderbilt University, 1985 



Wharton, March 1982 

New York University, March 1981 

University of Texas, Austin, March 1980 

Stanford University, March 1979 

Illustrative addresses at various top management conferences and meetings in the U.S. and 

abroad: 

Moderator of Key Issue Forum on Social Media and Brand Opportunities, ARF Re:think 

Conference, New York, NY, March 23, 2010 

“Moving From Me to We: The New Competitive Edge,” Milken Global Conference, Los 

Angeles, April 28, 2008. 

“The Wisdom of Crowds in Today’s Digital World: We vs. Me,” Milken Global Conference, 

Los Angeles, April 23, 2007. 

“Innovation,” Telenet Top Executive Strategic Workshop, June 19, 2006. 

“The 1st Mover Advantage Challenge,” Telenet Top Executive Strategic Workshop, June 

19, 2006. 

“Getting More with Less,” Telenet CEO Strategy Review, June 19-20, 2006. 

“Advances in the Management of Technological Innovation,” Executive Briefing at 

Samsung Electronics, June 2, 2006. 

 

“Brand Names and Logos,” Penn Humanities Forum on Word and Image, February 

2006. 

“New Frontiers in the Practice of Management” with Paul Kleindorfer, CEO Workshops at 

IDC Israel, January 2006. 

“Strategic Trends on the Global Marketplace,” The Sixth Herzliya Conference on The 

Balance of Israel’s National Security, January 2006. 

64


“Recent Developments in Marketing and Branding Strategies,” presented to the Board 

and top management of IDT HK, August 2005. 

“Tapping Opportunity in the Developing World: Innovative Solutions for Companies and 

Communities,” Milken Institute Global Conference, April 2005. 

“Return on Marketing Investment: Progress, Problem, and Prospects,” Council of 

Marketing Executives, The Conference Board, October 6, 2004. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking: A Prerequisite for Profitable Growth,” Milken Institute 

Global Conference, April 27, 2004. 

“The Transformation Challenge,” YPO at SEI, March 2004. 

“Technology for Profitable Growth: Progress, Problems, and Prosperity, eBRC Board of 

Directors meeting, Philadelphia, May 2003. 

“Business and the Pending Wars,” a global senior executive Web conference, February 2003. 

“e-Business Revolution: R2R (Return to Reality),” World Leadership Forum of the Foreign 

Policy Association, New York, September 2000. 

“UNIG Top Executive Forum,” Singapore, August 2000. 

“The Future of the Marketing Organization,” MSI Board of Trustees Meeting, April 2000. 

“Preparing for 2002: Creating a Leading Global Medical Communication Company for the 

21 st Century,” Top Management of Medius Group Int. Paris, May 1997. 

“The Next Enterprise: Creating a Successful 21 st Century Enterprise,” The Hong Kong 

Management Association, January 1996. 

"Building the 21st Century Corporation Today: A Marketing Perspective," A one day 

session for CEOs who participate in the MASTERSHIP program (LA) January 1990. 

"Growth Outlook for Consumer Products and Services" to the policy committee of 

Anheuser-Busch Company, 1986. 

"Marketing Management in Securities Firms" SIA Regional conference, 1986. 

"Recent Developments in Marketing Strategy,” to Dutch top executives by Horringa & 

DeKoning, October 1986. 

A number of 1-day Top Management Seminars organized by Studio Ambrosetti (Italy) 

Developing and Launching New Products (1986) 

Marketing and Corporate Strategy (1987) 

Marketing for Financial Institutions (1987) 

Domestic and International New Business Entry Strategies 1988) 

Strategic Marketing and New Product Development (1989) 

How to Develop Products More Often and Get Them to Market Faster (1991) 

The Consumer Goods Scenario: The Challenge (1992) 

Marketing Driven Bus Strategy in the Global Information Age (2000) 

“The Challenge of Marketing” Board of directors and top management of Grand 

Metropolitan, 1985. 

 

“Advances in marketing and Business Strategies” Top management group of the John 

Fluke Manufacture Co., 1985. 

”Global Marketing Strategies” YPO Chapter of Hong Kong, 1985. 

"Marketing for Hospitals” Hospital presidents program of the J&J Leonard Davis Institute 

program, 1985. 

“Global Marketing Strategies” Top executive group of MARS pet food business, 1984. 

“Marketing for the Evolving Company” Conference on "Financing & Managing the 

Evolving Company" sponsored by Arthur Andersen & Co. and the GSB University of 

Texas at Austin, April 1984. 

Illustrative Other Top Management groups addressed: 

MSI Trustees, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 1983. 

Securities Industry Association Fall Meeting, N.Y., October 1982, Spring Meeting, April 

2000, Homestead, Virginia, May 1982: keynote speaker. 

Three sessions at the 1979 YPO Central Area Conference, Williamsburg, October 1979. 

Two sessions at the YPO International University, Rio de Janeiro, May 1979. 

Two sessions at the 1978 YPO, Eastern/Northeastern Area Conference, Sea Island, 

Georgia, November 1978. 

65


Eastern Pennsylvania Chapter of YPO, October 1978. 

Two-day seminars for top executives of Latin American countries sponsored by 

Expansion Publishing Group, Mexico City, June 1978, (Marketing Strategy); June 1979 

(the Marketing Audit); and December 1980 (Marketing for Top Executives). 

Guest lecturer at faculty research seminars and executive development programs of various 

universities and research institutes, including: 

Bell Laboratories (Applied Statistics Area), 1978 

Columbia University, 1974, 1976-1978 

Drexel University, 1977, 1984 

Erasmus University, The Netherlands, 1993 

Escola de Administrao de Empresas de Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1979 

European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, Brussels 1981 

Florida Atlantic University, 1972 

Harvard University, 1981 

IESE Universidad de Navarra, 1999 

Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, 1989 

INSEAD, France, 1992, 2000 

Institut Superieur des Sciences Economiques et Commerciales, Paris, 1981 

Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 

Kōc University, Turkey, 2000 

Laval University, Canada, 1973 

Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 2001 

Monash University, Australia, 1977 

Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan, 1977 

New York University, 1979, 1984 

Northwestern University, 1980 

Norwegian School of Management, Norway, 1993 

Pennsylvania State University, 1978 

Southern Methodist University, Texas, 1982, 1984, 1986 

Stanford University, 1976, 1982 

State University of New York at Buffalo, 1975 

University of Bradford, 1975-1976 

University of California at Berkeley, 1975 

University of California at Los Angeles, 1976, 1980, 1990 

University of Capetown, S.A., 1982 


University of Groningen, 1986 

University of Houston, 1977 

University of Illinois, 1985 

University of Iowa, 1971 

University of Minnesota, 1973 

University of New South Wales, Australia, 1977 

University of Ottawa, 1974 

University of Pittsburgh, 1988 

University of Social Sciences, Grenoble, France, 1973 


University of Tel Aviv, 1977-1980, 1982 

University of Texas at Austin, 1984, 1997 

University of Tokyo, Japan, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997 

University of Washington, 1979 

Yale University, 1982 

Speaker at various executive programs of the University of Pennsylvania (illustrative list): 

 

“Achieving Profitable Growth Challenging Your Mental Models,” Perry Ellis International, 

December 13, 2010. 

66


“Organizational Networks for Effective Competition in the Flat World”, Tyco Electronics 

Leadership at Wharton, November 16, 2010. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models”, Tyco Electronics Leadership at Wharton, November 

16, 2010. 

“The Challenge of Customer Centricity”, GSK Executive Leadership, November 9, 2010. 

“The Future of Advertising,” Cheil Worldwide, August 30, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Wharton Global Leadership Fellows Program WEF: 

Personal Power and Influence, July 14, 2010. 

“Rethinking Marketing Strategy,” LA CEO Global Program, May 14, 2010. 

“Creating a New Business Paradigm,” LA CEO Global Program, May 10, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” LA CEO Global Program, May 6, 2010. 

“Organizational Networks for Effective Competition,” Tyco, February 4, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Tyco, February 4, 2010. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” ConvaTec, December 16, 2008. 

“Market Driven Strategy,” and “Integrated Global Marketing Strategy,” Newell 

Rubbermaid Marketing Excellence Program, September 17 and 19, and December 10 

and 11, 2008. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” and “Competing in a Flat World in a Time of Crisis,” 

FirstCaribbean Leadership Programme, December 8, 2008. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” ConvaTec, November 12, 2008. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” (3 Sessions) Toyota Executive Development Program, 

July 21, 2008. 

“The Innovation Challenge,” (2 Sessions) Raytheon Executive Leadership Development 

Program, June 9, 2008. 

“Challenging Your Strategic Thinking,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership Strategy 

Program, December 3, 2007. 

“Destroy Your Brand, “Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership Strategy Program, December 

3, 2007. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership Strategy 


“Expand Customers, Value Creation and Diabetic Pathways,” Animas/Lifescan Senior 

Leadership Strategy Program, December 3, 2007. 

“Integrating Strategies and Leveraging Synergies,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership 

Strategy Program, December 3, 2007. 

“Stretch Objectives, Synthesis and Strategy,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership 

Strategy Program, December 3, 2007. 

“Stretch Objectives, Synthesis and Strategy: Regional Prospects,” Animas/Lifescan 

Senior Leadership Strategy Program, December 3, 2007. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership Strategy 


“Action Plans,” Animas/Lifescan Senior Leadership Strategy Program, December 3, 

2007. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” FirstCaribbean Leadership Programme, November 19, 

2007. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” LinKS @ Wharton, November 12, 2007. 

“The Evolving World,” LinKS @ Wharton, November 12, 2007. 

“Innovative Approaches to the Design of Strategy,” LinKS @ Wharton, November 11, 

2007. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Wharton Connect, November 1, 2007. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” Toyota Executive Development Program, September 17, 

2007. 

“Rigor & Relevance: A Key Marketing Challenge,” The Buck Weaver Award 

Presentation, September 7, 2007. 

“Global Branding & Marketing,” TEVA Israel Leading Your Business, June 28, 2007. 

“Leadership Challenges in the Pharmaceutical Industry,” TEVA Israel Leading Your 

Business, June 28, 2007. 

67


“Online Panels: Where We Are Today and Where We Are Headed In The Future,” 

CASRO, June 22, 2007. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking and Global Strategic Management,” CEIBS @ 

Wharton, June 18, 2007. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Alumni Leadership Conference, May 24, 2007. 

“The Creative Economy: Art and Culture at Penn and in Philadelphia,” Penn Arts 

Leadership Conference, May 9, 2007. 

“Network Orchestration,” Network-Based Strategies & Competencies Workshop, May 3, 

2007. 

“Network-Based Strategies and Competencies,” Network-Based Strategies and 

Competencies Workshop, May 3, 2007. 

"Network-Based Strategies and Competencies: Toward a Framework,” Network-Based 

Strategies and Competencies Workshop, May 3, 2007. 

“Wroe Alderson,” 2007 Wroe Alderson Lecture & Reception, April 26, 2007. 

“The Wisdom of Crowds in Today's Digital World We vs. Me,” Milken Global Conference, 

April 23, 2007. 

“The Challenge of Managing Creativity,” The Biological Basis of Creativity: Defense 

Sciences Office Workshop, April 17, 2007. 

“Succeeding in a Flat World,” The Wharton Economic Summit, April 12, 2007. 

“Thought Leadership,” The Wharton Economic Summit, April 12, 2007. 

“Brand Names and Logos: Implications to Language Instruction,” Penn's Language 

Faculty, March 22, 2007. 

“The Future of Management Education,” International Academy of Management @ IMD, 

March 16, 2007. 

“Final Session Reflections and Action Plans,” Wharton Fellows Philadelphia Master 

Class, February 27, 2007. 

“Innovation Strategies for Profitable Growth,” Wharton Fellows Philadelphia Master 

Class Managing in an Evolving World, February 27, 2007. 

“The Evolving World,” Wharton Fellows Philadelphia Master Class, February 27, 2007. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Estée Lauder Companies General Management 

Program, January 28, 2007 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Wharton Staff Workshop, September 12, 2006. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” Toyota Executive Development Program, September 26, 2006. 

“Advances in Innovation Management and New Product Innovation,” LINKS @ Wharton, 

August 26, 2006. 

“Advances in Innovation Management and New Product Innovation,” Quad-C Executive 

Session, July 10, 2006. 

“A View from the Top: The Perspective of the Enlightened CEO,” Wharton Executive 

Leadership Program for AICPCU, April 2005. 

“Challenging Your Industry’s Mental Models,” KPMG Global Insurance Institute, 

December 2003 and November 2004. 

“Market-Driven Organization,” AICPCU and IIA Advanced Executive Education, 

Wharton, September 10, 2003. 

Strategy Discussion with Telenet’s Top Management, March 11, 2003. 

“Organizational Change: Problems, Progress, and Prospect,” Price-Waterhouse- 

Coopers Strategy Master Class, July 26, 2002. 

“Capturing Business Opportunities in a Changing World,” SIA Institute, 50 th Anniversary 

Program, March 2002. 

“Marketing Driven Strategies in a Global Economy,” IBM’s Managing Director Executive 

Development Program, February 2002. 

“Enhancing Creativity and Innovation,” The Wharton e-Fellows I Program, March 2001. 

“World Class Marketing: Implications for Spencer Stuart,” The Wharton/Spencer Stuart 

Leadership Assessment Program, June 2000. 

“Preparing for Leadership in the Changing e-Business Environment,” CEO Circle, May 2000. 

“Innovation and Change in the Turbo-Global Environment: Lessons from the 

Transformation of ‘Old Economy’ Firms [and Universities] and the Challenges to 

68


Congress,” Stennis Congressional Staff Fellows Program on Leadership in e-Business 

Environments: What Congress Might Learn, May 2000. 

Winning in the Next Millennium, “Driving Change,” 1998. 

Stennis Congressional Fellows Program at Wharton, “Driving Change: Creating Winning 

21 st Century Organizations,” 1997. 

Competitive Marketing Strategies, “Preemptive Strategies,” 1997, 1998. 

Sales Force Management Program, “Segmentation and Positioning for Sales Force 

Effectiveness,” 1987, 1990, 1997. 

Healthcare Marketing and Communications, 1996. 

Re Engineering Pharmaceutical Marketing, 1994. 

Executive Development 1992, 1993. 

AMP -- Advanced Management Program, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1997, 1998. 

"Marketing Strategy" in the J&J-Wharton Fellows Program in Management for Nurses, 

1983, 1984, 1985, 1986. 

"Marketing Strategy" in the Delaware Valley Hospital Strategic Planning Program, May 1980. 

 

"New Developments in Social Research,” in the Symposium on Corporate Awareness, 


Speaker at various local and regional meetings of the American Marketing Association, 1967 to 

present, and national meetings of other marketing associations such as the National Account 

Marketing Association, 1973; the International Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Group, 1973; 

The National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions, 1976; American 

Management Association's advanced Marketing Research Seminars, 1967/1968; and the 

Marketing Science Institute conferences and management seminars, 1968-1994. 

Guest speaker at special seminars: 

The Australia and New Zealand Marketing Societies in Sydney and Melbourne, June 1977. 

Various conferences of the Israel Advertisers' Association, The Technion Research and 

Development Foundation, Ltd., The Ministry of commerce and Industry, 1968/1969. 

Foreign market entry and import protection strategies, The Israel Institute of 

Management, October 1984. 

Illustrative Presentations 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Estee Lauder Companies Finance Forum, March, 5, 

2012. 

“Israel Innovation for Global Social Impact: Accomplishments and Opportunities,” 

Wharton Global Webinar, February 3, 2012. 

“Rethinking Marketing and Advertising Research,” FoA Global Advisory Board Meeting, 

December 9, 2011. 

“Lesson From Art & Challenging Your Mental Models,” Daimler Advanced Executive 

Program For Vice Presidents, December 6, 2011. 

“Surviving & Thriving in a Hyper-Connected World: An Ideal Design,” WEF Risk in a 

Hyper-connected World Project, November 13, 2011. 

“Orchestration in a Flat World,” LinKS Next in Line @ Wharton, November 10, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” LinKS Next in Line @ Wharton, November 10, 2011. 

“Background Discussion for GIP Israel Program,” GIP Israel Program, November 8, 

2011. 

“From Firm Centric to Network Orchestration,” MARS, November 8, 2011. 

“Conversations with MARS Catalyst & Marketing Lab, MARS, November 8, 2011. 

“Designing TV Commercials That Maximize Social Diffusion,” MARS, November 8, 2011. 

“Setting the Scene and Program Introduction,” LinKS Global Executive Program @ 

Wharton, November 7, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models in the Age of Empowered Consumers and Networks,” 

SEI Executive Network, November 2, 2011. 

69


“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Estee Lauder Companies Global Marketing 

Symposium, November 1, 2011. 

“Director’s Report,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 28, 2011. 

“Toward a New Mental Model of Advertising: Implications to Orchestration, Business & 

Revenue Models,” FoA Orchestration Session, October 27, 2011. 

“Creativity,” AMP, October 26, 2011. 

“Argentina & Brazil: Insights and Opportunities,” The Wharton Fellows at the 

Conference Board: San Paulo Master Class, October 13, 2011. 

“Argentina & Brazil: Insights and Opportunities,” The Wharton Fellows at the 

Conference Board: Buenos Aires Master Class, October 9, 2011. 

“The Myth of the Four-Minute Mile and its Implication to B2B Marketing,” Google’s Think 

B2B: Deconstructing Today’s B2B Customers, October 6, 2011. 

“Challenging Your B2B Mental Models,” Google’s Think B2B: Deconstructing Today’s 

B2B Customers, October 6, 2011. 

“The Future of Advertising,” Havas/Euro University Leadership Excellence Program, 

October 4, 2011. 

“Managing Change in Higher Education: Challenges, Approaches & Action Plans,” 

NACUBO Conference on Managing Change, September 30, 2011. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” IDC @ Wharton, September 19, 2011. 

“Marketing and Business Strategies in the Age of the Empowered Consumer,” IDC @ 

Wharton, September 19, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” LinKS@Wharton WWI, September 15, 2011. 

“Setting the Scene and Program Introduction,” LinKS@Wharton WII: Global Business, 

Alliances, Welfare,” September, 12, 2011.” 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Austria Connect, September 9, 2011. 

“The Future of Advertising,” Cheil Worldwide, Global Marketing Program, September 6, 

2011. 

 

 

 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” WEF Wharton Global Leadership Fellows Program: 

Personal Power and Influence, July 13, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models: The What, Why, How and Beyond,” IBM Wharton 

Executive Forum, July 11, 2011. 

“Growth, Interactive Marketing and Business Strategies in the Age of the Empowered 

Consumer,” Wharton Global Alumni Forum, June 24, 2011. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Wharton & Citi Asia: Leadership Program, June 21, 

2011. 

“The Challenge of Creativity,” AMP, June 20, 2011. 

 

 

“Marketing and Business Strategy in the Age of the Empowered Consumer,” SEI Private 

Banking Executive Network, June 16, 2011. 

“Marketing and Business Strategy in the Age of the Empowered Consumer,” Wharton 

Fellows @ The Conference Board: Fellows Breakfast & Program, June 3, 2011. 

“Rethinking Your Innovation and NPD Strategies,” IDC’s CEO Forum, May 24, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” NESS Executive Session and IDC, May 23, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Perry Ellis Session, May 17, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” PMA BP CFO Executive Module 3, May 9, 2011. 

“MSI- The Philadelphia Story,” MSI 50 th Anniversary, April 26, 2011. 

“Marketing Communication in the Digital Era,” MSI 50 th Anniversary, April 26, 2011. 

 

 

The Future of Brand Building and Brand Experience: Blurring Boundaries Between 

Advertising and Retailing,” Workshop Session with the Jay H. Baker Retailing Initiative, 

April 21, 2011. 

“The Challenge of Ethical Leadership Lessons from ‘Inside Job’,” The Leadership in 

Film Series, April 20, 2011. 

“The Challenge of Ethical Leadership,” Leadership in Film Series, April 11, 2011. 

“Think with Google,” Think with Google, April 11, 2011. 

“The Future of Sports Advertising,” WSBI Alumni Advisory Committee Mtg, April 7, 2011. 

 

 

“The Future of Marketing & Advertising: An opportunity for Preeminence,” Wharton 

External Affairs Director’s Meeting, March 21, 2011. 

Should We Challenge our Mental Models of Creative,” FoA Future of Creatives and 

70


Creative Ideas in a Digital World, March 18, 2011. 

The Future of Sports Advertising, Innovations and Experiments with Multi Touch Point 

Portfolios,” Leverage Sports Agency, March 16, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models of Advertising,” Austrian Executive “Future of 

Advertising” Program, March 7, 2011. 

“Organizational Networks for Effective Competition in the Flat World, Leadership 

Development Program at Wharton, February 28, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models, Tyco Electronics Leadership Development Program, 

February 28, 2011. 

“The Future of Advertising, The Wharton Club of London, February 18, 2011. 

“Marketing and Business Strategies in the Age of the Empowered Consumer,” The 

Wharton Club of London, February 15, 2011. 

“Marketing: What’s Next,” Wharton Fellows at the Conference Board: Philadelphia 

Master Class, January 22, 2011. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models” Wharton Fellows at the Conference Board: 

Philadelphia Master Class, January 21, 2011. 

“Insights from The Wharton Future of Advertising Project” Wharton Fellows at the 

Conference Board: Philadelphia Master Class, January 20, 2011. 

“Accelerating & Improving GTM Strategies Via Effective Experimentation,” SEI 

Marketing Group Meeting, January 2011. 

“Revitalizing Brands and Reinventing Marketing,” SEI, December 14, 2010. 

“Getting the Most Out of Your Interactive Marketing Dollars,” Wharton Club of Southern 

California, November 18, 2010. 

“Israel: Insights and Opportunities: Background Discussion for GIP Israel Program,” 

GIP Israel Program, November 16, 2010. 

“Career Panel,” Wharton Marketing Conference, November 12, 2010. 

“Go To Market Strategies 10 Interrelated Questions” SEI Marketing Leaders Workshop, 

November 9, 2010. 

“Innovation in Retailing: Progress, Problems and Prospects”, Discussion at the Jay H. 

Baker Retailing Center, October 28, 2010. 

“The Future of Advertising”, Havas/Euro University Leadership Excellence Program, 

October 26, 2010. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models”, IDC at Wharton, October 18, 2010 

“Management Education 2020”, Wharton Combined Boards Meeting, October 15, 2010. 

“The Network Challenge,” SEI Executive Network, June 28, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” 10th LinKS Wharton Program, June 9, 2010. 

“Business Models of the Future,” 10th LinKS Wharton Program, June 9, 2010. 

“The Network Challenge,” SEI Connections Conference, June 8, 2010. 

“Making the Case for Israel,” IDC Panel Discussion, Israel, May 26, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Mellanox Technologies, Israel, May 25, 2010. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Discount Bank, Israel, May 25, 2010. 

“The Future of Advertising is Now,” IESE, May 17, 2010. 

“Marketing of Israel,” Gratz College, May 6, 2010 

“7 Advertising Myths,” M Factor, May 5, 2010. 

“7 Advertising Myths,” Wharton Alumni Webinar, April 22, 2010. 

“Global Business Branding,” America-Israel Chamber of Commerce, April 14, 2010. 

“Future of Advertising,” Future of Advertising Project Global Advisory Board Working 

 

Session, March 10, 2010. 

“Marketing Implications of the Changing Economy,” AMA Winter Marketing Conference, 

February 20, 2010. 

“Perspectives on the Changing Economy,” AMA Session, February 20, 2010. 

“Leveraging Social Media,” The Fox Chase Cancer Center Leadership, December 15, 

2009. 

“Challenging Our Mental Models,” Jay H Baker Advisory Board Meeting, November 30, 

2009. 

 

“Profitable Growth Opportunities in times of Crisis and Rebirth,” Jay H Baker Advisory 

Board Meeting, November 30, 2009. 

71


“Marketing Innovation: Reinventing your Marketing and New Product Launch,” Marketing 

Management Program, MA Industries, IDC, November 23, 2009. 

“Challenging the Mental Models of Top Management,” IDC's CEO Forum, November 19, 

 

2009. 

“Future of Advertising: Progress and Prospects,” Board Meeting of Ehrenberg-Bass 

Institute, November 10, 2009. 

“The Network Challenge,” SEI PB&T Management Team, November 9, 2009. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” Wharton Combined Boards Meetings, October 23, 

2009. 

“Reinventing Marketing,” IDC/CEIBS@Wharton, October 21, 2009. 

“Challenging your Mental Models,” IDC/CEIBS@Wharton, October 15, 2009. 

 

“Director’s Report and 20th Anniversary Report,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, 

October 9, 2009. 

“Opportunities in Times of Crisis,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 9, 2009. 

“Reinventing Management Education,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 9, 

2009. 

“Research and Action Agenda,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 9, 2009. 

“Socially Responsible Capitalism Approaches to Improving Business and Government 

Relations,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 9, 2009. 

“The Future of Advertising Project and The New Marketing Channel,” SEI Center Annual 

Board Meeting, October 9, 2009. 

“The Network Challenge,” SEI Center Annual Board Meeting, October 9, 2009. 

“The Future of Advertising Project (Project Update),” Future of Advertising Project Global 

Advisory Board Meeting, October 8, 2009. 

“Future of Management and Management Education,” SEI Center Annual Board 

Meeting, October 8, 2009. 

“The Financial Crisis and the Changing Relationship between Business and 

Government,” Chiefs of Staff Meeting, September 15, 2009. 

“Leveraging the PMA's Marketing and Pricing Strategies,” A Discussion on Reverse 

Marketing for the PMA, July 20, 2009. 

“The Challenge of Marketing Israel,” Wharton Alumni Club of Pacific Palisades, July 8, 

2009. 

“What We Know about Advertising: Implications for Management and Measurement,” 

Audience Measurement 4.0, June 24, 2009. 

“Opportunities in Times of Crisis,” Baker Retailing Initiative, June 23, 2009. 

 

“Member Managed Relationship: Opportunities for Growth,” AAA Management Meeting, 

June 11, 2009. 

“Business Models of the Future: Orchestrating Alliances,” LinKS@Wharton, June 10, 

2009. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” LinKS@Wharton, June 10, 2009. 

“New Mental Models for Capitalizing on Opportunities in Times of Crisis,” 

LinKS@Wharton, June 10, 2009. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Partner, June 2, 2009. 

“Innovation and Creativity in Time of Crisis,” The Israeli Innovation Forum at IDC, May 

31, 2009. 

“Opportunities in Reinventing Marketing,” Wharton Fellows, May 18, 2009. 

“Opportunities In Times of Crisis,” Wharton Fellows, May 17, 2009. 

“Approaches for Redesigning the Total Wharton Experience,” The Wharton School, May 

15, 2009. 

“Opportunities In Times of Crisis and Recession,” Knowledge@Wharton Advisory Board, 

May 14, 2009. 

“Progress, Problems, and Prospects,” Wharton Fellows, May 12, 2009. 

“SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management,” Wharton External Affairs Meeting, 

May 8, 2009. 

“The Changing Business Environment: Context for the Strategic Review,” SEI EPS 

Meeting, May 5, 2009. 

“Creating a New Business Paradigm,” Latin America CEO Program, April 27, 2009. 

72


“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Latin America CEO Program, April 27, 2009. 

“Global Economic Crisis,” Latin America CEO Program, April 26, 2009. 

“Latin America CEO Global Program Philadelphia Segment Introduction,” Latin America 

CEO Program, April 26, 2009. 

“The Challenge of Marketing Israel,” Israeli MBA Conference, April 19, 2009. 

“Marketing Research in Times of Crisis,” Navigating a New World Conference hosted by 

Greater NY and Phila Marketing Research Association, April 16, 2009. 

“Growth and Leadership in a Changing World,” SEI Meeting, April 7, 2009. 

“Growth and Leadership in a Changing World,” SEI EPS Meeting, April 7, 2009. 

“Wharton Combined Boards Meeting Spring 2009 Opening Plenary Session,” Wharton 

Combined Boards Meeting, April 2, 2009. 

“Empirical Generalizations in Advertising: What We Know, Don’t Know, Can’t Know, and 

Should Know,” Rethink The ARF Annual Convention, March 31, 2009. 

“Marketing Strategy Discussion Guideline,” PhD Seminar, March 27, 2009. 

“Some Observations on the Changing Retail Scene,” The Wharton Retail Club Seminar 

on Industry Trends, March 18, 2009. 

“Future of Advertising Project Overview,” The Wharton School, February 13, 2009. 

“Can We Brand Our Customers and Not Our Products?” MPlanet, January 27, 2009. 

“Competing in a World of Network Orchestration: Implications For Marketing,” MPlanet, 

January 27, 2009. 

“IKI – Israel Korea Initiative,” IDC Discussion Guideline, January 9, 2009. 

“Taking Stock of Existing Advertising Empirical Generalizations,” Wharton Impact 

Empirical Generalizations in Advertising Conference, December 4, 2008. 

“Is Marketing Driving Your Business Strategy?,” The Conference Board 2008 Marketing 

Excellence Conference, November 13, 2008. 

“Network Orchestration and Open Innovation Models,” SEI Center Board Meeting, 


“The Future of Advertising if NOW: Project Overview and Update,” SEI Center Board 

Meeting, November 6, 2008. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” linKS @ Wharton, October 27, 2008. 

“Competing in a Flat World,” The Wharton Club of Monterrey, October 12, 2008. 

“Islam and the West: Challenging Your Mental Models,” Wharton Fellows Dubai Master 

Class, October 12, 2008. 

“The Future of Advertising is NOW,” Cheil Communications Project Based Learning in 

Marketing, August 19, 2008. 

“Creative Thinking and Action,” Toyota Executive Development Program, July 21, 2008. 

“Addressing the Challenges of Competing in a Flat World,” Li & Fung Management 

Group, July 10, 2008. 

“The Innovation Challenge,” Raytheon Executive Leadership Development Program, 

June 9, 2008. 

“Competing in a Flat World,” Wharton Club of Madrid, June 4, 2008. 

“Making Your Way in the New Flat World Economy,” CASRO International Research 

Conference, May 6, 2008. 

“Competing in a Flat World,” Wharton Club of Southern CA, April 24, 2008. 

“Wharton Fellows Philadelphia Master Class: Innovation and Creativity,” Wharton 

Fellows, April 6, 2008. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Wharton Fellows, April 6, 2008. 

“Philadelphia Master Class: The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Wharton Connect, April 

3, 2008. 

“Selling Scents: Innovative Approaches to the Age Old Selling Challenge in a Flat World 

of Empowered Consumers,” The Fragrance Foundation Conference, March 12, 2008. 

“Competing in a Flat World,” Wharton Fellows, February 26, 2008. 

“Competing in a Flat World,” Wharton Club of NY, February 5, 2008. 

“Challenging the Current MBA,” January 1, 2008. 

“IDC@Wharton Summary and Reflections,” IDC@Wharton EMBA Program, October 19, 

2007. 

73


“Wharton Fellows Getting the Most out of Silicon Valley: “The Next Big Thing,” Wharton 

Fellows Silicon Valley, October 14, 2007. 

“The Future of Advertising,” SEI Center Board Meeting, November 16, 2007. 

“Network-Based Strategies and Competencies,” SEI Center Board Meeting, November 

16, 2007. 

“Network Orchestration: Core Competencies for a Borderless World,” Wharton-INSEAD 

Impact Conference: Network-Based Strategies and Competencies, November 9, 2007. 

“Advances in New Product Development and Innovation,” Mutual Art Lecture Series, 


“Rigor & Relevance: A Key Marketing Challenge,” The Buck Weaver Award 

Presentation, September 7, 2007. 

“Online Panels: Where We Are Today and Where We Are Headed in the Future,” 

CASRO, June 22, 2007. 

“The Creative Economy,” Art and Culture at Penn and in Philadelphia, Penn Arts 

Leadership Conference, May 9, 2007. 

“Network Orchestration,” Network-Based Strategies & Competencies Workshop, May 3, 

2007. 

“The Challenge of Managing Creativity,” The Biological Basis of Creativity: Defense 

Sciences Office Workshop, April 17-18, 2007. 

“Succeeding in a Flat World,” The Wharton Economic Summit, Philadelphia, April 12, 

2007. 

“Brand Names and Logos: Implications to Language Instruction,” Penn’s Language 

Faculty, March 22, 2007. 

“The Future of Management Education,” International Academy of Management @ IMD, 

March 22, 2007. 

“The Future of Management Education,” International Academy of Management @ IMD 

Lausanne, Switzerland, March 16, 2007. 

“Innovation Strategies for Profitable Growth,” Wharton Fellows Philadelphia Master 

Class Managing in an Evolving World, February 27, 2007. 

“Web 2.0 & Social Networking: Implications for Management,” The Worldwide J&J 

Diabetes Franchise Leadership Team, January 3, 2007. 

“The Future of the Corporation Survey Results,” SEI Center Board Meeting, November 

16, 2006. 

“The Future of the Corporation: Vision, Objectives, Strategy, Architecture, and 

Governance,” SEI Center Board Meeting, November 17, 2006. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking: Implications for OD,” Organizational Development 

Network of Greater NYC, October 17, 2006. 

“Should the Alumni Leadership Challenge their Mental Models?” Alumni Leadership 

Conference, October 14, 2006. 

“Perspectives on Research: Innovation, Impact, and Fun,” The Joseph Wharton 

Scholars Senior Research Seminar, October 11, 2006. 

“Reinventing the MBA,” Panelist at the MBA Roundtable Session on MBA 2020: 

Curricular Innovation for Tomorrow’s Business School,” October 6, 2006. 

“Customer Value: Strategies for the Long Term,” Marketing Precision Conference: The 

Value of Marketing, September 27, 2006. 

“Does Korean Marketing Need Reform?” Korean Marketing Club, Seoul, June 5, 2006. 

“Redefining Marketing for the 21 st Century,” Wharton Club of Korea, Seoul, June 3, 2006. 

“Advances in the Management of Technological Innovation,” Executive Briefing at 

Samsung Electronics, June 2, 2006. 

“WSP Editorial Board: Focused on Addressing the Challenges,” WSP Editorial Board 

Meeting, April 10, 2006. 

“The Changing Nature of Corporations: Competing in a Flat World,” organizer and chair 

of a panel at the Milken Institute Global Conference, April 2006. 

“Challenging Your Mental Models,” Wharton's Business Initiative re: Building Winning an 

Profitable Organization in Professional Team Sports, March 19, 2006. 

“Brand Names and Logos,” Penn Humanities Forum on Word and Image, February 2006. 

74


“New Frontiers in the Practice of Management” with Paul Kleindorfer, CEO Workshops 

at IDC Israel, February 2006. 

“Strategic Trends on the Global Marketplace,” The Sixth Herzliya Conference on the 

Balance of Israel’s National Security, January 2006. 

“Creativity – A Must for Marketing Success,” back-to-class session at the 2005 Wharton 

Marketing Conference, October 28, 2005. 

“How Should Directors Think About Directing?” The Governance Summit, October 27, 

2005. 

“The Management Challenges: Initial Responses,” SEI Center Board Meeting, October 

7, 2005. 

“Toward a New Theory of the Firm,” SEI Center Board Meeting, October 7, 2005. 

“Wharton School Publishing and the Power of Impossible Thinking,” Presentation to the 

Board of the Jay H. Baker Retailing Initiative, October 6, 2005. 

“An Extended Example of New Risks and their Management in Supply Chains,” SEI 

Meeting, September 26, 2005.. 

“Adaptive Experimentation” The Sammy Ofer School of Communications and 

Information,” IDC Herzliya, September 9, 2005. 

“Recent Developments in Marketing and Branding Strategies,” IDC Board of Directors 

Meeting, August 25, 2005. 

“Barcelona 2020: Strategic Options and Action Plans,” The Barcelona Group 

Philadelphia Meeting, July 18, 2005. 

“DEWARS Premium: Challenges, Strategic Options and Action Plans,” Dewars New 

York, July 16, 2005. 

“The Lauder Institute: 1984-2005: A Reexamination,” The Lauder Institute, July 12, 

2005. 

“Decision Aiding Technologies and the New Theory of the Firm,” with Paul Kleindorfer, 

Mack Center for Technological Innovation Conference on Using Technology to Improve 

Decision Making, May 27, 2005. 

The Silver Lining: Seeing Opportunities in Risk,” Recent Advances in Operations and 

Risk Management Conference in Honor of Paul Kleindorfer, May 2005. 

“Effective Marketing Planning: What It Is and How to Produce It,” JCCA Conference, 

April 2005. 

“Strategic Shifts and the Balance of National Security: Summation,” J. K. Herzliya 

Conference, Israel, December 2004. 

“Return on Marketing Investment: Progress, Problems and Prospects,” Address to the 

CMO Group of the conference board, October 6, 2004. 

“Challenges of Identifying, Developing, and Capturing Opportunities: A Fresh Look at 

Marketing,” SEI Center Board Meeting, October 1, 2004. 

“Thought Leadership Survey Results,” Presentation to WSP Editorial Board, October 2004. 

“Challenging the Mental Models of Marketing,” A State of Marketing Symposium, Does 

Marketing Need Reform? Boston, August 9, 2004. 

“Growth Strategies and New Mental Models,” Wharton Fellows, August 2003. 

“The Interdisciplinary Challenge of Marketing,” Ph.D. Proseminar, February 2003. 

“Business and the Coming War on Iraq,” Webcast with Wharton Fellows, February 2003. 

“Convergence Marketing: Strategies for Reaching the New Hybrid Consumers,” a 

Webcast of the University of Wisconsin Consortium for Global e-commerce, January 

2003 and a Soundview Teleconference, May 2003. 

“Managing the Complexities of the Convergent and Multi-Channel Marketing,” CMO 

Summit, October 30, 2002. 

“Assessing Vulnerabilities,” System Approaches to Terrorism Conference at George 

Washington University, July 15, 2002. 

“Marketing Driven Strategies for Today’s Economy,” presentation at Alumni Weekend, 

May 2002. 

“Pioneer and Late Entrants: Winning Strategies,” Viagra, Cardura, Darifenacin WWT 

Meeting, April 9, 2002. 

“Wharton on the New Reality of Business: Insights from Our Experience,” presentation 

with Robert Mittelstaedt to the Wharton Combined Boards, March 8, 2002. 

75


“The Interdisciplinary Challenge of Convergence Marketing,” Wharton Ph.D. Proseminar, 

March 8, 2002. 

“Marketing Driven Strategies in a Global Economy,” IBM’s Managing Director’s 

Executive Development Program, February 13, 2002. 

“Should You Have a Chief Marketing Officer?” January 2002. 

“Target Audience, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy – A Marketing Perspective,” 

Balance of National Strength and Security – The Herzliya Conference, December 2001. 

“Capturing Opportunities and Developing New Mental Models,” Wharton on the New 

Business Reality, December 2001. 

“Capturing Opportunities in the Post 9/11 Reality,” The Wharton Club of Israel, 


“Research Challenges in the Management of Extreme Events: The Case of the Office 

Homeland Security,” with Paul Kleindorfer, Advisory Board Meeting of the Wharton 

Managing and Financing Extreme Event Project, December 2001. 

“The 5 Cs of Marketing: Capitalizing on the New Opportunities of Convergence 

Marketing,” The Wharton Club-Atlanta, GA, November 2001. 

“Advances in Customer Focused Marketing and Business Strategy: The 5 Cs of 

Convergence Marketing,” The International Academy of Management, Claremont 

Graduate University, November 2001. 

“Capturing Internet Opportunities Above the Low-Hanging Fruit,” Business Week 

“Rethinking the Internet,” Conference, Chicago, October 2001. 

“What Keeps Us Up At Night?: Post 9/11 Survey of US CEOs – Top Line Results,” SEI 

Center Board, October 2001. 

“Disruptive Technology—Rethinking Your Mental Models,” Forbes Global CEO 

Conference, Singapore, September 2001. 

“Making Strategy Happen: Problems, Progress and Proposed Actions for Winning in the 

Changing Global Information Age,” Li & Fung Distribution Annual Conference, Hong 

Kong, July 2001. 

“Convergence Marketing: A New Marketing Strategy for the Global e-Business 

Environment,” The Wharton European Forum, May 2001. 

“The e-Bus Challenge,” the Top Executives of the Bank of East Asia, March 2001. 

“Globalization of Technology Startups,” Wharton-Israel Global Alumni Conference on the 

Globalization of Technology Intensive Business-Panel 5, March 2001. 

“Global Business Strategy of a Technology Start Up,” Wharton-Israel Global Alumni 

Conference, March 2001 

“Developing a Strategy,” ICA Board, March 2001. 

“e-Bus: The Curriculum and Research Challenge: A Discussion with Jerry Wind,” Faculty 

Seminar, Graduate School of Business Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 

Belgium, February 2001. 

“Driving Change: New Business Models for the Global Digital Age,” Opening Lecture of 

the PriceWaterhouse Coopers Management Consultants, e-Business Chair, Graduate 

School of Business Chair, Graduate School of Business Studies, Katholieke Universiteit 

Leuven, Belgium, February 2001. 

“Reinventing Training for the Global Information Age,” Delphi e-Learing Conference, 

January 2001. 

“The Impact of the e-Bus Revolution on the Marketing Discipline,” Wharton Fellows in e- 

Business, The Impact on the Discipline, December 2000. 

“Whither System Thinking: Will Taking a Marketing Perspective be an Oxymoron?,” Inaugural 

Conference of the Achoff Center for Advanced Systems Appraisal, September 2000. 

“New Marketing Rules for e-Business Success,” UNIG, Singapore, August 2000. 

“New Marketing Rules for the Global Information Age,” IBM Global Services Academic 

Conference, August 2000. 

“Creating an e-Business,” Wharton-Singapore Management University Conference: e- 

Business in the New Millennium, July 2000. 

“Marketing Driven Business Strategy in the Global Information Age,” Managing Change in 

the New Millennium, Wharton-Singapore Management University Conference, July 2000. 

76


“Digital Marketing: Towards a New Paradigm for the Global Information Age,” Faculty 

Session-INSEAD, France, June 2000. 

“Innovation and Change in the Turbo—Global Environment: Lessons from the 

Transformation of ‘Old Economy’ Firms [and Universities] and The Challenges to 

Congress,” Stennis Congressional Staff Fellows Program on Leadership in e-Business 

Environments: What Congress Might Learn, Washington D.C., May 2000. 

“A New Marketing Paradigm for the Global e-Business Environment: A Catalyst for 

Bridging the Gaps,” Building Bridges & Broadening Perspectives: A Paradigm for the 

Next Millennium, 29 th EMAC Conference, Rotterdam, May 2000. 

“Preparing for Leadership in the Changing e-Business Environment,” CEO Circle, May 2000. 

“Building Communities,” Virtual Communities and the Internet, April 2000. 

“Valuation: Valuable or Value Less,” Entering the Virtual Millennium, Wharton North 

American Regional Forum, April 2000. 

“The Future of the Marketing Organization,” The Future of the Marketing Organization, 

MSI Board of Trustees Meeting, Cambridge, Massaschusetts, April 2000. 

“Research Priorities in e-Commerce and Internet Marketing,” Web Consortium, 

Pennsylvania State University’s ISBM, March 2000. 

“Marketing Driven Business Strategy in the Global Information Age,” Studio Ambrosetti’s 

top executive seminar in Padova and Milan, March 2000. 

“Customization Strategies for Financial Services in the Global Information Age,” the 

Citigroup and Simon Graduate School conference on Electronic Banking Commerce, 

New York. February 17-18, 2000. 

“Emerging Trends in the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Expected Scenarios,” 

Innovative Managed Care Contracting, January 2000. 

“Marketing Science: Accomplishments and Challenges in the Global Information Age,” 

Informs, November 1999. 

“Towards a Research Agenda in E-Commerce and Internet Marketing,” AMA Educators’ 

Conference, San Francisco, August 1999. 

“Creativity and Innovation,” in Wharton Workshop on Creativity and Knowledge Creation, 

April 1999. 

“Innovation Strategy,” New Product Development and Launch, April 1999. 

“Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age: Implications for Research and 

Modeling,” PhD. And Faculty Seminar IESE Universidad de Navarra, Barcelona, March 

8, 1999. 

“Marketing Research in the Global Information Age: Practice, Problems, and Prospects,” 

Wharton-IDC Marketing Communications Program, March 1999. 

“Implementation and Feasibility Issues of New Forms of Organizations: A Marketing 

Perspective,” Wharton Impact Conference, March 1999. 

“Implementation and Feasibility Issues of New Forms of Organizations: A Marketing 

Perspective,” Wharton Impact Conference, March 1999. 

“A Marketing Perspective on Communitarian Policies,” The Communitarian Summit, 

Washington, D.C., February 28, 1999. 

“The Information Revolution and the Emerging Management Education Paradigm,” On 

Line Educa, Berlin, December 1998. 

“Towards a New Management Education Paradigm,” IDC Faculty Workshop, June 1998. 

“An Extended Marketing Perspective on Corporate Architecture for the 21 st Century,” 

Japan Marketing Association, World Marketing Conference, Tokyo, April 1998. 

“Winning the high Tech Wars: Strategies for Driving Change,” NEC Management Team, 

Tokyo, April 1998. 

“The Challenge of Customer-Driven Product and Service Customization,” Senior 

management of Convatec, March 1998. 

“Towards a New Marketing Paradigm,” AMA Winter Marketing Educators=Conference, 


“Positioning and Segmentation in the Global Information Age,” IMS Marketing 

Management Meeting, January 1998. 

“The Challenge of Market Leadership,” Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Devices Group, 

January 1998. 

77


“Driving Change: Preparing for the 21 st Century,” Business Writers=Seminar, December 1997. 

“Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age,” AMP Program, October 1997. 

“Integration of Marketing and other Business Functions: The Wharton Experience,” 

AMA: 1997 Faculty Consortium B Chicago, August 1997. 

“Positioning and Segmentation Opportunities for Synergy and Growth,” Cognizant 

Group’s Marketing Council, July 1997. 

“Preemptive Strategies,” Wharton Executive Education Competitive Marketing 

Strategies, June 1997. 

“Creative Joint Ventures and the Potential Role of the University,” Philadelphia-Israeli 

Chamber of Commerce, June 1997. 

“Communicating and Marketing Your Excellence,” Volunteer Committees of Art 

Museums - VCAM Conference, Philadelphia, April 1997. 

“The Challenge of Information Technology to Marketing and Retailing in the 21st 

Century,” University of Tokyo, April 1997. 

“Toward a New Corporate Governance Model: Lessons from the Japanese and U.S. 

Experience,” With Masaru Yoshitomi, the Corporate Governance Workshop, March 1997. 

“Creating a Leading Global Medical Communication Company for the 21st Century,” 

Medicus Group International, Inc., March 1997. 

“Segmentation and Positioning for Sales Force Effectiveness,” Sales Force 

Management, Wharton Executive Education, March 1997. 

“Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age: Implications for Modeling and 

Research,” Ph.D. Proseminar, March 1997. 

“Choices and Strategies for Universities in the Global Information Age,” Provosts 

Seminar on Information, February 1997. 

“The Use of Conjoint Analysis-Based Survey to Determine Consumer Price Elasticities,” 

Debriefing Session for the Anti-Trust Division, Washington, D.C., February 1997. 

“The Challenge of Competitive Strategies in the Global Information Age,” The 

Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Business, Law and Technology, Herzliya, Israel, 


“Innovation and New Product Development,” Tutorial at the 2nd International Workshop, 

Santiago, Chile, October 1996. 

“Creating a 21st Century Enterprise,” Universidad Adolfo Ibanez, Vina del Mar, Chile, 

October 1996. 

“Marketing: The State of the Art,” Conference of the 2nd International Workshop on 

Economics and Management, Santiago, Chile, October 1996. 

The Technology Challenges for Family Business,” Technology Day: The Web, The 

Future and You, the 1996 Family Firm Institute Conference, October 1996. 

“Innovative New Product and Service Development: Best Practice and Opportunities for 

Experimentation,” The Israel-North America Business Conference, New York, October 

1996. 

“Creating a 21st Century Enterprise: Implications for Boards of Directors,” Enhance 

Board of Directors, September 1996. 

“Innovation in New Product Development: Best Practice in Research, Modeling and 

Applications,” Presentation to the JMR Editorial Board on the Special issue, August 1996. 

“Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age: Implications for Research and 

Modeling,” AMA 1996 Doctoral Consortium, July 1996. 

“Creativity and Innovation: The Management Edge in the Technological Age,” the First 

Wind Lecture at the Interdisciplinary University of Law, Management and Technology 

(ISRAEL), May 1996. 

Address on Issues in Marketing Research for Legal Cases: Necessity of Using controls 

and the Propriety and Risk of Repetitive Probes,” Marketing and Public Policy 

Conference, Washington, D.C., May 1996. 

“Innovation and New Product and Business Development,” CEO Circle, May 10, 1996. 

“Segmentation in the Global Information Age: Accomplishments, Problems and 

Challenges,” The 1996 Converse Award Presentation, May 7, 1996. 

“Advances in Marketing,” Janssen Pharmaceutica, April 18, 1996. 

78


“Marketing in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities,” 

Keynote Address, Healthcare Marketing and Communications Council and Wharton 

Executive Education, Wharton School, April 8, 1996. 

“The Stakeholder Challenge for Increased European Competitiveness,” Wharton 

European Forum, (London, England), March 29, 1996. 

“Product Launch,” Software Development and Marketing for Competitive Advantage, IC 2 , 

The University of Texas Conference, March 20, 1996. 

“The Next Enterprise: Creating a Successful 21st Century Enterprise Today,” The Hong 

Kong Management Association, January 12, 1996. 

“Toward Virtual Management Education,” International Academy of Management 

(Boston, MA), December 8, 1995. 

“Business in the Global Information Age,” The Interdisciplinary Center of Business, Law 

and Technology, December 3, 1995. 

“Marketing Issue in the Global Economy,” Wharton Doctoral Consortium, August 11, 

1995. 

“A View of Marketing Through the Prism of the 1977 and 1995 Doctoral Consortia,” 

Wharton School, Doctoral Consortium, August 8, 1995. 

“Toward a New Marketing Paradigm,” Ambrosetti Group’s A.F. Meeting (Rome, Italy), 

March 8, 1995. 

“Toward a New Marketing Paradigm: Lessons From and Implications to the Marketing of 

Services,” Ambrosetti Group’s Chief Executive Seminar (Milan, Italy), March 7, 1995. 

“The Value of Marketing Program,” Janssen Pharmaceutica, January 9, 1995. 

"The Virtual University: Research and Action Agenda,” The Virtual University 

Conference, SEI Center, January 12, 1995. 

"Marketing 2000,” AIMSE/Wharton Investment Institute, January 13, 1995. 

"Beyond Brand Management,” Wharton MBA Marketing Club, January 23, 1995. 

“A New Management Paradigm for the 21st Century Enterprise,” Conference of the 

International Academy of Management, December 9, 1994. 

“Research Priorities in Marketing as Derived From the SEI Center for Advanced Studies 

in Management Work on Creating Successful 21st Century Enterprises,” Doctoral 

Proseminar, November 16, 1994. 

“Creating a Successful 21st Century Enterprise: Implications for Business and Marketing 

Theory, Practice, Research and Education,” The University of Tokyo, November 4, 1994. 

“State of the World: Trades, Problems and Prospects,” YPO Philadelphia Chapter 

University, The Cloister, September 1994. 

“Is Your Marketing Obsolete? Implications of the New Marketing Paradigm for Business 

and Non-profit Organizations,” YPO Philadelphia Chapter University, The Cloister, 

September 1994. 

“The Value of Marketing: A Research Agenda,” Value of Marketing Conference, Stanford 

University, August 9, 1994. 

“Electronic Commerce: Progress and Prospects,” AMA Conference, San Francisco, 

August 8, 1994. 

“Determining the Value of Marketing: A New Challenge to the Discipline,” San Francisco 

AMA Conference, August 8, 1994. 

“JMR Special Issue on Innovation in New Product Development: Best Practice in 

Research, Modeling and Applications,” JMR Editorial Board Meeting, San Francisco, 

August 7, 1994. 

“Entering the U.S. Consumer Durable Markets,” Nijenrode Executive MBA Program, 

August 4, 1994. 

“A New Approach for Estimating the Demand for Interactive TV Products and Services, 

Interactive Industry 2000: Market Research for the Interactive Television Business,” July 

28-29, 1994. 

“Creating a 21st Century Enterprise,” Poon Kam Kai Institute of Management, The 

University of Hong Kong, June 16, 1994. 

“Advances in U.S. Marketing and Their Implications to China,” Joint faculty seminar of 

the School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University and the School of 

Management, Peking University, June 15, 1994. 

79


“Toward a New Marketing Paradigm,” a faculty seminar at the Hong Kong University of 

Science and Technology, School of Business and Management, June 14, 1994. 

“Empirical Generalizations in Marketing: Opportunities for MSI Research Program,” MSI 

Board of Trustees Meeting, April 29, 1994. 

“Textbook of the Future: A Perspective From the Virtual University Lab,” April 8, 1994. 

“The Impact of Marketing Science on Industry and Academia,” The Oscar W. Neuhaus 

Lecture, Rice University, March 23, 1994. 

“The Challenge of a New Marketing Paradigm,” University of Texas at Austin, 

March 23, 1994. 

“Market Driven Quality,” at the Beyond Quality: Organizational Transformation to the 

21st Century Enterprise, March 17-18, 1994. 

“The Marketing Challenges for the Philadelphia Orchestra,” Presentation to the Board of 

Trustees of the Philadelphia Orchestra, March 1, 1994. 

“Pharmaceutical Marketing: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities,” Pharmaceutical 

Advertising Council and Wharton Executive Education Conference on Reengineering 

Pharmaceutical Marketing, February 25, 1994 

“Role of Marketing in the New MBA Curriculum: Lessons from the Wharton Experience,” 

AMA Winter Conference, February 21, 1994. 

“Empirical Generalizations in Marketing: Some Observations,” Wharton Conference on 

Empirical Generalizations in Marketing, February 16-18, 1994. 

“Increasing Marketing Effectiveness,” Executive Conference of Schering-Plough Int., 

January 18, 1994. 

“The Value of Pharmaceutical Advertising and Promotion,” Coalition of Healthcare 

Communication Conference, Marketing Conference in an Era of Change, New York 

October 27, 1993. 

“Advances in Marketing Strategies,” Nijenrode University Executive Program, 

August 6, 1993. 

"Global Consumer Brand Strategies: Problems and Prospects,” Seminar for the 

Business Partners of the Norwegian School of Management, June 11, 1993. 

"Determinants of New Product Success: Lessons from the U.S. and Japan,” Faculty and 

Ph.D. students seminar at Erasmus University, June 10, 1993. 

"Getting the Most out of Benchmarking,” Board of Directors of Wharton=s Alumni 

Association, May 14, 1993. 

“Marketing Opportunities in Japan and East Asia,” with Hotaka Katahira and the 

International Forum Participants, April 18, 1993. 

"Toward a New Marketing Paradigm: Implications for Marketing Departments,” Advisory 

Board Meeting of the Wharton's Marketing Department, April 8, 1993. 

"The New Wharton MBA Curriculum,” Faculty seminar at Erasmus University, March 10 

and June 10, 1993. 

"Marketing Science at a Crossroad,” Inaugural Presentation as the first holder of the 

Unilever-Erasmus Marketing Professorship, Erasmus University, February 18, 1993. 

"The Strategic Impact of Market Driven Quality,” with Paul R. Kleindorfer. ORSA/TIMS, 

San Francisco, Session on Customer Satisfaction and its Role in Global Competition. 


"Issues and Advances in New Product Development and Management: A U.S. 

Perspective,” Advanced Industrial Marketing Strategy Seminar, September 18, 1992. 

"The Market Driven 21st Century Enterprise: Implications for Law Departments,” 

Presentation at the SmithKline Beecham U.S. Law Department Conference on 

Customer Focus Continuous Improvement, April 28, 1992. 

"New Product Development: Problems, Advances and Prospects,” Wharton's Advanced 

Industrial Marketing Strategy, March 19, 1992. 

"Preparing for the 21st Century Today,” Securities Industry Institute, 40th Anniversary 

Program, March 1992. 

"The Successful 21st Century Enterprise as Customer Driven: Implications for Marketing 

and Management Science,” University of Texas at Austin, Faculty Colloquium, February 

1992. 

80


"Time Based Competition: Implications for Marketing Science,” INSEAD Faculty 

Presentation, January 1992. 

"A New Management Paradigm for Israel's Schools of Management: Lessons from the 

New Wharton MBA Curriculum,” Conference on the Future of Management Education in 

Israel, Jerusalem, Israel, October 16, 1991. 

"Designing & Implementing an Innovative MBA Program: Lessons from the Wharton 

Experience,” Conference on the Future of Management Education in Israel, Jerusalem, 

Israel, October 16, 1991. 

"How to Develop Products More Often and Get Them to Market Faster: Guidelines for 

Functional Management,” Ambrosetti Group, Milan, Italy, May 9-10, 1991. 

"Management in the 21st Century: Implications to the Fragrance Industry,” Summit 2000 

Conference of the Fragrance Association, April 8, 1991. 

"Marketing Research and Modeling for the 21st Century Enterprise: The Emerging Crisis 

and its Challenges,” Management Science Roundtable, February 17, 1991, Redington 

Beach, FL. 

"Inducing Creativity and Innovation in Large Bureaucracies: Lessons from Marketing,” 

RGK 4th International Conference on Creativity and Innovative Management, August 8- 

10, 1991, Los Angeles, CA. 

"Concept Testing for Generating and Evaluating Positioning Strategies,” PDMA 

Positioning Conference, March 6, 1990, New York, NY. 

"Research Priorities in the Information Technology Area,” MSI, Information Technology 

Steering Group, January 18, 1990. 

"Building the 21st Century Corporation Today: A Marketing Perspective,” MASTERSHIP, 

January 9, 1990, Los Angeles, CA. 

"Globalization: Opportunities for Innovative Research and Modeling,” UCLA, January 9, 

1990, Los Angeles, CA. 

"Marketing Skills and Strategies for the 1990's,” Pfizer International Marketing 

Managers, December 1989, Lambertville, NJ. 

"Increasing the Effectiveness of Your New Product Development,” Indian Institute of 

Technology, November 1989, Bombay, India. 

"Competitive Advantage Through Strategic Marketing,” Contel Corporation, October 

1989, Lake of the Ozarks, MO. 

"Management in the 21st Century,” Wharton Advanced Management Program, 

September 1989, Philadelphia, PA. 

"The Contributions of Strategy and Other Business Functions to the Creation of 

Innovative Marketing Knowledge,” AMA Marketing Educators Conference, Chicago, 

August 1989. 

"The Current and Potential Contributions of Strategy and the Other Business Functions 

to the Creation of Innovative Marketing Knowledge,” AMA Summer Conference, August, 

1989, Chicago, IL. 

"Selecting and Negotiating International Strategic Alliances: Applications of the AHP,” 

TIMS Osaka, July 1989. 

"Improving the Effectiveness of the Industrial New Product Development Process: 

Lessons from Industry – The AS 400 Case,” 16th International Research Seminar in 

Marketing, La Londe les Maures, France, May 19, 1989. 

"Strategic Marketing,” Studio Ambrosetti AP Milan Group, May 17, 1989. 

"Developing and Launching New Products: Costs, Risks, and Conditions for Success,” 

Studio Ambrosetti, AF Marketing Group, May 16, 1989. 

"The Marketing Challenge for Top Management:, Promises and Pitfalls of Expert 

Systems," University of California, Irvine, April 27, 1989. 

"Management in the 21st Century: Implications for Management Research and 

Education,” University of California, Irvine, April 27, 1989. 

"The Globalization of Management Education: Options, Trade-Offs, and an Agenda for 

Implementation,” AACSB Annual Meeting, April 18, 1989, Montreal. 

"A Contrarian Approach to Effective Pricing,” The Pricing Institute, March 7, 1989, New 

York. 

81


"Achieving Competitive Advantage in Marketing,” Securities Industry Association, March 

6, 1989, Philadelphia, PA. 

"Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer Based Marketing 

Models,” presented to the TIMS/AMA seminar Marketing Science: A Developmental Tool 

for Management Scientists, New York, November 16, 1988. 

"Technology and Marketing-Driven Global Portfolio of R&D Projects,” with Robert 

DeLuccia presented at the ORSA/TIMS Joint National Meeting in Denver, Co, October 

26, 1988. 

"Pitfalls and Challenges of Global Marketing,” Second International Conference on 

Marketing and Development, Karl Marx University, Budapest, Hungary, July 12, 1988. 

"Information Technology and Marketing Strategy,” with Eric Clemons, presented at IS, 

TC and Strategy Plenary Meeting, January 1988. 

"A New Challenge for Human Resource Management: Incorporating a Marketing 

Perspective,” The Lauder Institute: International Human Resource Conference, 


"Advances in Marketing Strategy and Research,” Wharton Alumni Club, Milan, October 1987. 

"Marketing and Corporate Strategy,” Studio Ambrosetti, Milan, October 1987. 

"Marketing for Financial Institutions,” Studio Ambrosetti, Milan, October 1987. 

"Proactive Marketing Research and Modeling: Pitfalls and Prospects,” PMRG Fall 1987 

meeting, Captiva Island, Florida, October 1987. 

"Turning Salespeople and Non-Marketing Executives into Marketing Strategists,” AMA 

Marketing Educators' Conference, Toronto, August 1987. 

"International Marketing,” Wharton Alumni Club, Toronto, August 1987. 

"Marketing and Technology: Progress, Problems, and Prospects,” European-American 

Symposium, Enschede, The Netherlands, June 29-July 1, 1987. 

"Second Generation Expert Systems: Incorporating Enhanced Explanation and 

Learning,” Marketing Science Conference, Jouy-en-Josas, France, June 24-26, 1987. 

"Market Segmentation: Shortcomings and Opportunities,” 1987 Attitude Research 

Conference, West Palm Beach, Florida, May 1987. 

"Advances in Marketing Research and Modeling,” Studio Ambrosetti, Milan, December 1986. 

"Advances in Management Strategy: A Marketing Perspective,” The Institute of 

Management Consultants, March 1986. 

"The Marketplace of the Future: Global Consumers,” Advertising Research Foundation 

50th Anniversary Conference, March 1986. 

"A Marketing Perspective for Public Management: Research Implications,” Wharton 

Department of Public Policy and Management Brown Bag Seminar, January 1986. 

"Advances in Global Marketing Strategy: Concepts, Methods, and Applications,” 

International Symposium on Recent Developments in Management Research, Helsinki, 

Finland, 1986. 

 

 

"Expert Systems in Marketing,” TIMS October 1986 Conference, Miami. 

"Advances in Portfolio Analysis and Strategy,” Chinese Management Association, 

Taipei, July 1985. 

"New Development in Marketing and Planning,” WEFA/Lauder Seminar, June 1985, 

Tokyo, Japan. Sessions on Advances in Market Segmentation, Product Positioning and 

Portfolio Analysis and Strategy. 

 

"Advances in Portfolio Analysis and Strategy,” University of Illinois, Theories of 

Marketing Practice Conference, May 1985 

"Micro Computers in Marketing,” Marketing Science Conference, March 1985. 

"Global Marketing Strategies,” New York University, 1985. 

"Diffusion Models: The State of the Art,” ASA conference, 1984. 

"Management Education in a Global Context,” University of Pennsylvania Conference on 

Management Education and Foreign Languages, December 1984; 

"Generating and Evaluating Industrial Marketing Strategies Using the AHP,” TIMS 

Conference, November 1984; 

A Innovation Diffusion and New Product Forecasting,” TIMS Conference, November 1984; 

 

"Foreign Market Entry and Import Protection Strategies,” Israel Institute of Management, 

October 1984. 

82


"The Contribution of Consulting to the Consumer Research Discipline,” ACR conference, 

October 1984. 

"The CEO and the Board,” Strategic Management Conference, October 1984. 

83


PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND AWARDS 

Professional Affiliations 

1. Fellow of the International Academy of Management (since 1989), Chancellor 2000- , Vice 

Chancellor for the Americas, 1996-2000 

2. Academy of International Business 

3. American Marketing Associations 

4. American Association for Public Opinion Research 

5. American Psychological Association, Division of Consumer Psychology (Div. 23) 

6. Association for Consumer Research 

7. International Communication Association 

8. Product Development and Management Association 

9. Psychometric Society 

10. Strategic Management Society 

11. INFORMS – The Institute of Management Sciences 

12. The Market Research Society (London) 

Professional Awards 

1. Honorary Degrees 

2. Awards 

M.A. Honors, University of Pennsylvania, 1971 

One of the 10 Legends of Marketing, 2009. An 8-volume set of anthologized work 

forthcoming from Sage, 2012. 

Buck Weaver Award, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007. 

Honorary Fellow of the Decade, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya (Israel), May 2004. 

The 2003 Elsevier Science Distinguished Scholar Award of the Society for Marketing 

Advances 

One of the 10 Grand Auteurs in Marketing. [Alain Jolbert, EMS Management and Societe, 

2000] 

One of 18 JAR articles in the Special Classics Issue of articles that have withstood the test 

of time. Nov./Dec. 2000. 

The Paul D. Converse Award, 1996. 

American Marketing Association/Irwin Distinguished Educator Award, 1993. 

First Faculty Impact Award, Wharton Alumni Association, 1993. 

First Runner-Up in the 1988 Franz Edelman Award for Management Science/Achievement. 

The 1985 Charles Coolidge Parlin Award. 

Elected as the 1984 member of the Attitude Research Hall of Fame. 

Delivered the 13th (1981) Albert Wesley Frey Lecture, University of Pittsburgh. 

My Product Policy book won the 1979 Book of the Year Award given by the editors of 

Expansion (Mexico). 

Winner of two Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation Awards for the best article published in the 

Journal of Marketing in 1973 and 1976. 

Runner up of the 1983 William O'Dell Award for "the article published 5 years earlier in JMR 

which stood the test of time and made the most significant long run contribution to Marketing 

Theory, methodology and practice". 

Winning paper (with Paul E. Green) of American Psychological Association Division of 

Consumer Psychology, 1972 Research Design Co mpetition. 

A finalist (top 5) for the 1980 Wharton Award for teaching excellence. 

3. Illustrative Citations 

Third highest ranked Marketing Scholar in the University of Maryland's Kirkpatrick and Locke 

Faculty Scholarship Study, 1985 (based on number of publications, citations, and peer ratings). 

84


10th highest ranked marketing Scholar in the Cote, Leong and Cote "Assessing the 

Dissemination and Utilization of Marketing Research in the Social Sciences: A Citation Analysis 

Approach,” 1990. 

4. Illustrative Research Grants 

National Science Foundation: U.P. Research Grant (Summer 1970); 

General Foods, the Jell-0 Division (1971); 

N.W. Ayer (1972) - (with Paul E. Green); 

Downe Communication, Inc. (1972); 

Lever Brothers (1972) - (with Paul E. Green); 

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (1973); 

AT&T (1973); 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholar Fund (1974); 

The John and Mary R. Markle Foundation with R.E. Frank (1975-1976); 

National Science Foundation (Grant No. 51575-12928) (1975); 

The National Health Care Management Center of the Leonard Davis Institute with Thomas 

Robertson (1977). 

Wharton Global Initiatives Research Program (2010) 

Wharton Sports Business Initiative Program (2010) 

5. Fellowships 

Hebrew University Awards 1959/1960; 1964/1965; 1965/1966; 

Ford Foundation Fellowship 1963/1964; 

Owen D. Young: General Electric Fellowship in Marketing 1964/1965; 1965/1966; 

Bankendorf Fellowship 1964/1965; 

Stanford University Fellowship 1964/1965; 1965/1966. 

6. Illustrative Recent Media Coverage 

Knowledge@Wharton: 

o Harnessing Networks to Create Value and Identify New Opportunities [interview, July 15, 

2009] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2289&specialid=88# 

o What Does it Take to Compete in a Flat World? [October 31, 2007] 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1836 

o 

Can't Run, Can't Hide: New Rules of Engagement for Crisis Management [September 

19, 2007] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1807 

o Will a New Theory Help Firms to Manage in a ‘Flat’ World? [October 25, 2006] 


o Business Books for the Beach, The Power of Impossible Thinking [March 22, 2006] 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/special_section.cfm?specialID=22 

o Farewell, Peter Drucker: A Tribute to an Intellectual Giant [November 30, 2005] 


o Should Your Next CEO Be a Philosopher? [interview, February 9, 2005] 


o What’s the Buzz About Buzz Marketing? [interview, January 12, 2005], reprinted in 

Wharton Alumni Magazine, Winter 2005 


o Amazon’s Multiple Personalities [interview, January 14, 2005] 


o Back to the Drawing Board: Is the Traditional Theory of the Firm Obsolete? [interview, 

October 6, 2004] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1047 

o The Power of Impossible Thinking [book, August 25, 2004] 

o 


What’s Behind the 4-Minute Mile, Starbucks, and Moonlanding? The Power of 

Impossible Thinking [book, July 14, 2004] 


85


o A Lofty Take on Leadership: Mountain Climbing and Managing Companies [book, 

September 24, 2003] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=858 

o How Business Can Prepare for War [conference, February 9, 2003] 

o 

Could a Cyber-Terrorist Take Down Your Company? Don’t Wait to Find Out [conference, 

August 28, 2002] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=615 

o The New Business Reality [conference, January 30, 2002] 


o What Webvan Could Have Learned from Tesco [interview, October 10, 2001] 


o What’s in Store for Capital Markets and the Economy? [interview, September 26, 2001] 


o Did Terrorists Blow Up the Recovery? [interview, September 13, 2001] 


o Dotcom Bomb Hits the Publications that Covered It [interview, August 29, 2001] 


o Can Priceline Remain Profitable? [interview, August 15, 2001] 


o 

Good vs. Great Leaders: The Difference is Humility, Doubt, and Drive [conference, June 

20, 2001] http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=377 

o It’s Not Easy Being Paul Green [interview, November 8, 2000] 


o Three Marketing Lessons from the Love Bug [interview, May 24, 2000] 


o Just-in-Time Education: Learning in the Global Information Age [paper, August 30, 2000] 


o New Rules of Digital Marketing [interview, October 13, 1999] 


o Who’s Buying on the Internet? [paper, September 1, 1999] 


o Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age [lecture, July 23, 1999] 


o The Knowledge Edge [conference, June 23, 1999] 


o Knowledge @ Wharton, High School Edition [glossary of various marketing terms] 

“6 Steps to Achieving Creativity in Business, Personal Life,” US News and World Report, 

January 3, 2011. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-andbehavior/articles/2011/01/03/6-steps-to-achieving-creativity-in-business-personal-life.html 

“Wharton's Jerry Wind Predicts the Future of Advertising," IESE Insight, May 19, 2010. 

http://www.iese.edu/aplicaciones/news/view.asp?id=2333&lang=en 

Interviewed in report on the Future of Advertising Project, VMarketing China Magazine, April 

2010. 

Listing of The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit, and Risk in an Interlinked World in “KYW 

News Radio 1060 AM’s 10 Books to Read by Marc Kramer.” November 1, 2009. 

“World Series a marketing windfall for Philadelphia,” Philly.Com, October 27, 2009. 

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/66284122.html 

Media coverage of Fast.Forward (http://www.youtube.com/user/FastForward), the Marketing 

Channel on YouTube co-founded with Google: 

o “Truth in Advertising,” Penn Gazette, September, 2009. 

http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0909/gaz07.html 

o 

o 

o 

“YouTube's FastForward Biz Site Off to Slow Start,” ReadWriteWeb Blog, September 

23, 2009. 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/youtubes_fastforward_biz_site_off_to_slow_start 

.php 

“Fast.Forward. Connecting marketers with innovative ideas (and other marketers),” 

YouTube Biz Blog, September 23, 2009. 

http://ytbizblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/fastforward-connecting-marketers-with.html 

“Will the Future of Advertising Be a Blend of Old and New Media?” 

Knowledge@Wharton, September 30, 2009. 


86


o “What's the future of advertising?” InternetNews.com, October 2, 2009. 

http://blog.internetnews.com/dneedle/2009/10/whats-the-future-of-advertisin.html 

o “New Year, New Look for Google for Advertisers,” Google Agency Ad Solutions Blog, 

January 13, 2010. http://adwordsagency.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-year-new-look-forgoogle-for.html 

“Interview: Yoram (Jerry) Wind,” First Friday Book Synopsis, July 26, 2009. 

http://ffbsccn.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/interview-yoram-jerry-wind/. Also published on 

Examiner.com, July 26, 2009. http://www.examiner.com/x-14678-Dallas-Business- 

Commentary-Examiner~y2009m7d26-Interview-Yoram-Jerry-Wind 

“Tips for Better Networking Skills,” FOX Business News, July 17, 2009. 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/25340846/tips-for-better-networking-skills.htm 

Featured book in Wharton Alumni Newsletter: The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit, and 

Risk in an Interlinked World, July 2009. 

http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/alumni/newsletter/2009/july/ 

“Future of Advertising? Print, TV, Online Ads,” Ad Age, June 1, 2009. 

http://adage.com/article?article_id=136993 

“Wondering What to Do? We Asked the Experts,” Ad Age, April 6, 2009. 

http://adage.com/article?article_id=135772. 

“An Interview with Wharton Professor Jerry Wind at MPlanet 2009” on Marketing Shift Online 

Marketing Blog, January 28, 2009. http://www.marketingshift.com/2009/1/an-interview-whartonschool-professor.cfm. 

Interview with LA Times on the financial crisis: Mindful Strategy, October 1, 2008. 

Interview with Sally Herships regarding Asia’s demand for large jewels, “A Glimmer in Hong 

Kong’s Eye.” Marketplace, NPR. February 20, 2008. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Podcast interview with LadyAdvisor.com, February 2008. 

Wharton@Work Report on the Las Vegas Fellows Master Class, January 2008. 

Interview on “Managing Creative People,” Joel Kurtzman (ed), Creating Value Through People. 

Wiley 2008. 

Research Conference Report Summary of CASRO Technology Conference Speech “Online 

Panels: Where We Are Today and Where We Are Headed in the Future,” August 2007. 

“The Power of Impossible Thinking,” Ocean City Public Library, BUSINESS BOOK CLUB, Book 

of the Week, October 07, 2007. 

Wharton media coverage of Competing in a Flat World: 

o Wharton Alumni Magazine Winter 

2008 

Featured book 

o Wharton Alumni Magazine December 2007 

Featured article 

o Wharton Alumni Newsletter August 2007 Featured book 

o Wharton Alumni Newsletter December 2007 Featured book 

o Wharton Executive September 2007 Featured book 

Education -- featured on 

home page 

o Wharton Faculty / Staff September 2007 Featured book 

newsletter 

o Wharton Faculty / Staff December 2007 Competing in a Flat World 

newsletter 

Competition 

Announcement 

October 2007 Interview with audio 

o Knowledge at Wharton 

download 

October 2007 Website went live in 

October 

o Competing in a Flat World 

website 

Goh, Dr. Sunny T.H. “How to Make the Impossible Possible.” The Star Online. July 10, 2006. 

thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/7/10/business/14512212&sec=business. 

A link has been placed for the book The Power of Impossible Thinking on the website, 

www.worksavvy.ws/organization.htm#yourself as a recommendation to entrepreneurs and the 

diagram from page xxiv of the book is shown in the section of the website, “Organizing Yourself: 

Your Mind, Your Attitude, Time and Planning.” 

“How Business Ideas are Born,” MoneyControl.com, June 2, 2006. 

“Think You Know More Than Your Boss? You Just Might,” Beepcentral.com, April 24, 2006. 

87


“New Model: Divide and Govern.” Directorship. April 2006. 

“Creativity Comes to B-Schools,” Business Week Online, March 26, 2006. 

Thomas Group Review. The Power of Impossible Thinking: A conversation with Yoram (Jerry) 

Wind and Jim Taylor. Also appeared at Knowledge Leadership @ Thomas Group, Winter 2006. 

The Power of Impossible Thinking selected as one of the five outstanding books on “Thinking 

Outside the Box” by the Swiss Journal CASH on March 16, 2006. 

“Marketing Prof. Gives Crash Course in Brand Image,” Daily Pennsylvanian, February 9, 2006. 

“Churning Out Books for the Bigwigs,” Daily Pennsylvanian, November 10, 2005. 

Inaugural Thought Leader interview, The Brand Strategy Roundtable Journal, November 2005. 

A number of radio interviews re The Power of Impossible Thinking, including: 

o Something You Should Know with Mike Carruthers, March 2006. 

o Mix 92.9 Morning Show, Nashville, March 2006. 

o KRMB Radio, Strategies for Living, Shrevesport, LA, August 11, 2004. 

o WKCT Radio, Drive Time, Bowling Green, KY, August 20, 2004. 

o WABJ Radio, John Sabastian Morning Show, Detroit, MI, August 18, 2004. 

o WKNO Radio, Smart Copy, Memphis, TN, August 17, 2004. 

o KIKK Radio, Salt Lake City, UT, November 6, 2004. 

“Winds of Change,” The Economic Times, Brand Equity, June 1, 2005, front page. 

“From Ink to Implementation: New Press Wharton School Publishing Co-Editors Say They Aim 

for Sound Management Titles that You Can Do Something With,” BusinessWeek Online, April 

11, 2005. 

“Power of Mental Models,” Asia Inc. April 2005, pp. F14-15. 

“Challenge Your Mental Models,” The Edge Malaysia, March 21, 2005. 

“Meet the Master-Minds: Jerry Wind Reveals the Power of Impossible Thinking,” Management 

Consulting News, March 3, 2005. 

“Mental Power Tool,” Automotive Design and Production, 2004. 

“Read All About It: Q&A with Jerry Wind about Wharton School Publishing,” Wharton Alumni 

Magazine, Spring 2004. 

“Comment s’addresser au consummateur “Post-bull”? D’apres Convergence Marketing 

Strategies for Reaching the Hybrid Consumer, Business Digest 127 (February 2003), pp. 19-20. 

“Wealth is Created During Periods of Uncertainty,” Fast Company, April 2002, pp. 87-88. 

“Thought Leaders: Convergence Marketing: Preview an excerpt from the book by Wharton 

Professor Jerry Wind and Professor Vijay Mahajan of the University of Texas,” Wharton’s E- 

Buzz, October 2001; and Knowledge@Wharton, October 2001. 

“Wind of Change,” The Peak, Volume 17, Number 1, 2001. 

“Conversation with Jerry Wind,” Singapore, October 2000; abstract reproduced in 

http://can.mediacorpnews.com/analysis_prog/incon/incon_wind1.htm. 

“You Can’t Be An Extremist,” Globs March 8, 2001 (Hebrew). 

Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “Managing in the Year 2000” Executive Issues. August 1991. 

88


PERSONAL DATA 

Office: 

The Wharton School 

University of Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Tel: (215) 898-8267 

Fax: (215) 898-1703 

E-mail: windj@wharton.upenn.edu 

Marital Status: Married to Vardina Wind, Artist, (BA in Sociology, MA in Communications); Two children. 

Illustrative Pro Bono Activities 

The Fox Chase Cancer Center, Member, Advisory Board (2009-present) 

The Philadelphia Museum of Art. Trustee (1992-present); Member of the Digital Age Committee (2009- 

present); Member of the Corporate Executive board of the Museum (1996- ); Led a trustee 

committee and the management and curatorial staff of the museum in the development of a market 

driven strategy, (1990); Member of the Nominating Committee (1999-2002); Member of Trustee 

Committees for Development (1993-1997); Special Exhibitions (1993-1995); and Strategy (1997-1998); 

Chairman, Audience Building Committee (2004- ); 

The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya (Israel), all planning activities and other involvement (as outlined on 

p. 43), since 1994. 

American Friends of IDC – Founding President (1998-2002); Member (2003-present). 

Government of Catalonia, International Advisory Board (2007- ) 

National Constitution Center, Member, Strategic Planning Steering Committee (2005) 

Business for Diplomatic Actions, Member, Advisory Board and Coordinator of the Wharton research 

efforts in this area (2005- ) 

Lauder Institute Alumni Association, Advisory Board (2005-present) 

Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA). Help guide a strategic planning process (2001). 

University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology. Help establish a vision and 

revenue generation strategies (1999). 

The Philadelphia Orchestra: Advisor regarding the development of Marketing Strategy (1994-1997). 

The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia: Member of the Financial Resource Development 

Committee, 1990-1992. 

Operation Independence, Israeli Management School Oversight Committee, 1991-1992. 

Affiliations: 

The Philadelphia Museum of Art – Trustee (Philadelphia) 

The Institute of Contemporary Art of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) 

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts (Philadelphia) 

The Museum of Modern Art (New York) 

American Craft Museum (New York) 

Whitney Museum of American Art (New York) 

The Jewish Museum (New York) 

Guggenheim Museum (New York) 

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (Washington D.C.) 

89


APPENDIX B 

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED AND/OR RELIED UPON 

Bates Range 

APL7940000082356 – APL7940000082378 

APL7940000102312 – APL7940000102332 

APL-ITC796-0000508285 – APL-ITC796-0000508544 

APLNDC0000036172 – APLNDC0000036265 

APLNDC0000036266 – APLNDC0000036348 

APLNDC0000036349 – APLNDC0000036570 

APLNDC00004618 – APLNDC00004736 

APLNDC0001867475 – APLNDC0001867477 

APLNDC0002007608 – APLNDC0002007704 

APLNDC0002831037 – APLNDC0002831088 

APLNDC-X0000006548 – APLNDC-X0000006647 














Legal Documents: 

Apple Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 12-CV-0630, Judgment, October 11, 2012. 

Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements, September 21, 2012. 

Declaration Of Andries Van Dam, Ph.D. In Support Of Samsung’s Opposition To Apple’s Motion For A Permanent Injunction And For Damages 

Enhancements Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, October 18, 2012. 

Declaration of Marylee Robinson in Support of Apple's Motions for a Permanent Injunction, for Damages Enhancement, for Supplemental Damages and 

Prejudgment Interest with Exhibits 9, 29, and 31, September 21, 2012. 

Declaration Of Stephen Gray In Support Of Samsung’s Opposition To Apple’s Motion For A Permanent Injunction And Damages Enhancement, October 

18, 2012. 

Declaration of Terry Musika in Support of Apple's Motion for Permanent Injunction with Exhibit 51, 53, 54, 56, 58- 61, and 66-68, August 29, 2012. 

Defendant Exhibits 30, 48, 49, 52, 62, and 63. 

Joint Pretrial Statement and Proposed Order, July 24, 2012. 

Trial Tr. vol. 6, 1638-1988, Aug. 10, 2012. 

Depositions: 

Deposition of John Hauser, April 27, 2012. 

Deposition of Ramamirtham Sukumar, Ph.D., April 24, 2012. 

Expert Reports: 

Corrected Expert Report of Michael J. Wagner, April 20, 2012. 

Expert Report of John R. Hauser with Supporting Documents, March 22, 2012. 

Expert Report of R. Sukumar Regarding the Amount Samsung Customers Would Be Willing to Pay for the Features Associated with Patent Nos. U.S. 

7,844,915, U.S. 7,469,381, U.S. 7,864,163, and U.S. 7,663,607, April 16, 2012. 

Patents: 

U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 B2. 

U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 B2. 

U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163 B2. 

Page 1 of 3


APPENDIX B 


Analyst Reports, News Articles and Books: 

“North American Smartphones Market,” Frost & Sullivan report number N81F-65, December 2010. 

Arthur, Charles, “Apple v Samsung: the questions the jury has to answer,” The Guardian , August 22, 2012, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/ 

technology/2012/aug/22/jurors-samsung-apple-questions (viewed October 9, 2012). 

Bell, Donald “Tablet Buying Guide,” CNET , March 28, 2012, available at http://reviews.cnet.com/tablet-buying-guide/?tag=auxPromo (viewed October 16, 

2012). 

Bennett, Brian. “New iPad first tablet with Bluetooth 4.0: Should you care?” CNET , March 9, 2012, available at http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3- 

57394350-94/new-ipad-first-tablet-with-bluetooth-4.0-should-you-care/ (viewed October 18, 2012). 

Brazell, Jeff D., Christopher G. Diener, Ekaterina Karniouchina, William L. Moore, Válerie Séverin and Pierre-Francois Uldry, “The no-choice option and 

dual response choice designs,” Marketing Letters , Vol. 17, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 255-268. 

Goldberg, Stephen M., Paul E. Green, and Yoram Wind. “Conjoint Analysis of Price Premiums for Hotel Amenities.” Journal of Business 57.1.2 (1984): S111- 

S132, available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/8403_Conjoint_Analysis_of_Price_Premiums.pdf. 

Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan, “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing, 

Vol. 54, No. 4 (Oct., 1990). 

Green, Paul E. and Yoram Wind. “New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgments.” Harvard Business Review 53 (July - Aug. 1975): 107-117, available at 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7509_New_Way_to_Measure_Consumers'.pdf. 

Green, Paul E., Abba M. Krieger, and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. “Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects.” Interfaces 31.3.2 (May - June 

2001): S56-S73, available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0102_Thirty_Years_of_Conjoint_Analysis.pdf. 

Green, Paul E., Frank J. Carmone, and Yoram Wind. “Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement.” Behavioral Science 17.3 (May 1972): 288- 

299, available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7205_Subjective_Evaluation_Models_and_Conjoint.pdf. 

Green, Paul E., Jerry Wind, and Vithala R. Rao. “Conjoint Analysis: Methods and Applications.” The Technology Management Handbook. Ed. Richard C. 

Dorf. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998. 12-66–12-72, available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/9903_Conjoint_Analysis_Methods_and_ 

Applications.pdf. 

Green, Paul E., Yoram Wind, and Arun K. Jain. “Consumer Menu Preference: An Application of Additive Conjoint Measurement.” Proceedings of the Third 

Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research . Ed. M. Venkatesan. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 1972. 304-315, available 

at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/7208_Consumer_Menu_Preferences_An_Application.pdf. 

Harrison, Glenn W. and Elisabet E. Rustrom. 2008. “Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” In Charles R. 

Plott and Vernon L. Smith (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. New York: Elsevier B.V. 

Huber, Joel. “What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments,” 

Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference , August 1997. 

Johnson, Rich and Bryan Orme: “Getting the Most from CBC,” Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series , 1997. 

Kidron, Ittai and George Iwanyc, “2012 Handset Guidebook,” Oppenheimer Equity Research, November 13, 2011. 

Krieger, Abba M., Paul E. Green and Yoram (Jerry) Wind. Adventures in Conjoint Analysis: A Practitioner’s Guide to Trade-Off Modeling and Applications. 

Philadelphia: The Wharton School, 2004, available at https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/green/monograph/. 

McFadden, Daniel. “The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research,” Marketing Science , Vol. 5, No. 4, Special Issue on Consumer Choice Models (Autumn, 

1986). 

Miller, Matthew. “ACCELL MHL adapter turns the HTC Flyer into a portable media server (review).” The Mobile Gadgeteer , September 8, 2011, available 

at http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-gadgeteer/accell-mhl-adapter-turns-the-htc-flyer-into-a-portable-media-server-review/5095 (viewed October 17, 2012). 

Orme, Bryan K., Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, Research Publishers, Madison, WI, 2010. 

Orme, Bryan, “Formulating Attributes and Levels in Conjoint Analysis,” Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2002. 

Pogue, David, “Just How Many Android Tablet Apps Are There?”, The New York Times , July 1, 2011, available at http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/ 

mystery-how-many-android-tablet-apps/, (viewed October 18, 2012). 

Pride, William M. and O.C. Ferrell, Marketing, South-Western College Publishing, 2012. 

Purewal, Sarah Jacobsson. “The ultimate Android tethering guide.” PC World , September 5, 2012, available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/261928/the_ 

ultimate_android_tethering_guide.html (viewed October 17, 2012). 

Reed, Brad, “Apple vs. Samsung: The gory details,” BGR, August 24, 2012, available at http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/24/apple-samsung-trial-verdictsamsung-loses-big/ 


Vascellaro, Jessica E., “Apple Wins Big in Patent Case,” The Wall Street Journal , August 25, 2012, available at online.wsj.com/article/SB100 

00872396390444358404577609810658082898.html (viewed October 9, 2012). 

Wind, Yoram (Jerry), Abba M. Krieger, and Paul E. Green. “Applying Conjoint Analysis to Legal Disputes: A Case Study.” Wharton School Working Paper, 

2002, available at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9686940/windj/0601_Applying_Conjoint_Analysis_to_Legal.pdf. 

Wind, Yoram (Jerry). “New Developments in Conjoint Analysis.” Paper presented at the 25th Annual Midwest Conference of the American Statistical 

Association on What's New in Statistical Techniques for Marketing Research, Mar. 1978. 

Wind, Yoram, Paul E. Green, and J. Douglas Carroll. Multi-Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach. Hinsdale: The Dryden Press, 1973. 

Ziegler, Chris. "Why Is Verizon's iPhone 5 Unlocked? Don't Thank Google or the FCC." The Verge . September 25, 2012, available at http://www.theverge. 

com/2012/9/25/3405610/verizon-iphone-5-unlocked-open-access-fcc. (viewed October 17, 2012). 

Ziegler, Chris. “AT&T adding an extra 2GB to phone tethering plans, launching Mobile Hotspot app February 13th.” Engadget , February 2, 2011, available 

at www.engadget.com/2011/02/02/atandt-adding-an-extra-2gb-to-phone-tethering-plans-launching-mob/ (viewed October 17, 2012). 

Page 2 of 3


APPENDIX B 


Websites: 

“How to Buy a Cell Phone,” PC World, November 29, 2011, available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/125653/cell_phone_guide.html (viewed October 16, 

2012). 

“Motorola Droid Razr Maxx review (Verizon Wireless).” CNET , October 17, 2012, available at http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/motorola-droid-razrmaxx/4505-6452_7-35128051-2.html 


“Tablet Buying Guide,” Consumer Reports , May 2012, available at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/tablets/buying-guide.htm (viewed October 16, 2012). 

http://cell-phones.toptenreviews.com/smartphones/ (viewed October 12, 2012). 

http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/196/cv. 

http://shop.sprint.com/mysprint/shop/phone_wall.jsp?filterString=smartphone&isDeeplinked=true&INTNAV=ATG:HE:Smartphones (viewed October 18, 

2012). 

http://tablets-review.toptenreviews.com/ (viewed October 12, 2012). 

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-SDSDU-064G-A11-Ultra-UHS-I-Class/dp/B007B5RJA6/ref=sr_1_94?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1350430546&sr=1-94& 

keywords=sandisk+64 (viewed October 10, 2012). 

http://www.apple.com/iphone/from-the-app-store/, accessed October 18, 2012. 

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I777ZKAATT-features (viewed on October 17, 2012). 

http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones-accessories#container (viewed October 8, 2012). 

Tablet Computer Definition, PC Magazine , available at http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=tablet+computer&i=52520,00.asp (viewed 

October 16, 2012). 

Other: 

Exh. 32 - Time to Tab - Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Global TV Commercial - YouTube.mp4 

Page 3 of 3


EXHIBIT 1 

SAMSUNG GALAXY S II (AT&T) FEATURES AND SPECIFICATIONS 

Page 1 of 2


EXHIBIT 1 

SAMSUNG GALAXY S II (AT&T) FEATURES AND SPECIFICATIONS 

Notes & Sources: 

Highlights represent specifications that may be related to the patented features. 

From http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I777ZKAATT-features (viewed on October 17, 2012). 

Page 2 of 2


EXHIBIT 2 

HOVER-OVER DESCRIPTIONS FOR SPECIFICATIONS LISTED ON SAMSUNG GALAXY S II FEATURE PAGE 

Category Specification Hover-Over Description 

Carrier AT&T Provides who the cell phone carrier is for this model of phone. 

Size Product Dimensions: 4.96” (L) x 2.60” (W) x .35” (D) Height, width and depth of the phone, measured in inches (in.). 

Weight: 4.3 oz. 

Weight of the phone, measured in ounces (oz.). 

Color Black Choice of colors (exterior design) that a cellphone model is currently available in. 

Battery Standby Time: Up to 400 Hrs* Amount of time available in Sleep mode in which a phone's display is inactive to save power, but not totally shut down. 

Continuous Usage Time: Up to 8 Hrs Talk* 

Battery power consumption depends on factors such as network configuration, signal strength, operating temperature, features selected, 

vibrate mode, backlight settings, browser use, frequency of calls and voice, data and other application usage patterns. 

Network SAR Value: Head 0.36 W/kg SAR stands for Specific Absorption Rate which is the unit of measurement for the amount of RF energy 

absorbed by the head when using a mobile phone. 

SAR Value: Body 0.90 W/kg 

SAR stands for Specific Absorption Rate which is the unit of measurement for the amount of RF energy 

absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. 

Display Has Touchscreen Technology that enables users to interact with a phone by touching images, words, or icons on the display. 

Camera Rear-facing Camera Resolution: 8.0 MP Number of pixels across and down that are used to capture an image. More pixels, the sharper the photo. 

Memory 

External Memory: Supports up to 32GB microSD card 

Hardware device or memory card that connects to a phone for the purpose of receiving and storing data. 


From http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SGH-I777ZKAATT-features (viewed on October 17, 2012). 

Descriptions shown for specifications for which detailed descriptions pop-up when the cursor hovers over them.


EXHIBIT 3 

SUMMARY OF FEATURES AND OPTIONS 

CONSIDERED BY PROFESSOR HAUSER IN HIS SMARTPHONE CONJOINT ANALYSIS 

Level 

1 2 3 4 

Feature 

Touchscreen Reliable Touch Reliable Touch, Rubberband, 

Tap to Re-center after Zoom 

Less Reliable Touch, 

Autoswitch (1 to 2 Fingers), 

Rubberband, Tap to Recenter 

after Zoom 

Reliable Touch, Autoswitch 

(1 to 2 Fingers), Rubberband, 

Tap to Re-center after Zoom 

Connectivity Cellular, WiFi Cellular, WiFi, Tethering Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, 

MicroUSB 

Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, 

MicroUSB, HDMI 

Camera 

3 MP Rear Camera, Standard 

Video Recording, Autofocus 

8 MP Rear Camera, HD 



Video Recording, Autofocus, 

2 MP Front Camera 



2 MP Front Camera, Zoom 

Storage/Memory 8 GB (2,000 songs or 3,000 

photos) 

16 GB (4,000 songs or 6,000 

photos) 

32 GB (8,000 songs or 

12,000 photos) 

64 GB (16,000 songs or 


Apps Available 150,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 

Size and Weight 3.5 inches, 4 oz. 4 inches, 5 oz. 4.3 inches, 5.3 oz. 4.5 inches, 6 oz. 

Price (with Contract) Free ($0) $99 $199 $299 


From Hauser Report, Exhibit D, pp. 15-16. Level orders may not be equal to the system used in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 4 

SUMMARY OF FEATURES AND OPTIONS 

CONSIDERED BY PROFESSOR HAUSER IN HIS TABLET CONJOINT ANALYSIS 

Level 

1 2 3 4 

Feature 

Touchscreen Full Multi-Touch Full Multi-Touch, 


after Zoom 

Very Limited Multi-Touch, 



after Zoom 

Full Multi-Touch, 



after Zoom 

Connectivity WiFi WiFi, Bluetooth WiFi, Bluetooth, MicroUSB WiFi, Bluetooth, MicroUSB, 

HDMI 

Camera 

3 MP Rear Camera, Standard 









2 MP Front Camera, Zoom 

Storage/Memory 8 GB (2,000 songs or 3,000 

photos) 

16 GB (4,000 songs or 6,000 

photos) 

32 GB (8,000 songs or 


64 GB (16,000 songs or 


Apps Available 150,000 300,000 450,000 600,000 

Size and Weight 7 inches, 1 lb. 8.5 inches, 1.5 lbs. 9 inches, 1.75 lbs. 10 inches, 2 lbs. 

Price (with Contract) $199 $359 $499 $659 


From Hauser Report, Exhibit E, pp. 14-15. Level orders may not be equal to the system used in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 5 

SMARTPHONE CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY PRICE PREMIUM 

FOR THE AUTOSWITCH FEATURE ('915 PATENT) 

BASED ON RFC SIMULATION EMPLOYED BY PROFESSOR HAUSER 

Step 1 

Compare a smartphone with the feature to one without the feature (all else equal) 

Choose level at which the other features are set - in this case at their "best" 

Choose level for price - in this case "$199" 

Calculating the WTP for Autoswitch 

Features Phone A - with the feature Phone B - without the feature 

Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 

Storage/Memory 

Apps Available 

Size and Weight 

Price (with Contract) 

Reliable Touch, Autoswitch, 

Rubberband, Tap to Re-center after 

Zoom 



12 MP Rear Camera, HD Video 


Camera, Zoom 

Reliable Touch, 


Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 

4.5 inches, 6 oz. 4.5 inches, 6 oz. 

$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

67% 33% 

Step 2 

Modify the price and reestimate market share iteratively until market shares are equal for both products 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$219 $199 

58% 42% 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$238 $199 

50% 50% 

Step 3 

The difference between the two prices is the implied WTP for the 

feature (in this case Autoswitch): 

$39 


Simulated choice shares were calculated following Professor Hauser's methodology using Sawtooth SMRT and his accompanying simulation 

files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat).


EXHIBIT 6 


FOR THE AUTOSWITCH, RUBBERBAND, AND TAP TO RE-CENTER FEATURES ('915, '381 AND '163 PATENTS) 


Step 1 




Calculating the WTP for Autoswitch, Rubberband, and Tap to Re-center after Zoom 

Features Phone A - with the features Phone B - without the features 


Touchscreen 

Rubberband, Tap to Re-center 

Reliable Touch 

after Zoom 

Connectivity 

Camera 









Camera, Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

84% 16% 

Step 2 



RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$219 $199 

80% 20% 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$299 $199 

54% 46% 

Step 3 

Even with a price difference of $100, the smartphone with the three patented features is still associated with 

a slightly larger market share, meaning that the implied WTP for the three features is at least $100. 1 


Simulated choice shares were calculated following Professor Hauser's methodology using Sawtooth SMRT and his accompanying 

simulation files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). 

1 The RFC Simulation tool is constrained to considering only prices within the range considered by Professor Hauser (i.e., between $0 and $299).


EXHIBIT 7 

TABLET CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY PRICE PREMIUM 



Step 1 

Compare a tablet with the feature to one without the feature (all else equal) 




Features Tablet A - with the feature Tablet B - without the feature 

Touchscreen 

Full Multi-Touch, Autoswitch (1 to 

2 Fingers), Rubberband, Tap to Recenter 

after Zoom 

Full Multi-Touch, Rubberband, Tap 

to Re-center after Zoom 

Connectivity 

WiFi, Bluetooth, MicroUSB, HDMI 


Camera 




Price 



Camera, Zoom 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 

10 inches, 2 lbs. 

10 inches, 2 lbs. 

$499 $499 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

65% 35% 

Step 2 


Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$531 $499 

54% 46% 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$544 $499 

50% 50% 

Step 3 



$45 



files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat).


EXHIBIT 8 




Step 1 

Compare a tablet with the feature to one without the feature (all else equal) 




Features Tablet A - with the features Tablet B - without the features 


Touchscreen 

2 Fingers), Rubberband, Tap to 

Full Multi-Touch 

Re-center after Zoom 

Connectivity 

Camera 




Price 

WiFi, Bluetooth, MicroUSB, 

HDMI 



Camera, Zoom 


HDMI 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 

10 inches, 2 lbs. 10 inches, 2 lbs. 

$499 $499 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

76% 24% 

Step 2 


Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$531 $499 

67% 33% 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$589 $499 

50% 50% 

Step 3 


features: 

$90 


Simulated choice shares were calculated following Professor Hauser's methodology using Sawtooth SMRT and his accompanying 

simulation files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat).


EXHIBIT 9 

RESPONDENT CHOICE PREDICTIONS FOR DIFFERENTLY PRICED "BENCHMARK" SMARTPHONES 


Comparing two identical smartphones with different prices 



Calculating Market Shares for Identical Smartphones with Different Prices 

Features Phone A - more expensive Phone B - less expensive 

Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 







Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 



Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$99 

$0 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

43% 57% 

When two identical smartphones are offered, one for free and the other for $99, 43% of respondents choose 

the more expensive ($99) smartphone 

The starting level for the price affects the results but the conclusion holds that too high a percentage choose the more 

expensive smartphone 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 


$199 $0 

31% 69% 

$299 $0 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

16% 

84% 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 


$199 $99 

32% 68% 

$299 $99 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

16% 

84% 


$299 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

19% 

81% 


Simulated choice shares were calculated following Professor Hauser's methodology using Sawtooth SMRT and his 

accompanying simulation files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). Except for price, the 

features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark smartphone employed to create Table 4 of the Hauser Report. The 

price levels ($0, $99, $199, and $299) are the four price levels that appear in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 10 

RESPONDENT CHOICE PREDICTIONS FOR DIFFERENTLY PRICED "BENCHMARK" TABLETS 


Comparing two identical tablets with different prices 



Calculating Market Shares for Identical Tablets with Different Prices 

Features Tablet A - more expensive Tablet B - less expensive 

Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 




Price 



after Zoom 


HDMI 



Camera, Zoom 



after Zoom 


HDMI 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$359 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

41% 

59% 

When two identical tablets are offered, one for $199 and the other for $359, 41% of respondents choose the 

more expensive ($359) tablet 

The starting level for the price affects the results but the conclusion holds that too high a percentage choose the more 

expensive tablet 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

Price 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$499 $199 

32% 68% 

$659 $199 

15% 85% 

$499 $359 

35% 65% 

$659 $359 

15% 85% 

$659 $499 

17% 83% 



accompanying simulation files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). Except for price, 

the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark tablet employed to create Table 4 of the Hauser Report. The 

price levels ($199, $359, $499, and $659) are the four price levels that appear in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 11 

RESPONDENT CHOICE PREDICTIONS FOR IDENTICALLY PRICED "BENCHMARK" SMARTPHONES 

THAT DIFFER ONLY IN STORAGE/MEMORY CAPACITY 

Comparing a smartphone with maximum memory (64 GB) to one with minimum memory (8 GB) all else equa 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for an Additional 56 GB of Memory 


Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 







Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 



Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 8 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

65% 

35% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the smartphone with more storage clearly 

dominates the smartphone with lower storage. Still, according to the results, 35% of respondents would prefer 

the smartphone with lower storage. 



accompanying simulation files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). Except 

for storage/memory, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark smartphone employed to create 

Table 4 of the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 12 

RESPONDENT CHOICE PREDICTIONS FOR IDENTICALLY PRICED "BENCHMARK" TABLETS 

THAT DIFFER ONLY IN STORAGE/MEMORY CAPACITY 

Comparing a tablet with maximum memory (64 GB) to one with minimum memory (8 GB) all else equal 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for an Additional 56 GB of Memory 


Touchscreen 



after Zoom 



after Zoom 

Connectivity 



Camera 




Price 



Camera, Zoom 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 8 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$499 $499 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

69% 

31% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the tablet with more storage clearly dominates the 

tablet with lower storage. Still, according to the results, 31% of respondents would prefer the tablet with 

lower storage. 




for storage/memory, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark tablet employed to create Table 

4 of the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 13 


THAT DIFFER ONLY IN CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS 

Comparing a smartphone with maximum connectivity options to one with minimum connectivity options all else equal 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for Tethering, MicroUSB and HDMI 


Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 







Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 



Zoom 

Cellular, WiFi 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

75% 

25% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the smartphone with more connectivity options 

clearly dominates the phone with less connectivity options. Still, according to the results, 25% of respondents 

would prefer the smartphone with less connectivity options. 




for connectivity, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark smartphone employed to create 

Table 4 of the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 14 


THAT DIFFER ONLY IN CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS 

Comparing a tablet with maximum connectivity options to one with minimum connectivity options all else equal 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for Bluetooth, MicroUSB, HDMI 

Features Tablet A - with the features Tablet B - without the features 

Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 




Price 



after Zoom 


HDMI 



Camera, Zoom 



after Zoom 

WiFi 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

76% 

24% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the tablet with more connectivity options clearly 

dominates the tablet with less connectivity options. Still, according to the results, 24% of respondents would 

prefer the tablet with less connectivity options. 




for connectivity, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark tablet employed to create Table 4 of 

the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 15 


THAT DIFFER ONLY IN THE NUMBER OF APPS AVAILABLE 

Comparing a smartphone with 150,000 apps to one with 600,000 apps all else equal 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for an Additional 450,000 Apps 


Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 







Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 



Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 150,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

57% 

43% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the smartphone with more apps clearly dominates 

the smartphone with less apps. Still, according to the results, 43% of respondents would prefer the 

smartphone with less apps. 




for number of apps available, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark smartphone employed 

to create Table 4 of the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 16 


THAT DIFFER ONLY IN NUMBER OF APPS AVAILABLE 

Comparing a tablet with maximum number of apps (650,000) to one with the minimum number of apps 

(150,000) all else equal 



Calculating the RFC Simulated Choice Share for an Additional 450,000 apps 


Touchscreen 



after Zoom 



after Zoom 

Connectivity 



Camera 




Price 



Camera, Zoom 



Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 150,000 


$199 $199 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

56% 

44% 

When all other features (including price) are held constant, the tablet with more apps clearly dominates the 

tablet with less apps. Still, according to the results, 44% of respondents would prefer the tablet with less apps. 




for number of apps available, the features' levels were set the same as those for the benchmark tablet employed to 

create Table 4 of the Hauser Report. Choice shares were then calculated.


EXHIBIT 17 

TOTAL WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES FOR INDIVIDUAL TOUCHSCREEN FEATURES 

BASED ON PROFESSOR HAUSER'S RFC SIMULATIONS 

$200 

$180 

TOTAL: $179 

$160 

$140 

$120 

Rubberband 

and Tap to 

Re-center 

$75 

From Exhibit 20. 

$100 

$80 

Autoswitch 

$39 

From Exhibit 5. See also, Hauser Report, at p. 54. 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Reliable 

Touch 

$65 

Touchscreen Features 

Difference 

Reliable Touch, Rubberband, Tap to $75 

= $114 

Re-center, and Autoswitch + $39 

= Difference Between = $65 

Less Reliable Touch, Rubberband, 

Tap to Re-center, and Autoswitch $49 = $49 

(from Exhibit 20) 

Notes: 

Calculation based on premise that willingness-to-pay estimates are additive due to the additive nature of the underlying utility function. See Hauser Report, pp. 21-22, 36.


EXHIBIT 18 




WHEN BASELINE PRICE IS $0 

Step 1 






Touchscreen 

Connectivity 

Camera 







Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

Reliable Touch, 


Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 

4.5 inches, 6 oz. 

4.5 inches, 6 oz. 

$0 $0 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

67% 33% 

Step 2 



RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$99 $0 

61% 39% 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$164 $0 

50% 50% 

Step 3 



$164 



files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). Employed procedure identical to that used to derive figures in 

Table 4 of Hauser Report but started with a baseline price of $0 (with a two-year contract).


EXHIBIT 19 




WHEN BASELINE PRICE IS $0 

Step 1 







Touchscreen 

Rubberband, Tap to Re-center 

Reliable Touch 

after Zoom 

Connectivity 

Camera 









Camera, Zoom 





Camera, Zoom 

64 GB 64 GB 

600,000 600,000 


$0 $0 

RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

84% 16% 

Step 2 



RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$99 $0 

78% 22% 


RFC Simulated 

Choice Share 

$266 $0 

50% 50% 

Step 3 


features (in this case Autoswitch, Rubberband, and Tap to Re-center 

after Zoom): 

$266 



files (avss_final.srt, avss_final.hbu, avss_final.ucs, avss_final.att, avss_final.dat). Employed procedure identical to that used to derive figures in 

Table 4 of Hauser Report but started with a baseline price of $0 (with a two-year contract).


EXHIBIT 20 


FOR FEATURES NOT REPORTED BY PROFESSOR HAUSER 


Level 

Touchscreen Connectivity Camera 

1 Reliable Touch - Cellular, WiFi - 

3 MP Rear Camera, Standard Video 


- 

2 

Reliable Touch, Rubberband, Tap to 

Re-center after Zoom 

$75 Cellular, WiFi, Tethering $33 



$79 

3 

4 

Less Reliable Touch, Autoswitch, 


Zoom 



Zoom 

$49 Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, MicroUSB $61 

>$100 

Cellular, WiFi, Tethering, MicroUSB, 

HDMI 

$68 

8 MP Rear Camera, 

HD Video Recording, Autofocus, 



HD Video Recording, Autofocus, 2 MP 

Front Camera, Zoom 

>$100 

>$100 

Level 

1 


8 GB - 

Number of Apps Available 

150,000 - 


3.5 inches, 4 oz. - 

2 16 GB $19 300,000 $11 4 inches, 5 oz. $28 

3 32 GB $27 450,000 $12 4.3 inches, 5.3 oz. $26 

4 64 GB $31 600,000 $13 4.5 inches, 6 oz. $31 


As in Professor Hauser's analysis, WTP is derived by calculating the price for which simulated market shares are 50%-50% between two products for which the attribute of 

interest differs while all other attributes are kept constant at their "best" levels. For size and weight, the largest size is assumed to be "best." In this exhibit, WTP is 

calculated for each given attribute relative to the lowest level of that attribute (for a smartphone in which the other attributes are at the "best" levels). Blue color coding 

represents features that are added or improved compared to the reference level. Orange color coding represents features that are less attractive compared to the reference 

level. 

The price for which the shares are equal (WTP) is obtained through a manual grid search, as in Professor Hauser's report, by starting with both products having prices set at 

$199 and increasing the price of the "better" alternative until the simulated shares are the same for both products. Because the maximum price considered in the survey is 

$299, the WTP is capped at $100. 

Highlighted features are those in which animated descriptions were used. Level orders may not be equal to the system used in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 21 

CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY PRICE PREMIUM FOR SMARTPHONE FEATURES 


COMPARING FEATURES WITH AND WITHOUT ANIMATED DESCRIPTIONS 

(ALL FEATURES AND ALL LEVELS) 

$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Features without Animation 

Features with Animation 


WTP is capped at $100. See Exhibit 20. Features displayed in red are those in which animated descriptions were used.


EXHIBIT 22 




(ALL FEATURES FOR LEVEL 1 TO 2) 

$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Storage/Memory Size/Weight Connectivity Touchscreen Camera 




From Exhibit 20. Features displayed in red are those in which animated descriptions were used.


EXHIBIT 23 





$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Size/Weight Storage/Memory Touchscreen Connectivity Camera 






EXHIBIT 24 





$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Storage/Memory Size/Weight Connectivity Touchscreen Camera 






EXHIBIT 25 


FOR FEATURES NOT REPORTED BY PROFESSOR HAUSER 


Level 

Touchscreen Connectivity Camera 

1 Full Multi-Touch - WiFi - 

3 MP Rear Camera, Standard Video 


- 

2 

Full Multi-Touch, Rubberband, Tap to 

Recenter after Zoom 

$46 WiFi, Bluetooth $37 



$59 

3 

Very Limited Multi-Touch, 



Zoom 

$32 WiFi, Bluetooth, MicroUSB $80 


HD Video Recording, Autofocus, 


$98 

4 

Full Multi-Touch, Autoswitch (1 to 2 

Fingers), Rubberband, Tap to Recenter 

after Zoom 


$90 

$94 


HD Video Recording, Autofocus, 2 MP 

Front Camera, Zoom 

$122 

Level 

1 


8 GB - 

Number of Apps Available 

150,000 - 


7 inches, 1 lb. - 

2 16 GB $32 300,000 $10 8.5 inches, 1.5 lbs. $21 

3 32 GB $51 450,000 $13 9 inches, 1.75 lbs. $35 

4 64 GB $56 600,000 $16 10 inches, 2 lbs. $46 


As in Professor Hauser's analysis, WTP is derived by calculating the price for which simulated market shares are 50%-50% between two products for which the feature of 

interest differs while all other features are kept constant at their "best" levels. For size and weight, the largest size is assumed to be "best." In this exhibit, WTP is calculated 

for each given feature relative to the lowest level of that feature (for a tablet in which the other features are at the "best" levels). Blue color coding represents features that 

are added or improved compared to the reference level. Orange color coding represents features that are less attractive compared to the reference level. 

The price for which the shares are equal (WTP) is obtained through a manual grid search, as in Professor Hauser's report, by starting with both products having prices set at 

$499 and increasing the price of the "better" alternative until the simulated shares are the same for both products. Because the maximum price considered in the survey is 

$659, the WTP is capped at $160. 

Highlighted features are those in which animated descriptions were used. Level orders may not be equal to the system used in Professor Hauser's survey.


EXHIBIT 26 

CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY PRICE PREMIUM FOR TABLET FEATURES 



(ALL FEATURES AND ALL LEVELS) 

$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 






EXHIBIT 27 





$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Size/Weight Storage/Memory Connectivity Touchscreen Camera 






EXHIBIT 28 





$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Touchscreen Size/Weight Storage/Memory Connectivity Camera 






EXHIBIT 29 





$100 

$80 

$60 

$40 

$20 

$0 

Number of Apps Size/Weight Storage/Memory Touchscreen Connectivity Camera 






1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




50 California Street, 22nd Floor 


Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 





555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor 


Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


vs. 








Defendants. 


DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN 

DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF 



INJUNCTION AND FOR DAMAGES 

ENHANCEMENTS REGARDING U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,469,381 

Date: December 6, 2012 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 


DECLARATION OF ANDRIES VAN DAM, PH.D.


1 

2 

3 

I, Andries van Dam, declare: 

1. I am a tenured professor in the Computer Science department of Brown 

University, where I hold the position of Thomas J. Watson, Jr. University Professor of 

4 

Technology and Education Chair and am also a Professor of Computer Science. 

I have been 

5 

6 

retained by counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and 

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung") as an expert in the 

7 

above-captioned case. 

As part of that engagement I have been asked to provide analysis and 

8 

9 

10 

expert opinions on whether the "blue glow" feature implemented by Samsung infringes U.S. 

Patent No. 7,469,381 (the "'381 patent"). 

2. I submit this declaration in support of Samsung‟s Opposition to Apple‟s Motion 

11 

12 

for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages Enhancements. 

regarding the matters I discuss in this declaration. 

If asked, I am prepared to testify 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

3. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on any new 

information that is relevant to my opinions. 

I. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 

4. I received a B.S. in Engineering Sciences from Swarthmore College in 1960, and 

an M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1963 and 

1966 respectively. 

5. I have taught at Brown University since 1965, where I started as an Assistant 

Professor teaching Computer Science in the Division of Applied Mathematics. In 1968, I 

became a tenured Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics, and in 1972, I was promoted to 

22 

Full Professor. 

In 1976, I became a Professor of Computer Science, and have taught Computer 

23 

Science continuously since 1965. 

I have held various positions at Brown University, including 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Chairman of the Computer Science Program (1976-1979), Founding Chairman of the Department 

of Computer Science (1979-1985), L. Herbert Ballou University Professor Chair (1992-1995), 

Thomas J. Watson, Jr. University Professor of Technology and Education Chair (1995-present), 

and Vice President for Research (2002-2006). I have also served as a visiting professor on 




1 

2 

3 

Sabbatical leave to teach and start research groups in Computer Graphics at University of 

Nijmegen in the Netherlands and University of Geneva in Switzerland. 

6. I have also served as the Director of the National Science Foundation Science & 

4 

Technology Center for Computer Graphics and Scientific Visualization (the STC). 

The STC 

5 

was physically located across 5 universities, including Brown and ran for its allotted 11 years, 

6 

with its financial home at the University of Utah. 

In my role as director, which I filled for three 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

years, I was logistically responsible for the operation and the research programs of the Center. 

7. While on my year‟s Sabbatical at the University of Geneva in 1978-79 I was also 

Visiting Scientific Associate at CERN, the European Nuclear Research Institute in Geneva and 

was invited back for many visits to consult and lecture. While at CERN as a Visiting Scientific 

Associate, I co-designed a special-purpose microcomputer specializing in fast event processing 

for handling data from physics experiments, and its microprogramming, and gave various 

13 

lectures. 

My subsequent visits generally involved consultation on a variety of subjects relating 

14 

15 

to workstations, scientific visualization, and hypermedia. 

8. I have over forty years of experience in the fields of computer graphics, 

16 

hypermedia systems, and user interfaces. 

In my research, I have recently worked on projects 

17 

relating to pen- and touch-centric computing, educational software, and electronic book authoring 

18 

and delivery systems. 

I have authored or co-authored 120 articles, 9 books, and 3 National 

19 

20 

21 

Research Council Reports. I have presented over 44 invited lectures since 2000. My lectures 

in the past two decades have been primarily focused on the area of interaction in immersive 

virtual environments and scientific visualization, with a recent focus on pen- and touch- 

22 

computing. 

I have publicly shown work on pen computing on tablet PCs and touch computing 

23 

24 

on Microsoft Surface devices, using both research-based and commercial devices. 

recently focused on applications in digital humanities (or, as it has become known, 

I have most 

25 

26 

27 

28 

"ehumanities"). For example, I worked on a humanities project called Large Artwork Displayed 

on the Surface (LADS) for examining large pieces of artwork on any touch-enabled surface 

supported by Windows 7. I also recently helped design a scholarship tool to allow users to easily 

create selections of hyperlinked multimedia documents, entitled WorkTop. Before we acquired 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

a Microsoft Surface, my students had built our own “touch table,” a “home brew” prototype 

touch device, for which we had created multiple applications. My group‟s most recent work on 

touch computing has been sponsored by both Microsoft Research and Sharp. I have shown 

multiple unpublished projects using touch computing at the annual Microsoft Faculty Summit. 

My group and I have also produced the Garibaldi Panorama Application, a precursor to LADS, 

which was shown to thousands of people as a key exhibit in a special exhibit at British Library on 

the future of digital scholarship. 

9. I have worked as an expert in several legal matters as a consulting expert and an 

9 

expert witness. 

I have written expert reports and have had my deposition taken. 

10 

11 

10. I attach as Exhibit 1 my curriculum vitae¸ which includes a more detailed list of 

my qualifications. 

12 

13 

II. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

11. In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards. I have 

14 

been informed of these legal standards by Samsung‟s attorneys. 

I am not an attorney and I am 

15 

16 

17 

18 

relying only on instructions from Samsung‟s attorneys for these legal standards. In conducting 

my analysis of the '381 patent claims, I have applied the legal understandings set out in this 

declaration. 

12. I understand that assessment of infringement is a two step process. First, the 

19 

language of the patent claims must be construed by the Court. 

Second, the claims as construed 

20 

are applied to the accused product or process to determine whether the accused product or 

21 

process meets each and every limitation of the claim as construed by the Court. 

To establish 

22 

23 

24 

infringement of a patent, I understand that it is the patentee ‟s burden to show that each accused 

product practices every limitation of at least one asserted claim in that patent. 

13. I understand that the patentee has the burden of proving infringement by the 

25 

preponderance of the evidence. 

I understand that this standard requires that the patentee present 

26 

evidence that as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. 

27 

28 




1 

14. I understand that there are two types of infringement: literal infringement and 

2 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 

I understand that to literally infringe a claim, an 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

accused product or process must literally meet every limitation of the claim. 

15. I understand that even if all limitations of a claim are not literally met, an accused 

product or process may still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. I understand that to 

establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused product or process must, for 

each element of the claim not literally present, contain a structure or perform a step that is 

substantially equivalent to the element in the claim. I am informed by counsel that one common 

way of determining substantial equivalence is to examine whether the accused structure or step 

performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially 

the same result as the corresponding limitation of the claim. 

16. I also understand that there are several restrictions on the application of the 

doctrine of equivalents. First, if an accused product or process wholly lacks even a single 

14 

limitation of a claim, it cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Second, the 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

range of equivalents cannot be so broad as to encompass that which was already known in the 

prior art. Third, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel precludes a patentee from 

reclaiming through equivalents subject matter that was relinquished based on statements or 

amendments during prosecution. 

17. I understand that every claim limitation is essential in proving infringement, and 

that the absence of even one limitation in an accused product or process avoids infringement. 

21 

22 

III. 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

18. I understand that the Court has construed the term "edge of the electronic 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

document" for the '381 patent to have its plain and ordinary meaning. In doing so, the Court 

emphasized that the "edge of the electronic document" is not limited to an external edge, but may 

include an internal edge. (Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 

7,698,711; 6,493,002; 7,469,381; 7,663,607; 7,812,828; 7,844,915; and 7,853,891 (Dkt No. 849) 

at 23.) 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

19. I understand the Court has construed the term "electronic document" for the '381 

patent to mean “a document stored in a digital format. An „electronic document‟ includes, but is 

not limited to, a web page; a digital image; a word processing, spreadsheet or presentation 

document; or a list of items in a digital format.” (Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms of 

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,469,381 and 7,864,163. (Dkt. No. 1266) at 6.) I understand further that an 

6 

electronic document need not be stored in a single file. 

Id. 

7 

8 

20. In conducting my analysis of the '381 patent claims, I have applied the Court‟s 

constructions of these terms. 

9 

10 

IV. 

OVERVIEW OF THE '381 PATENT 

21. The „381 patent, titled “List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display,” was filed on December 14, 2007 and issued on December 

23, 2008. The patent has one named inventor, Bas Ording. 

22. The '381 patent generally relates to correcting the display of an electronic 

document when a user has translated or scrolled past the edge of the document, i.e. "overscroll 

correction." Independent claim 19 of the '381 patent discloses translating an electronic 

document displayed on a touch screen display in response to detecting movement of an object on 

17 

or near the touch screen. 

The '381 patent claims a snap-back functionality where, if the user 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

translates an electronic document beyond the edge of that document, an area beyond that edge 

will be displayed. When the user lifts her finger from the touch screen, the document will snap 

back, such that no area beyond the edge of the document remains in view. 

23. The complete text of claim 19 of the „381 patent is shown below: 

19. A device, comprising: 

a touch screen display; 

one or more processors; 

memory; and 

one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the 

memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the 

programs including: 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document; 

instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch 

screen display; 

instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch 

screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the 

electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first 

portion, in response to detecting the movement; 

instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic 

document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein 

the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of 

the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic 

document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near 

the touch screen display; and 

instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction 

until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer 

displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the 

fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that 

the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display. 

V. SAMSUNG’S “BLUE GLOW” FEATURE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE '381 

PATENT 

24. I understand that Apple has accused the “snap back” or “bounce back” feature in 

the Web Browser, Contacts and Gallery applications on certain Samsung products of infringing 

the „381 patent. 

25. I understand that Samsung developed new software for the Web Browser, 

Contacts and Gallery applications that removes the “snap back” feature and replaces it with a 

“blue glow” feature. In my opinion, the blue glow feature does not infringe the „381 patent, 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

below. 

The basis for my opinion is set forth in detail 

26. In an application that utilizes the blue glow feature, an electronic document 

performs a "hard stop" – i.e., prevents overscrolling – when the user attempts to scroll beyond the 

edge of the document. Thus an area beyond the edge of the document is not shown. 

indicate that the edge of the electronic document has been reached, a blue glow animation 

To 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

appears near the edge of the electronic document. This behavior is shown in a video of the Web 

Browser, Contacts and Gallery applications which are attached in Exhibit 2 to this declaration. 

27. Claim 19 of the „381 patent requires “instructions for displaying an area beyond 

and edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, 

wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic 

document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the 

object is still detected on or near the touch screen display.” The blue glow feature does not 

literally infringe this claim because it does not permit a user to continue scrolling in order to 

display an area beyond the edge of the electronic document. It also does not display a third 

10 

portion of the electronic document that is smaller than the first portion. 

Instead, upon reaching 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the edge of the electronic document, the document comes to a stop and a blue glow appears. 

28. Furthermore, the blue glow feature does not infringe this claim limitation under 

the doctrine of equivalents, as blue glow is substantially different from the claimed behavior. 

The blue glow feature is substantially different from the claimed behavior because it utilizes the 

"hard stop" behavior alleged by Apple to be different from the method of the '381 patent and part 

of the prior art. 

29. Claim 19 of the „381 patent also requires “instructions for translating the 

electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic 

document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein 

the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no 

longer on or near the touch screen display.” The blue glow feature fails to literally infringe this 

claim because it does not translate the electronic document in a second direction until the area 

beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed. No translation of the 

electronic document occurs, and furthermore, no area beyond the edge of the document was 

displayed in the first instance, rendering the claim language inapplicable to applications utilizing 

the blue glow feature. 

30. Furthermore, the blue glow feature does not infringe this claim limitation under 

the doctrine of equivalents, as blue glow is substantially different from the claimed behavior. 




1 

2 

3 

4 

The blue glow feature is substantially different from the claimed behavior because it utilizes the 

"hard stop" behavior alleged by Apple to be different from the method of the '381 patent and part 

of the prior art. 

31. I have also reviewed source code relating to scrolling in the Gallery, Contacts and 

5 

Web Browser applications. 

In particular, I have reviewed the source code that I understand was 

6 

used to create the following software: 

Android version 4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, 

7 

Kernel version 3.0.8, and Build number IMM76D.UVLI1. 1 

Based on that inspection, I have 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

confirmed that the source code does not include instructions for performing claim 19 of the „381 

patent. Instead, the source code includes instructions that relate to the blue glow feature. 

VI. 

PRODUCTS USING THE “BLUE GLOW” FEATURE DO NOT INFRINGE THE 

'381 PATENT 

32. I have personally examined the Gallery, Contacts and Web Browser applications 

that utilize the blue glow feature on two Samsung Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) products. I inspected 

a Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) that I understand from counsel was examined by Apple‟s expert, Dr. 

Ravin Balakrishnan, and attached as Exhibit 6 to the April 20, 2012 Deposition of Dr. Ravin 

Balakrishnan. 

I also inspected a Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) product running the following 

software: Android version 4.0.4, Baseband version T989UVLI1, Kernel version 3.0.8, and 

Build number IMM76D.UVLI1. For the reasons stated above, it is my opinion that these 

products and any other products that utilize the blue glow feature do not infringe the „381 patent. 

VII. 

APPLE’S EXPERT AGREES THAT THE “BLUE GLOW” FEATURE DOES NOT 

INFRINGE THE '381 PATENT 

33. I have reviewed expert reports and deposition testimony of Apple‟s expert, Dr. 

Ravin Balakrishnan, regarding the blue glow feature. Dr. Balakrishnan inspected a Galaxy S II 

(T-Mobile) and concluded that the blue glow feature was present on that device. April 20, 2012 

Dep. of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan, at 80:15-17. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

Declaration of Hee-chan Choi In Support Of Samsung‟s Opposition To Apple‟s Motion 

For A Permanent Injunction And Damages Enhancement. 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

34. Dr. Balakrishnan agreed that blue glow does not infringe the claims of the „381 

patent. In his expert report, he stated, “In my opinion, the use of the „blue glow‟ effect is an 

alternative to using the features of the „381 patent.” March 22, 2012 Expert Report of Dr. Ravin 

Balakrishnan, at 262. In addition, when asked whether the blue glow feature infringes the „381 

patent during his deposition, Dr. Balakrishnan stated, “If it is only the blue glow and not the blue 

glow in additional [sic] to the snapback that‟s in „381, then a device or an application, having just 

the blue glow and not doing the „381 snapback functionality, would not infringe.” April 20, 

2012 Dep. of Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan, at 62:7-11. 

9 

10 

11 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in 

Providence, Rhode Island on October 18, 2012. 

12 

13 

14 

By: 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




EXHIBIT 1


Education 

Andries van Dam 


Thomas J. Watson, Jr. University Professor of Technology and Education 

and 

Professor of Computer Science 

Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 

phone: (401) 863-7640 , fax: (401) 863-7657 

email: avd@cs.brown.edu 

B.S. Engineering Sciences (with Honors), Swarthmore College, 1960 

M.S. 

Electrical Engineering, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, 

University of Pennsylvania, 1963 

Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, 

University of Pennsylvania, 1966 

Dissertation topic: A Study of Digital Processing of Pictorial Data 

Table of Contents 


Professional Appointments 

Consultancies 

Publications 

Books and NRC Reports 

Articles 

Invited Lectures since 2000 

Service To the Profession 

Academic Honors, Research Grants, Fellowships and Honorary Societies Honors 


My research has concerned computer graphics, hypermedia systems, post-WIMP user interfaces, 

including pen-centric computing, and educational software. I have been working for four decades 

on systems for creating and reading electronic books with interactive illustrations for use in 

teaching and research. 

1


Professional Appointments 

2002-2006 Vice President for Research, Brown University 

1995- Thomas J. Watson, Jr. University Professor of Technology and Education Chair 

1995-1998 Director, National Science Foundation Science & Technology Center for 

Computer Graphics and Scientific Visualization 

1992-1995 L. Herbert Ballou University Professor Chair 

1980-1986 Visiting Scientific Associate, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 

1979- Professor of Computer Science, Brown University 

1979-1985 Chairman, Department of Computer Science, Brown University 

1978-1979 Sabbatical Leave, Visiting Professor, University of Geneva, and Scientific 

Associate, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 

1976-1979 Professor of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Brown University 

Chairman, Program in Computer Science, Brown University 

1975-1977 Adjunct Visiting Professor, University of Rhode Island (to teach in-house courses 

on Computer Graphics at Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London and 

Newport, Rhode Island) 

1972-1976 Professor of Applied Mathematics, Brown University 

1971-1972 Sabbatical Leave, Visiting Professor, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 

Netherlands 

1968-1972 Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics, Brown University 

1965-1968 Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics, Brown University 

Consultancies 

2008 - Director, Board of Directors, GyPSii 

2007- Consulting scientist, Microsoft Research 

2


2007 Member, Technical Advisory Board, GyPSii 

2005 Vincent and Elkins, Kenyon and Kenyon, expert consulting for Tecmo 

2000-2001 Chairman, Technical Advisory Board, E-Quill 

Member, Board of Directors, Synomics 

Chairman, Technical Advisory Board, ThinkShare 

1999-2005 Member, Board of Directors, ContextMedia, Providence, RI 

1998- Technical advising, Phoam 

1996-1999 Chairman, Numinous Technologies Incorporated, Seattle, WA 

1995 Technical Advisory Board, Peer Group Systems, Inc. (PGSI), Seattle, 

Washington. 

1994 Brown and Baine, expert witness for Autodesk in a trade secret litigation 

1993-2003 Member, Technical Advisory Board, Fraunhofer Center for Research in Computer 

Graphics, Inc., Providence, RI and Darmstadt, Germany 

1992-1994 Member, Technical Advisory Board, Ithaca Software, Alameda, CA 

1992-2007 Member, Technical Advisory Board, and consultant, Microsoft Corporation, 

Redmond, WA 

1990-1993 Chairman, Technical Advisory Board, ShoGraphics, Mountain View, CA 

Member, College of Computing National Advisory Board, Georgia Institute of 

Technology, Atlanta, GA 

1990-1991 Chairman, Technical Advisory Board, Prime Computer, Inc., CAD Division, 

Bedford, MA 

1990 Co-founder, Chief Scientist, and Chairman of Technical Advisory Board 

Electronic Book Technologies, Providence, RI 

1988-1992 Chief Scientist, BLOC Development, Coral Gables, FL 

1987-1988 Cravath, Swaine and Moore, expert witness for IBM in a patent litigation 

1986-1988 Member, Technical Advisory Board, Context Corp., Beaverton, OR 

3


1985-1988 Senior Scientist and Chairman of Technical Advisory Board, Stardent Computer, 

Newton, MA 

1985-1987 Consulting Scientist, CADRE Technology, Providence, RI 

1984-1986 Member, Scientific Advisory Board, Metagraphics, Woburn, MA 

1983-1985 IBM World Trade Americas/Far East Corporation, North Tarrytown, NY 

1982-1986 Member, Electronic Systems Board, Gould, Rolling Meadows, IL 

1981-1983 CIT ALCATEL, Paris, France 

1980-1988 President, van Dam, Inc. 

1980-1985 Exxon Research and Engineering Division, Florham Park, NJ 

1980-1981 Summagraphics, Bridgeport, CT 

1978-1979 Prime Computer, Inc., Framingham, MA 

Bobst Graphic, Lausanne, and Hermes Precisa, Yverdon, Switzerland 

1977-1978 Department of the Army 

1975-1979 Software Laboratory, Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI 

1975-1977 Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 

1971-1977 Information Systems and Automation Division, Phillips Corp., Eindhoven, 

Netherlands 

1970-1988 President, Text Systems, Inc., Barrington, RI 

1970-1975 General Motors Research Center, Warren, MI 

1970-1972 Government Intelligence Community, Washington, D 

1970 Director, NCSS Providence Research Center 

1965-1966 Leeds and Northrup, PA 

1961-1962 RCA, Cherry Hill, NJ 

4


Publications 

Books and NRC Reports 

2005 

 

[Sanders & van Dam 2005] Kathryn E. Sanders and Andries van Dam. Object-Oriented 

Programming in Java: A Graphical Approach, Addison-Wesley, 2005. 

2001 

 

[Earnshaw et al. 2001] Rae Earnshaw, Richard Guedj, Andries van Dam, and John 

Vince (Eds.). Frontiers of Human-Centered Computing, OnLine Communities and 

Virtual Environments. Springer Verlag, London, 2001. 

1999 

1995 

1993 

[Snyder et al. 1999] Lawrence Snyder, Alfred V. Aho, Marcia C. Linn, Arnold H. 

Packer, Allen B. Tucker Jr., Jeffrey D. Ullman, and Andries van Dam. "Being Fluent 

with Information Technology", Report of the Committee on Information Technology 

Literacy, Computer Science and Telecommunication Board of the National Research 

Council, National Academy Press, 1999. 

[Connor et al. 1995] D. Brookshire Connor, David Niguidula, and Andries van Dam. 

Object Oriented Programming in Pascal. Addison-Wesley, 1995. 

[Durlach et al. 1995] Nathaniel Durlach, Steve Bryson, Norman Hackerman, John N. 

Hollerbach, James R Lackner, J. Michael Moshell, Randy Pausch, Richard W. Pew, 

Warren Robinett, Joseph Rosen, Mandayam A. Srinivasan, James J. Thomas, Andries 

van Dam, Elizabeth Wenzel, Andrew Witkin, Eugene Wong, and Michael Zyda. Virtual 

Reality: Scientific and Technological Challenges. National Research Council Report, 

National Academy Press, 1995. 

[Foley et al. 1995] James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner, and John F. 

Hughes. Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, Second Edition in C. Addison- 

Wesley, 1995. 

 

[Foley et al. 1993] James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner, John F. Hughes, 

and Richard L. Phillips. Introduction to Computer Graphics. Addison-Wesley, 1993. 

5


1992 

 

[Hartmanis et al. 1992] Juris Hartmanis, Ruzena Bajcsy, Ashok K. Chandra, Andries 

van Dam, Jeff Dozier, James Gray, David Gries, A. Nico Habermann, Robert R. Johnson, 

Leonard Kleinrock, M. Douglas McIlroy, David A. Patterson, Raj Reddy, Klaus 

Schulten, Charles Seitz, and Victor Vyssotsky. Computing the Future: A Broader Agenda 

For Computer Science and Engineering, Committee to Assess the Scope and Direction of 

Computer Science and Technology, National Research Council Report, National 

Academy Press, 1992. 

1990 

 

[Foley et al. 1990] James D. Foley and Andries van Dam and Steven K. Feiner and John 

F. Hughes. Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1990. 

1987 

 

[Niguidula & van Dam 1987] David A. Niguidula and Andries van Dam. Pascal on the 

Macintosh: A Graphical Approach. Addison-Wesley, 1987. 

1984 

 

[Foley & van Dam 1984] James D. Foley and Andries van Dam. Fundamentals of 

Interactive Computer Graphics. Addison-Wesley (The Systems Programming Series), 

1984. 

1984 

 

[van Dam et al. 1968] Andries van Dam, D. Huffman, E. E. David, and J. Ullman. The 

Man-Made World. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. 

Articles 

2008 

[Zeleznik et al. 2008] Robert Zeleznik, Timothy Miller, Andries van Dam, Joseph J. 

LaViola, Jr., Chuanjun Li, Dana Tenneson, and Christopher Maloney. “Applications and 

Issues in Pen-Centric Computing” in IEEE Multimedia October-December 2008. 

[LaViola et al. 2008] Joseph LaViola, Prabhat, Andrew Forsberg, David H. Laidlaw, and 

Andries van Dam. "Virtual Reality-Based Interactive Scientific Visualization 

Environments" in Interactive Visualization: A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer Verlag, 

2008. 

6


2005 

 

 

 

 

[Head et al. 2005] James W. Head, Andries van Dam, Samuel Fulcomer, Andrew 

Forsberg, Prabhat, George Rosser, and Sarah M. Milkovich. "ADVISER: Immersive 

Scientific Visualization Applied to Mars Research and Exploration" in Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing, 71(10), pp. 1219-1225, October 2005. 

[van Dam 2005] Andries van Dam. "Visualization Research Problems in Next- 

Generation Educational Software" in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(5), 

pp. 88-92, September/October 2005. 

[van Dam et. al. 2005] Andries van Dam, Sascha Becker, and Rosemary Michelle 

Simpson. "Next-Generation Educational Software: Why We Need It and a Research 

Agenda for Getting It" in Educause Review, March/April 2005, 40(2), pp. 26-43, 2005. 

[Welch et al. 2005] Greg Welch, Ruigang Yang, Sascha Becker, Adrian Ilie, Dan Russo, 

Jesse Funaro, Andrei State, Kok-Lim Low, Anselmo Lastra, Herman Towles, Bruce 

Cairns, M.D., Henry Fuchs, and Andries van Dam. "Immersive Electronic Books for 

Surgical Training." IEEE Multimedia, 12(3), pp. 22-35, July-September 2005. 

2004 

 

[Welch et al. 2004] Greg Welch, Ruigang Yang, M. Bruce Cairns, Herman Towles, 

Andrei State, Adrian Ilie, Sascha Becker, Dan Russo, Jesse Funaro, Diane Sonnenwald, 

Ketan Mayer-Patel, B. Danette Allen, Hua Yang, Eugene Freid, Andries van Dam, and 

Henry Fuchs. "3D Telepresence for Off-Line Surgical Training and On-Line Remote 

Consultation" in Proceedings of ICAT CREST Symposium on Telecommunication, 

Teleimmersion, and Telexistence, Susumu Tachi, editor, The University of Tokyo, 

Tokyo, Japan, December 2004. 

2003 

 

 

[Spalter & van Dam, 2003] Anne Morgan Spalter and Andries van Dam. "Problems 

with using components in educational software" in Computers & Graphics 27(3), pp. 

329-337, 2003. 

[van Dam 2003] Andries van Dam. "Grand Challenge 3. Provide a Teacher for Every 

Learner" in Grand Research Challenges in Information Systems. Anita Jones and William 

Wulf, editors, pp. 17-22, Computing Research Association, 2003. URL: 

www.cra.org/reports/gc.systems.pdf 

2002 

 

 

[van Dam et al. 2002a] Andries van Dam, David H. Laidlaw, and Rosemary Michelle 

Simpson. "Experiments in Immersive Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization" in 

Computers & Graphics 26(4), pp. 535-555, 2002. 

[van Dam et al. 2002b] Andries van Dam, Henry Fuchs, Sascha Becker, Loring Holden, 

Adrian Ilie, Kok-Lim Low, Anne Morgan Spalter, Ruigang Yang, and Greg Welch. 

"Immersive Electronic Books for Teaching Surgical Procedures" in Proceedings of Pre- 

7


ICAT CREST Symposium on Telecommunication, Teleimmersion, and Telexistence, 

December 3, 2002. The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 

2001 

 

 

[van Dam 2001a] Andries van Dam. "User interfaces: disappearing, dissolving, and 

evolving" in Communications of the ACM (CACM), 44(3), pp. 50-52, 2001. 

[van Dam 2001b] Andries van Dam. "Reflections on Next-Generation Educational 

Software", in Enseigner L'Informatique: Melanges en Hommage a Bernard Levrat, 

Christian Pellegrini and Alain Jacquesson editors, Georg Editeur, pp. 153-166, 2001. 

2000 

 

 

 

[Forsberg et al. 2000] Andrew S. Forsberg, David H. Laidlaw, Andries van Dam, Robert 

M. Kirby, George E. Karniadakis, and Jonathan L. Elion. "Immersive virtual reality for 

visualizing flow through an artery" in Proceedings of IEEE Visualization 2000, pp. 457- 

460, 2000. 

[van Dam 2000] Andries van Dam. "Beyond WIMP" in IEEE Computer Graphics and 

Applications, 20(1), pp. 50-51, 2000. 

[van Dam et al. 2000] Andries van Dam, Andrew S. Forsberg, David H. Laidlaw, Joseph 

J. LaViola Jr., and Rosemary Michelle Simpson. "Immersive VR for Scientific 

Visualization: A Progress Report" in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(6), 

Nov/Dec, pp. 26-52, 2000. 

1999 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brown et al. 1999] Judith R. Brown, Andy van Dam, Rae Earnshaw, Jose Encarnacao, 

Richard Guedj, Jennifer Preece, Ben Shneiderman, and John Vince. "Human-Centered 

Computing, Online Communities, and Virtual Environments" in IEEE Computer 

Graphics and Applications, 19(6), pp. 70-74, November 1999. 

[DeRose & van Dam 1999] Steven J. DeRose and Andries van Dam. "Document 

Structure and Markup in the FRESS Hypertext System" in Markup Languages 1(1), pp. 

7-32, 1999. 

[Gould et al. 1999] Daniel L. Gould, Rosemary M. Simpson, and Andries van Dam. 

"Granularity in the Design of Interactive Illustrations'' in Proceedings of ACM SigCSE 

'99, pp. 306-310, 1999. 

[Simpson et al. 1999] Rosemary M. Simpson, Anne M. Spalter, and Andries van Dam. 

"Exploratories: An Educational Strategy for the 21st Century" in Proceedings of ACM 

SIGGRAPH '99, Conference Abstracts and Applications, pp. 43-45, 1999. 

[van Dam 1999] Andries van Dam. "Education: the unfinished revolution" in ACM 

Computing Surveys, 31(4es), p. 36, 1999. 

8


1998 

 

 

[van Dam 1998a] Andries van Dam. "Interview" in IEEE Annals of the History of 

Computing 20(2), pp. 81-84,1998. 

[van Dam 1998b] Andries van Dam. "The Shape of Things to Come"in ACM 

SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics Newsletter, 32(1), 1998. 

1997 

 

 

 

[Bazik et al. 1997] John Bazik, Roberto Tamassia, Stephen P. Reiss, and Andries van 

Dam. "Software Visualization in Teaching at Brown University" Chapter 25 in Software 

Visualization: Programming as a Multi-Media Experience, MIT Press, pp. 383-398, 

1998. 

[van Dam 1997a] Andries van Dam. "Some Personal Recollections on Graphics 

Standards" in ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics Newsletter Standards Pipeline 

Column, February 1997. 

[van Dam 1997b] Andries van Dam. "Post-Wimp User Interfaces: the Human 

Connection" in Communications of the ACM (CACM) 40(2), pp. 63-67, 1997. 

1996 

 

[Simpson et al. 1996] Rosemary M. Simpson, Allen Renear, Elli Mylonas, and Andries 

van Dam. "50 Years After 'As We May Think': The Brown/MIT Vannevar Bush 

Symposium" in ACM Interactions 3(2), pp. 47-67, 1996. 

1995 

 

[Arnold et al. 1995] David Arnold, Jack Bresenham, Ken Brodlie, George S. Carson, Jan 

Hardenbergh, Paul van Binst, and Andries van Dam. "Standardisation - opportunity or 

constraint?" in Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH '95, pp. 499-501, 1995. 

1994 

[Bryson et al. 1994] Steve Bryson, Steven Feiner, Frederick P. Brooks Jr., Philip M. 

Hubbard, Randy Pausch, and Andries van Dam. "Research frontiers in virtual reality" in 

Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH '94, pp. 473-474, 1994. 

[Conner et al. 1994] D. Brookshire Conner, David Niguidula, and Andries van Dam. 

"Object Oriented Programming: Getting it Right at the Start" in OOPSLA Educators' 

Symposium, Portland, OR , October 1994. 

[Gomez et al. 1994] Julian E. Gomez, Rick Carey, Tony Fields, Andries van Dam, and 

Dan Venolia. "Why is 3-D interaction so hard and what can we really do about it?" in 


[Herndon et al. 1994] Kenneth P. Herndon, Andries van Dam, and Michael Gleicher. 

"The Challenges of 3D Interactions" in Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI '94, pp. 36-43, 

1994. 

9


 

[van Dam 1994] Andries van Dam. "Interactive Visualization via 3D User Interfaces" in 

Proceedings of IEEE Visualization '94, 1994. 

1993 

 

[van Dam 1993] Andries van Dam. "VR as a Forcing Function: Software Implications of 

a New Paradigm" in Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Research Frontiers in Virtual 

Reality, SPIE pp. 570-576, October 1993. 

1992 

 

 

 

[Adrion et al. 1992] W. Richards Adrion, Edward D. Lazowska, and Andries van Dam. 

"From Discipline in Crisis to Mature Science: Evolving Needs for Computing Research 

Infrastructure" in IEEE Computer, 25(12), pp. 18-24, December 1992. 

[Conner et al. 1992] D. Brookshire Conner, Scott S. Snibbe, Kenneth P. Herndon, 

Daniel C. Robbins, Robert C. Zeleznik, and Andries van Dam. "Three-dimensional 

Widgets" in Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH1992 Symposium on Interactive 3D 

Graphics, pp. 183-188, 1992. 

[Conner & van Dam 1992] D. Brookshire Conner and Andries van Dam. "Sharing 

Between Graphical Objects Using Delegation" in Proceedings of Third Eurographics 

Workshop on Object-Oriented Graphics, Champery, Switzerland, pp. 173-190, October 

1992. 

[Herndon et al. 1992] Kenneth P. Herndon, Robert C. Zeleznik, Daniel C. Robbins, D. 

Brookshire Conner, Scott S. Snibbe, and Andries van Dam. "Interactive Shadows" in 

Proceedings of ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology '92, pp. 1- 

6, 1992. 

[Snibbe et al. 1992] Scott S. Snibbe, Kenneth P. Herndon, Daniel C. Robbins, D. 

Brookshire Conner, and Andries van Dam. "Using Deformations to Explore 3D Widget 

Design" in Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH '92, pp. 351-352, 1992. 

 

1991 

[van Dam 1992] Andries van Dam. "Escaping Flatland in User Interface Design" in 

Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 1992 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 

SI3D '92, pp. 9, 1992. 

 

 

[Marcus & van Dam 1991] Aaron Marcus and Andries van Dam. "User Interface 

Design" in IEEE Computer, 24(9), pp. 49-57, 1991. 

[Zeleznik et al. 1991] Robert C. Zeleznik, D. Brookshire Conner, Matthias M. Wloka, 

Daniel G. Aliaga, Nathan T. Huang, Philip M. Hubbard, Brian Knep, Henry Kaufman, 

John F. Hughes, and Andries van Dam. "An Object-Oriented Framework for the 

Integration of Interactive Animation Techniques" in Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 

'91, pp. 105-112, 1991. 

10


1990 

 

[Phillips et al. 1990] Dick Phillips, Michael Lesk, Michael Hawley, Andries van Dam, 

and Richard J. Beach. "Digital publication: status, opportunities and problems" in 


1989 

 

 

[Upson et al. 1989] Craig Upson, Thomas Faulhaber, David Kamins, David Laidlaw, 

David Schlegel, Jeffrey Vroom, Robert Gurwitz and Andries van Dam. "The Application 

Visualization System: A Computational Environment for Scientific Visualization" in 

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 9(7), pp. 30-42, July 1989. 

[van Dam 1989] Andries van Dam. "Trends in Computer Graphics" in Proceedings of 

SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing (PPSC '89), pp. 454, 

1989. 

1988 

 

 

[van Dam 1988] Andries van Dam. "Hypertext '87 Keynote Address" in 

Communications of the ACM (CACM) 31(7), pp. 887-895, July, 1988. 

[van Dam 1988] Andries van Dam. "PHIGS+ Functional Description" in ACM 

SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 22(3), pp. 125-220, July, 1988. 

1987 

1986 

[van Dam 1987] Andries van Dam. "Solids Modeling and Rendering on Workstations -- 

A Pictorial Overview" in Computer Physics Communications #45, North-Holland 

Publishing Company, 1987. 

 

[van Dam 1986] Andries van Dam. "Computing in 1984" in Electrical Engineering: The 

Second Century Begins, ed. Harlow Freitag, IEEE Press, 1986. 

1985 

 

[Yankelovich et al. 1985] Nicole Yankelovich, Norman K. Meyrowitz, and Andries van 

Dam. "Reading and Writing the Electronic Book" in IEEE Computer Magazine 18(10), 

pp. 15-30, October 1985. 

1984 

 

[van Dam 1984] Andries van Dam. "An Interview with Andries van Dam" in 

Communications of the ACM (CACM) 27(7), pp. 638-648, July 1984 

11


 

 

 

[van Dam 1984] Andries van Dam. "Computer Software for Graphics" in Scientific 

American 251(3), pp. 102-113, September 1984. 

[van Dam 1984] Andries van Dam. " The Electronic Classroom: Workstations for 

Teaching" in Proceedings of ACM SIGCSE '84, pp. 59-60, 1984. 

[van Dam 1984] Andries van Dam. "The Electronic Classroom: Workstations for 

Teaching" in International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21(4), pp. 353-363, October 

1984. 

1983 

 

 

 

 

[Brown et al. 1983] Marc Brown, Norman Meyrowitz, and Andries van Dam. "Personal 

Computer Networks and Graphical Animation: Rationale and Practice for Education" in 

Proceedings of ACM SIGCSE '83, pp. 296-307, 1983. 

[Shipp et al. 1983] William S. Shipp, Norman Meyrowitz, and Andries van Dam. 

"Networks of Scholar's Workstations in a University Community" in Proceedings of 

IEEE COMPCON, 1983. 

[Yau et al. 1983] Stephen S. Yau, Robert W. Ritchie, Warren Semon, J. F. Traub, 

Andries van Dam, Stanley Winkler. "Meeting the Crisis in Computer Science" in 

Communications of the ACM (CACM), 26(12). pp. 1046-1050 December 1983. 

[Yau et al. 1983] Stephen S. Yau, Robert W. Ritchie, Warren Semon, J. F. Traub, 

Andries van Dam, and Stanley Winkler. "Meeting the Crisis in Computer Science" in 

IEEE Computer 16(12), pp. 83-87, December 1983. 

1982 

 

 

 

[Feiner et al. 1982] Steven Feiner, Sandor Nagy, and Andries van Dam. "An 

Experimental System for Creating and Presenting Interactive Graphical Documents" in 

ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1(1), pp. 59-77, 1982. 

[Meyrowitz & van Dam 1982] Norman K. Meyrowitz and Andries van Dam. 

"Interactive Editing Systems: Part I and Part II" in ACM Computing Surveys 14(3), pp. 

321-415, 1982. 

[Meyrowitz & van Dam 1982] Norman K. Meyrowitz and Andries van Dam. 

"Interactive Editing Systems" in Document Preparation Systems, J. Nievergelt, G. Coray, 

J. D. Nicoud, and A. C. Shaw, eds., North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982. 

1981 

 

 

 

[Feiner et al. 1981] Steven Feiner, Sandor Nagy, and Andries van Dam. "An Integrated 

System for Creating and Presenting Complex Computer-Based Documents" in 


[Gurwitz et al. 1981] Robert F. Gurwitz, R. Fleming, and Andries van Dam. "MIDAS: A 

Microprocessor Instructional Display and Animation System" in IEEE Transactions on 

Education 31(1), pp. 306-310, 1981. 

[Heller & van Dam 1981]. A. Heller and Andries van Dam. "Vertical and Outboard 

Migration: A Progress Report" in Proceedings of AFIPS Conference, 50, pp. 69-74, 1981. 

12


1980 

1979 

[van Dam et al. 1981] Andries van Dam, Mario Barbacci, Constantine Halatsis, J. 

Joosten, and M. Letheren. "Simulation of a Horizontal Bit-Sliced Processor Using the 

ISPS Architecture Simulation Facility" in IEEE Transactions on Computers, 30(7), pp. 

513-519, 1981. 

[Gurwitz et al. 1980] Robert F. Gurwitz , Richard W. Thorne , Andries van Dam , and 

Ingrid B. Carlbom. "BUMPS: A program for animating projections" in Proceedings of 

ACM SIGGRAPH '80, pp.231-237, 1980. 

[Halatsis et al. 1980] Constantine Halatsis, Andries van Dam, J. Joosten, and M. 

Letheren. "Architectural Considerations for a Microprogrammable Emulating Engine 

Using bit-slices" in Proceedings 7th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 

pp. 278-291, 1980. 

 

 

 

[Stankovic & van Dam 1979] John Stankovic and Andries van Dam. "Research 

Directions in (Cooperative) Distributed Processing" chapter in Research Directions in 

Software Technology, Peter Wegner (ed), pp. 611-638, MIT Press, 1979. 

[van Dam 1979] Andries van Dam. "Graphics Standards and Standard Packages," in 

Proceedings of SEAS Spring Technical Meeting, 1979. 

[van Dam 1979] Andries van Dam. "Vector Graphics Today" in Proceedings of SEAS 

Spring Technical Meeting, 1979. 

1978 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eckhouse et al. 1978] Richard Eckhouse, John Stankovic, and Andries van Dam. 

"Issues in Distributed Processing" in IEEE Computer, 11(1), pp. 22-26, January 1978. 

[Michener & van Dam 1978] James C. Michener and Andries van Dam. "A Functional 

Overview of the Core System with Glossary" in ACM Computing Surveys 10(4), pp. 

381-387, 1978. 

[Newman & van Dam 1978] William M. Newman and Andries van Dam. "Recent 

Efforts Towards Graphics Standardization" in ACM Computing Surveys, 10(4), pp. 365- 

380, 1978. 

[Stockenberg & van Dam 1978] John E. Stockenberg and Andries van Dam. "Vertical 

migration for performance enhancement in layered hardware/firmware/software systems" 

in IEEE Computer, 11(5), pp. 35-50, May 1978. 

[van Dam & Stankovic 1978] Andries van Dam and John Stankovic. "Guest Editor's 

Introduction, Special Issue on Distributed Processing" in IEEE Computer, 11(1), p. 14, 

January 1978. 

13


1977 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bergeron et al. 1977] R. Daniel Bergeron, James D. Foley, Peter R. Bono, Ingrid 

Carlbom, Timothy A. Dreisbach, James C. Michener, Elaine Sonderegger, and Andries 

van Dam. "Status Report of the Graphics Standards Planning Committee of ACM 

SIGGRAPH, Part II: General Methodology and Proposed Standard" in Proceedings of 

ACM SIGGRAPH '77, pp. II.1-117, July 1977. 

[Caruthers et al. 1977] L. C. Caruthers, D. Groot, E. Hermans, Andries van Dam, and 

Jan van den Bos. "GPGS - General Purpose Graphic System" in Proceedings of the Fifth 

International Computing Symposium, pp. 411-416, 1977. 

[Caruthers et al. 1977] L. C. Caruthers, Jan van den Bos, and Andries van Dam. 

"GPGS: A Device-Independent General-Purpose Graphics System for Stand-Alone and 

Satellite Graphics" in Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH '77, pp. 112-119, July 1977. 

[Ramseyer & van Dam 1977] Richard R. Ramseyer and Andries van Dam. "A Multi- 

Microprocessor Implementation of a General Purpose Pipelined CPU" in Proceedings of 

the 4th Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture (ACM and IEEE), March 1977. 

[Stankovic et al. 1977] John Stankovic, Andries van Dam, and Lynn DeNoia. "Trends in 

Distributed Data Processing in North America" in Proceedings of SEAS Spring Technical 

Meeting, April 1977. 

[van Dam et al. 1977] Andries van Dam, Richard Ramseyer, and Sal D. Morgera. 

"Solving Signal Processing Algorithms with a Multi-Microprocessor Network" in 

Proceedings of Oceans '77 International Conference, Marine Technical Society and IEEE, 

1977. 

[van Dam & Michel 1977] Andries van Dam and Janet Michel. "Evaluation of 

Performance Improvement in a Host-Satellite Distributed Processing System" in 

Proceedings of Second Distributed Processing Workshop, Brown University, August 

1977. 

1976 

1975 

[Michel & van Dam 1976] Janet Michel and Andries van Dam. "Experience with 

Distributed Processing on a Host/Satellite Graphics System" in Proceedings of ACM 

SIGGRAPH '76, pp. 190-195, 1976. 

[van Dam et al. 1976] Andries van Dam, Jens M. Dill, Douglas F. Dixon, and David S. 

Notkin. "Structured Programming in Assembly Language" in ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, pp. 

53-67, December 1976. 

[van Dam & McGowan 1976] Andries van Dam and Clement McGowan. "Software 

Engineering Education" in Needs and Objectives: Proceedings of an Interface Workshop, 

ed. A. Wasserman and P. Freeman, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976. 

 

[Stockenberg & van Dam 1975] John E. Stockenberg and Andries van Dam. "STRUCT 

Programming Analysis System" in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1(4), pp. 

381-389, 1975. 

14


1974 

 

 

 

 

[Lloyd & van Dam 1974] Gregg R. Lloyd and Andries van Dam. "Design 

Considerations for Microprogramming Languages" in Proceedings 1974 National 

Computer Conference and Exposition, May 1974. 

[van Dam et al. 1974a] Andries van Dam, Charles M. Strauss, Clement McGowan, and 

Jean Morse. "A Survey of Introductory and Advanced Programming Courses" in 

Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE '74, pp. 174-183, February 1974. 

[van Dam et al. 1974b] Andries van Dam, George M. Stabler, and Richard J. Harrington. 

"Intelligent satellites for interactive graphics" in Proceedings of the IEEE, 62(4), pp. 483- 

492, 1974. 

[van Dam et al. 1974c] Andries van Dam, Kenneth Magel, and Marty Michel. "Towards 

the Development of Machine-Independent Systems Programming Languages" in 

Proceedings 1974 National Computer Conference and Exposition, May 1974. 

1973 

1972 

[Anagnostopoulos et al. 1973] Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, Marty J. Michel, G. H. Sockut, 

George M. Stabler, and Andries van Dam. "Computer Architecture and Instruction Set 

Design" in Proceedings 1973 National Computer Conference and Exposition, pp. 519- 

527, 1973. 

[Stockenberg et al. 1973] John E. Stockenberg, Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, Ralph E. 

Johnson, Robert G. Munck, and Stabler, G. M., and Andries van Dam. "Operating system 

design considerations for microprogrammed mini-computer satellite systems" in 

Proceedings of 1973 National Computer Conference and Exposition, pp. 555-562, 1973. 

[van Dam & Stabler 1973] Andries van Dam and George M. Stabler. "Intelligent 

Satellites for Interactive Graphics" in Proceedings 1973 National Computer Conference 

and Exposition, pp. 227-238, 1973. 

[van Dam & Stabler 1973] Andries van Dam and George Stabler. "Some Aspects of 

Satellite Graphics" in Proceedings of IEEE NEREM Conference, November 1973. 

 

 

 

[Bergeron et al. 1972] R. Daniel Bergeron, John D. Gannon, Diane P. Shecter, Frank 

Wm. Tompa, and Andries van Dam. "Systems Programming Languages" in Advances in 

Computers 12, pp. 175-284, Academic Press, 1972. 

[van Dam 1972] Andries van Dam. "Some Implementation Issues Relating to Data 

Structures for Interactive Graphics" in International Journal of Computer and Information 

Sciences, Plenum Press, August 1972. 

[van Dam & Tompa 1972] Andries van Dam and Frank Wm. Tompa. "Software Data 

Paging and Segmentation for Complex Systems" in Information Processing Letters 1(3), 

pp. 80-86, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972. 

15


1971 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bergeron et al. 1971] R. Daniel Bergeron, John D. Gannon, and Andries van Dam. 

"Language for Systems Development" in Proceedings of ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on 

Languages for Systems Implementation, pp. 50-72, October 1971. 

[Elliott et al. 1971] W. David Elliott, Warren A. Potas, and Andries van Dam. 

"Computer assisted tracing of text evolution" in Proceedings of the AFIPS Fall Joint 

Computer Conference, pp. 533-540, 1971. 

[Rice & van Dam 1971] David E. Rice and Andries van Dam. "An Introduction to 

Information Structures and Paging Considerations for On-line Text Editing Systems" in 

Advances in Information Systems Science 4, Plenum Press, 1971. 

[Schiller et al. 1971] William L. Schiller, Robert L. Abraham, Richard M. Fox, and 

Andries van Dam. "A microprogrammed intelligent graphics terminal" in IEEE 

Transactions on Computers, C-20(7), pp. 975-982, July 1971. 

[van Dam 1971] Andries van Dam. "Microprogramming for Computer Graphics" in 

ACM SIGGRAPH 7(3), Winter 1971. 

[van Dam 1971] Andries van Dam. "Satellite Computer Graphics" in Proceedings of 

1971 SEAS Conference, September 1971. 

[van Dam & Rice 1971] Andries van Dam and David E. Rice. "On-line Text Editing: A 

Survey" in ACM Computing Surveys 3(3), pp. 93-114, September 1971. 

1970 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[van Dam 1970] Andries van Dam. "An Introduction to Interactive Computer Graphics," 

in Proceedings of Delft Symposium on Interactive Computer Graphics (October 1970). 

[van Dam 1970] Andries van Dam. "Human Factors of Computer Input and Output 

Devices" in Proceedings of SID Symposium, 1970. 

[van Dam 1970] Andries van Dam. "Introduction to Picture Modeling (Data Structures)," 

in Proceedings of SPSE-NMA-SID Seminar on Computer Handling of Graphical 

Information, 1970. 

[van Dam & Bergeron 1970] Andries van Dam and R. Daniel Bergeron. "Software 

Capabilities of the Adage Graphics Terminal" in Proceedings of Computer Graphics '70, 

Brunel University, England, 1970. 

[van Dam & Michener 1970] Andries van Dam and James C. Michener. "Storage Tube 

Graphics: A Comparison of Terminals" in Proceedings of Computer Graphics '70, Brunel 

University, England, 1970. 

[van dam & Rice 1970] Andries van Dam and David E. Rice. "Computers and 

Publishing: Writing, Editing and Printing" in Advances in Computers 10, pp. 145-174, 

Academic Press, 1970. 

1969 

 

[Carmody et al. 1969] Steven Carmody, Walter Gross, Theodor H. Nelson, David Rice, 

and Andries van Dam. "A Hypertext Editing System for the /360" in Faiman and 

Nievergelt (eds.) Pertinent Concepts in Computer Graphics: Proceedings of the Second 

16


 

University of Illinois Conference on Computer Graphics, pp. 291-330, University of 

Illinois Press, 1969. 

[van Dam & Sullivan 1969] Andries van Dam and P. Sullivan. "Computers" in 

Encyclopedia Puritanical Yearbook of Science and Technology (1969). 

1968 

 

[van Dam & Evans 1968] Andries van Dam and David Evans. "Data Structure 

Programming System" in Proceedings IFIP Congress, Edinburgh, pp. 557-564, 1968. 

1967 

 

 

 

[van Dam & Evans 1967] Andries van Dam and David Evans. "A Compact Data 

Structure for Storing, Retrieving and Manipulating Line Drawings" in Proceedings of 

AFIPS 1967 Spring Joint Computer Conference, pp. 601-610, 1967. 

[van Dam & Michener 1967] Andries van Dam and James C. Michener. "Hardware 

Developments and Product Announcements" in Second Annual Review of Information 

Science and Technology, John Wiley & Sons, 1967. 

[Wile et al. 1967] David S. Wile, Robert G. Munck, and Andries van Dam. "The Brown 

University Student Operating System" in Proceedings of 1967 National ACM 

Conference, pp. 427-439, 1967. 

1966 

 

[van Dam 1966] Andries van Dam. "Computer Driven Displays and Their Use in 

Man/Machine Interaction" in Advances in Computers 6, pp. 239-290, Academic Press, 

1966. 

1965 

 

[van Dam 1965] Andries van Dam. "Teacher Training for the Age of Automation" in 

Automation Yearbook, 1965. 

1964 

 

 

[Ashler et al. 1964] Daniel Ashler, Andries van Dam, and Daniel Prener. "Computer and 

Information Sciences Program for High School Students" in Proceedings ACM 19th 

Annual Conference, pp. K1.3-1--K1.3-5, 1964. 

[van Dam & Evans 1964] Andries van Dam and David Evans. "SHIRTDIF -A System 

for the Storage Handling and Retrieval of Technical Data in Image Format" in 

Proceedings of American Documentation Institute (later ASIS), 1964. 

17


Invited Lectures since 2000 

2008 

Invited Speaker, “A Conversation with Joel Orr with Andries van Dam and Alan Kay”, Program 

for the Future, Collective Intelligence (December) 

Invited Speaker, “Panel of 1968 [Mother of All] Demo Participants”, Engelbart & the Dawn of 

Interactive Computing, SRI (December) 

Invited Speaker, “When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard”, ETH Zurich (November) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Datalogisk Institut, 

Aarhus Universitet (May) 

Invited Speaker, "As We May Work", Enterprise 2.0 (April) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", SCI University of Utah 

(March) 

Invited Speaker, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Sun Microsystems (January) 

Invited Speaker, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Google (January) 

2007 

Keynote, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Georgia Tech GVU 15th Anniversary, 

2007 (October) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Wheaton College, 2007 

(September) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Purdue University, 

2007 (August) 

Invited Speaker, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", MS Faculty Summit, 2007 

(July) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", MSR China, 2007 

(May) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Amsterdam CWI, 2007 

(April) 

18


Invited Speaker, "A Radical Approach to Teaching Object-Oriented Programming", CCSCNE, 

2007 (April) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", UCLA, 2007 (March) 

2006 

Invited Speaker, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard ", TTI Vanguard, The Advanced 

Technology Forum for Senior Executives, 2006 (December) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "When is the Pen Mightier Than the Keyboard", Adobe, 2006 

(December) 

Invited Speaker, "The Microsoft Center for Research on Pen-Centric Computing", Microsoft 

Faculty Summit, 2006 (July) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive Virtual Reality in Scientific Visualization", Waterloo 

University, 2006 (April) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive Virtual Reality in Scientific Visualization", Simon Fraser 

University, 2006 (March) 

2005 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive Virtual Reality in Scientific Visualization", The College of 

William and Mary, 2005 (December) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive Virtual Reality in Scientific Visualization", University of 

Texas, Dallas, 2005 (November) 

Invited Speaker, "Scientific Visualization Research at Brown University", PNNL Fellow Lecture 

Series, 2005 (July) 

Invited Speaker, "Next Generation Educational Software: Why We Need It and a Research 

Agenda for Getting It", Sun Microsystems, 2005 (May) 

Invited Speaker, "Visualization at Brown: Scientific and Education Research", CIO, 2005 (April) 

Invited Speaker, "Immersive Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization", NYU, 2005 (February) 

2004 

Invited Speaker, "Immersive Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization", Department of Energy, 

2004 (December) 

19


Invited Speaker, "Next Generation Educational Software: Why We Need It & A Research 

Agenda for Getting It", Foundation for the Future of Higher Education Aspen Symposium, 2004 

(September) 

Invited Speaker, "Interaction as Human-centered Computing: Problems, Progress, and 

Prospects", Digication 2004 (May) 

Keynote Speaker, "Distributed Computing for Graphics: Then and Now", ICDCS 2004 (March) 

2003 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Visualization: New Dimensions, New Domains, Old Questions", 

Brown University, TCASCV (Technology Center for Advanced Scientific Computing and 

Visualization) (November) 

Keynote Speaker, with Anne Morgan Spalter, "Modeling and Visualization: The Role of 

Computer Graphics", IVLA (International Visual Literacy Association), (October) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "User Interfaces: Disappearing, Dissolving, and Evolving", UCSB 

(June) 

Plenary Speaker, "Beyond Today's Web-based Educational Content", HICSS-36 2003 (January) 

2002 

Invited Speaker, "Immersive Electronic Books for Teaching Surgical Procedures", CREST 

Symposium on Telecommunication, Teleimmersion, and Telexistence 2002 (December) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization", University of 

Maryland, (November) 

Keynote Speaker, "Next Generation Educational Software", EdMedia 2002 (June) 

Distinguished Lecturer, "Immersive VR for Scientific Visualization: A Progress Report", ETH 

Zurich, Switzerland (February) 

Invited Speaker, "Immersive VR for Scientific Visualization: A Progress Report", University of 

Michigan, (January) 

2001 

Keynote Speaker, " User Interfaces: Disappearing, Dissolving, and Evolving", Celebration of 

Professor Jose Encarnacao's 60th Birthday, Darmstadt, Germany (May) 

20


Invited Speaker, "Immersive VR for Scientific Visualization: A Progress Report", MIT Media 

Lab, Cambridge, MA (March) 

2000 

Keynote Speaker, "Immersive Virtual Reality for Scientific Visualization: A Progress Report", 

VR2000, New Brunswick, NJ (March) 

Keynote Speaker, " Exploratories: Web-based Interactive Environments for Teaching and 

Learning", SigCSE2000, Austin, Texas (March) 

Service to the Profession 

2009 Panelist, NSF Science and Technology Center, Pre-Proposal Panel (January) 

2008 - Chair, Computing Research Association Education (CRA-E) committee 

2008 - Member, Advisory Board, Marian Koshland Science Museum 

2008 - Member, Board of Advisors, WGBH/ACM New Image of Computing (NIC) 

initiative 

2007 Chair, ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award committee 

2007 Chair, Brandeis University External Review Committee 

2007 Member, Editorial Board of Computers and Graphics, Pergamon Press 

2007 - Member, National Research Council CSTB Healthcare Informatics committee 

2005- Member, ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award committee 

2002-2005 IEEE James H. Mulligan, Jr. Education Medal committee 

1998-2002 Member, NSF CISE advisory committee 

1998 Member, DOE ASCII Data and Visualization Corridors initiative advisory 

committee 

Member, National Research Council CSTB Information Technology literacy 

committee 

1997 ACM97 Chairman, 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, Providence, RI 

(April) 

21


1994-1998 Member, Editorial Board, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer 

Graphics (TVCG), (August) 

1994 Member, Editorial Board, SIGGRAPH Books Series with ACM Press Books, and 

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (January) 

Co-founder, NSF Science and Technology Center for Computer Graphics and 

Scientific Visualization, Summer Workshop on Geometric Modeling and 

Computer Graphics, Brown University, Providence, RI (June/July) 

Course Panelist, Developing Advanced Virtual Reality Applications, SIGGRAPH 

'94, Orlando, FL (July) 

Course Panelist, Research Frontiers in Virtual Reality, SIGGRAPH '94, Orlando, 

FL (July) 

Course Panelist, Why is 3D Interaction So Hard, and What Can we Really Do 

About it?, SIGGRAPH '94, Orlando, FL (July) 

Program Committee Member, 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 

Monterey, CA (November) 

1993 Member, National Research Council, Committee on Virtual Reality Research and 

Development 

Program Committee, Senior Reviewer SIGGRAPH '93, Anaheim, California 

(August) 

Course Panelist, Implementing Virtual Reality, SIGGRAPH '93, Anaheim, 

California (August) 

Co-founder, A New Seminar for Secondary Mathematics Teachers The 

Mathematics of Computer Graphics, Brown University, Providence, RI 

(April/May) 

Co-founder, NSF Science and Technology Center for Computer Graphics and 

Scientific Visualization, Summer Workshop on Geometric Modeling and 

Computer Graphics, Brown University, Providence, RI (June/July) 

Panelist, The Role of New Information Technology in a Modern Curriculum, 

University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA (July) 

1992 Program Committee, Senior Reviewer SIGGRAPH '92, Chicago, IL (July) 

22


Program Committee, Third Eurographics Workshop on Object-Oriented Graphics, 

Champery, Switzerland (October) 

1991 National Science Foundation, Chairman, Workshop on Research Infrastructure 

(July) 

1990-1992 Member of Study Committee to Assess the Scope and Direction for Computer 

Science and Technology, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 

National Research Council Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and 

Applications 

1990 Chairman, Ad Hoc working group on Graphics Application Frameworks 

1989-1991 Member, Nominating Committee, ACM 

1989 Advisory Editor, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Academic Press 

1987-1988 Member, Advisory Board, SIGGRAPH 

1987 Program Committee, 1988 CERN Summer School 

1985-1986 Chairman, Software Systems Award Committee, ACM 

1986-1988 Member, Computer Science and Technology Board, National Research Council, 

National Academy of Sciences 

1986 Invited Lecturer, Asia Regional College on Microprocessors, Hefei, PRC 

1985-1987 Chairman, Computing Research Board, (renamed Computing Research 

Association) 

Chairman, PHIGS+ Computer Graphics Working Group 

1985 Chairman, Visiting Committee to evaluate computer science concentration and 

computing services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA (April) 

1983-1984 Member, CSNet Executive Board 

1983-1985 Member of review board for Foxboro's Bristol Fellowship program 

1983-1991 Member, Computer Science Board (renamed Computing Research Association) 

1983 Co-director and lecturer, School on Microprocessors, Institute for Theoretical 

Physics, Trieste (April) 

23


Organizer of research symposium to mark the retirement of Marvin Denicoff of 

ONR (December) 

Member, Editorial Board of Computers and Graphics, Pergamon Press 

1982 Invited lecturer, CERN Summer School in Computing, Zinal, Switzerland 

(August) 

1981-1986 Associate Editor, ACM Transactions on Graphics 

1981 Co-director and lecturer, School on Microprocessors, Institute for Theoretical 

Physics, Trieste (September) 

1980-1986 Visiting Scientific Associate, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 

1980 Invited lecturer, CERN Summer School in Computing, Athens, Greece 

(September) 

1979 Program Organizer and Chairman of SEAS Spring Technical Meeting on Graphic 

Man-Machine Interaction Methodology (May) 

Invited participant in IFIP WG5.2 Seillac Workshop on Interaction Methodology 

(May) 

1978 Guest editor of IEEE Computer, Special Issue on Distributed Processing 

(January) 

Guest editor of ACM Computing Surveys, Special Issue on Computer Graphics 

Standards (December) 

1977 Panel Chairman, "Computer Graphics," IFIP Congress 77, Toronto 

1976, 1977 Organizer and chairperson, Distributed Processing Workshops I and II, Brown 

University 

1976-1978 Member of ACM SIGGRAPH Graphics Standard Planning Committee and codesigner 

of the proposed "Core" Graphics Standard 

1976 Invited participant to IFIP WG5.2 Seillac Workshop on Graphics Standards 

Session Chairman, ACM SIGGRAPH 3rd Annual Conference on Computer 

Graphics, Interactive Techniques and Image Processing 

1974 Session Chairman, ACM SIGGRAPH NBS Workshop on Machine-Independent 

Graphics 

24


Member of Editorial Board and Contributor, The Encyclopedia of Computer 

Science 

Session Chairman, ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Computer Graphics and 

Interactive Techniques 

1973-1977 Member of Editorial Advisory Board, Computers and Graphics 

1972 Conference organizer, IFIP Working Conference on Graphic Languages, 

Vancouver, B.C. 

1971-1981 Editor, Computer Graphics and Image Processing 

1971 Session Chairman, "Computer-Aided Design," IFIP Congress 71, Ljubljana, 

Yugoslavia 

1969-1970 Consulting editor for Auerbach Corporation's Graphics Data Processing Reports 

1968-1970 Co-founder, board member and lecturer, ACM SIGGRAPH, Special Interest 

Group on Computer Graphics 

1968 Session Chairman,"Data Structures for Computer Graphics," FJCC, San Francisco 

1967-1978 Consulting editor in Computer Science, Holt, Rinehart and Winston 

1967-1970 Co-founder, Board member and lecturer, ACM Professional Development 

Seminar Series 

1967-1969 Contributor, Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project of the ACM Commission 

on Engineering Education (principal author of five chapters in The Man-Made 

World) 

1967 Co-founder of ACM SIGGRAPH 

Academic Honors, Research Grants, Fellowships and Honorary Societies Honors 

2008 Honorary Ph.D. from the Department of Computer Science at ETH Zurich 

2007 Honorary Ph.D. from the Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. 

2005 Co-Chairman of the Rhode Island Governor's Science and Technology Advisory 

Council (STAC) 

2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Award 

25


2003 Honorary General Chair of IEEE ICDCS 2003 

Chairman of the Rhode Island Governor's Science and Technology Council 

Board Member of the Mayor's Providence Economic Development Partnership 

Council 

2002 CRA (Computing Research Association) Distinguished Service Award 

Brown University Sheridan Award for Teaching 

2000 ACM SIGCSE Award for Outstanding Contribution to Computer Science 

Education 

American Academy of Arts & Sciences Fellow Award 

1999 IEEE James H. Mulligan, Jr. Education Medal 

1998-2004 Trustee of RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) 

1996 Elected to the National Academy of Engineering 

Honorary Ph.D. from Swarthmore College 

1995 Named to the Thomas J. Watson, Jr. University Professor of Technology and 

Education Chair 

Honorary Ph.D. from Darmstadt Technical University in Germany 

1994 IEEE Fellow Award 

ACM Fellow Award 

1993 ACM Karl V. Karlstrom Outstanding Educator Award 

1992-1995 Named to the L. Herbert Ballou University Professor Chair 

1991 SIGGRAPH Steven A. Coons Award for Outstanding Creative Contributions to 

Computer Graphics 

1990 1990 NCGA Academic Award 

1988 State of Rhode Island Governor's Science and Technology Award 

1984 IEEE Centennial Medal 

26


1974 Society for Information Display's "Special Recognition Award" 

1971-1972 Fulbright Fellowship 

1966 Ph.D. Degree, Electrical Engineering, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, 

University of Pennsylvania. 

1963 M.S. Degree, Electrical Engineering, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, 

University of Pennsylvania. 

1960 IEEE (IRE) Delaware Valley Section "Student of the Year" Award; Sigma Tau, 

Sigma Xi 

B.S. Degree with Honors, Swarthmore College 

Updated 1/14/09 

27


EXHIBIT 2


1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 







Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 





Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


vs. 








Defendant. 




ANDRIES VAN DAM, PH.D. IN SUPPORT 

OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO 

APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND FOR DAMAGES 

ENHANCEMENTS REGARDING U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,469,381 




1 

2 

3 

4 



Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Andries van Dam, Ph.D. in Support of Samsung’s 

Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction and for Damages 

Enhancements Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 

5 

6 

7 

8 





9 

10 


11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

__ 

__X 








19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 




SULLIVAN, LLP 







02198.51855/5018062.1 



Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Docket No. 5:11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. Apr 15, 2011), Court Docket 

General Information 

Case Name 

Docket Number 

Court 

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al 

5:11-cv-01846 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

Primary Date 2011-04-15 00:00:00 

Nature of Suit 

Property Rights: Patent 

Related Opinion(s) 876 F. Supp. 2d 1141; 2012 BL 178771; 2012 BL 205637; 2012 

BL 263360; 888 F. Supp. 2d 976; 2012 BL 330890; 2013 BL 

25223; 2013 BL 25225; 2012 BL 56912; 282 F.R.D. 259; 2012 

BL 92184; 2012 BL 100476; 2012 BL 112507; 2012 BL 119408; 

103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1401; 2012 BL 162535; 2012 BL 173112; 2012 

BL 173061; 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132; 2012 BL 209113; 2012 BL 

265144; 2012 BL 266278; 2012 BL 273568; 2012 BL 281306; 

2012 BL 258464; 2013 BL 25314; 2013 BL 63524; 2011 BL 

304343; 2012 BL 238801 

© Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 

Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6LJBLEO82?documentName=2080.xml

2054 Samsung's Opp t.. - A Case study in patent litigation: apple v ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?