Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Judge: Samsung reveal of confidential Apple information 'inexcusable'

updated 01:53 am EDT, Wed October 16, 2013

Three Samsung motions meant to delay investigation of breach shot down

The presiding judge in the ongoing Apple-Samsung trial (the first stage of which ended with a complete victory for Apple and over $1 billion in damages awarded by a jury) is, to put it mildly, unhappy about Samsung's stonewalling of an investigation into the disclosure of confidential terms of an Apple-Nokia deal to Samsung executives. Rather than admit culpability, the company and its legal firm attempted to persuade the judge that the whole thing was a blameless accident. It didn't work.

Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday denied all three Samsung motions (order below) that were intended to delay the investigation of the improper disclosure. Samsung executives learned of the terms of Apple and Nokia's patent licensing deal through documents intended to be seen only by an expert witness and outside counsel, who were not allowed to reveal their contents. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, investigating the matter, found that Samsung's counsel Quinn Emmanuel disclosed the sensitive information and that Samsung executives later used the knowledge to gain an advantage over Nokia in patent licensing negotiations last June.

The motions from Samsung asked for both relief and a motion to stay the case, but in addition to denying the motions, Koh noted the Korean handset maker's "unwillingness to cooperate in discovery, which would help the court determine how the ill-gotten information was used and to what extent." There is a suspicion, forwarded by Apple, that Samsung used its knowledge of the Nokia deal to bolster its claims in an unrelated ITC case.

Were that claim to be proven true, Judge Koh remarked, it would be seen as a "particularly egregious" use of the confidential data, meaning Samsung executives could directly be held liable for abusing the information alongside Quinn Emmanuel. Judge Grewal had recommended that Samsung's counsel just own up to the breach, but instead lawyer Susan Estrich, representing the firm, claimed there was no wrongdoing -- though she admitted that the breach shouldn't have happened. Her argument was that the law firm did not intentionally divulge the terms, and that Samsung executives acted on the information but didn't know it was obtained illegally -- thus, nobody is actually to blame for anything.

Koh ruled that Quinn Emmanuel "did in fact improperly disclose information about the other Apple licenses to Samsung's employees." She supported Judge Grewal's findings of culpability by Quinn Emmanuel and is likely to issue sanctions against the firm, and potentially Samsung itself. Samsung already finds itself with a higher bar to allow Samsung's recent petition to the Federal Circuit to succeed as a result of the actions, and if it was betting that Judge Koh would be more accepting of the firm's misbehavior than Judge Grewal -- as evidenced by the motions -- the company received a rude awakening.

"Despite the fact that three months had passed since the alleged violation came to Quinn Emanuel's attention, Samsung and Quinn Emanuel still had no answers for Magistrate Judge Grewal at the hearing regarding the extent of the disclosures, to whom they were made and what was disclosed, and how the disclosed information has been used and is currently being used," Judge Koh wrote in her order. "Samsung's lack of information after three months is inexcusable, and necessitates Court-supervised discovery."

Patent case analyst Florian Mueller notes that Samsung is now unlikely to succeed with any further pleas for a stay, in this court or any other. Judge Koh has set time for a hearing on the matter sometime next week, and has made it clear that any hint of the confidential information showing up in the arguments used by Samsung at the ITC or in two unrelated cases involving other tech companies (specifically Ericsson, Philips and Sharp) would be viewed poorly by the court.


13-10-15 Order Denying Samsung Motions Relating to Patentgate Scandal



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. Truthsayer

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 06-06-13

    Samsung are unscrupulous. It begs the question what information their foundries are passing on about Apple's custom chip designs to other sections of the Samsung conglomerate.

  1. Inkling

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: 07-25-06

    The judge's action is hardly surprising. In legal world, getting a murder or rapist off on a technicality is quite acceptable. Some of the biggest names in law do just that. But what isn't acceptable is revealing confidential information, as apparently Samsung has done here. That's because the ultimate value in law is attracting paying clients. Being able to get the guilty off obvious appeals to criminals. But getting giant corporations to sue or fight a lawsuit means that the revealing that inevitably accompanies such lawsuits has to be kept confidential. Samsung's lawyers have violated that most sacred of rules.

  1. prl99

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: 03-24-09

    I always felt Judge Koh bent over backwards to help Samsung against Apple but the actions by Samsung are a personal attack against the legal system. Like @inkling said, you can get away with a lot of things but don't mess with the judge. Samsung messed with the judge so they're done in US courts and might be done in courts around the world.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

IDrive cloud backup and sync service

There are a lot of cloud services out there, and nearly all of them can be used for backing up key files and folders. A few dedicated ...

Asus Chromebook C300

When Chromebooks hit the market back in 2011, consumers didn't know what to do with them. The low-cost laptops, powered by Google's Ch ...

Plantronics BackBeat Pro Bluetooth headphones

Looking for a pair of headphones that can do everything a user requires is a task that can take some study. Trying to decide on in-ear ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News