Samsung avoids sanctions in accidental Apple-Nokia patent licensing disclosure
A U.S. district court on Wednesday ordered Samsung will not be sanctioned for the disclosure of confidential Apple-Nokia patent licensing, and will instead place blame on the Korean tech giant's counsel Quinn Emmanuel.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of an Apple order to grant sanctions over the inadvertently leaked information, but did not go so far as to ding Samsung for the infraction. Samsung's law firm in both Apple v. Samsung trials, Quinn Emmanuel, will instead be sanctioned.
In his usual "man of the people" delivery, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal wrote in the order that the dissemination of confidential information was inadvertent; a simple error in redaction.
"A junior associate missing one redaction among many in an expert report is not exactly a
historical event in the annals of big-ticket patent litigation," wrote Judge Paul S. Grewal. "Even if regrettable, these things can happen, and almost certainly do happen each and every day. But when such an inadvertent mistake is permitted to go unchecked, unaddressed, and propagated hundreds and hundreds of times by conscious - and indeed strategic - choices by that associate's firm and client alike, more significant and blameworthy flaws are revealed."
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Judge Grewal Judge Grewal previously advocated for sanctions of some kind, suggesting Samsung itself should be responsible at least in part. However, upon further fact finding, it was concluded that evidence of misuse on the part of Samsung was "circumstantial," meaning the company is not considered a perpetrator.
In October 2013, a court order revealed Samsung's licensing executives got their hands on non-redacted documents containing sensitive information regarding stipulations of Apple and Nokia licensing deals. The papers, prepared by Dr. David J. Teece for Quinn Emmanuel, were meant solely for use in litigation by outside counsel, but were accidentally sent to high-ranking Samsung IP executives and other internal personnel.
Along with the sanctions, Judge Grewal ordered all copies of the Teece report containing confidential information to be permanently removed from Samsung control within two weeks.
To avoid future failings in redaction policy, counsel for both companies must send redacted versions of documents to each other's counsel before filing or distributing externally. The practice is applicable to the parties' two ongoing California cases.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of an Apple order to grant sanctions over the inadvertently leaked information, but did not go so far as to ding Samsung for the infraction. Samsung's law firm in both Apple v. Samsung trials, Quinn Emmanuel, will instead be sanctioned.
In his usual "man of the people" delivery, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal wrote in the order that the dissemination of confidential information was inadvertent; a simple error in redaction.
"A junior associate missing one redaction among many in an expert report is not exactly a
historical event in the annals of big-ticket patent litigation," wrote Judge Paul S. Grewal. "Even if regrettable, these things can happen, and almost certainly do happen each and every day. But when such an inadvertent mistake is permitted to go unchecked, unaddressed, and propagated hundreds and hundreds of times by conscious - and indeed strategic - choices by that associate's firm and client alike, more significant and blameworthy flaws are revealed."
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Judge Grewal Judge Grewal previously advocated for sanctions of some kind, suggesting Samsung itself should be responsible at least in part. However, upon further fact finding, it was concluded that evidence of misuse on the part of Samsung was "circumstantial," meaning the company is not considered a perpetrator.
In October 2013, a court order revealed Samsung's licensing executives got their hands on non-redacted documents containing sensitive information regarding stipulations of Apple and Nokia licensing deals. The papers, prepared by Dr. David J. Teece for Quinn Emmanuel, were meant solely for use in litigation by outside counsel, but were accidentally sent to high-ranking Samsung IP executives and other internal personnel.
Along with the sanctions, Judge Grewal ordered all copies of the Teece report containing confidential information to be permanently removed from Samsung control within two weeks.
To avoid future failings in redaction policy, counsel for both companies must send redacted versions of documents to each other's counsel before filing or distributing externally. The practice is applicable to the parties' two ongoing California cases.
Comments
Right now those convicts at Samsung headquarters are patting each other on the back and congratulation each other for getting away with it.
These judges are making a mockery of our system and Samsung is playing them.
I think you misspelt that 2nd to last word...should have been "paying them".
Great legal brain. Great system.
As for Samsung's supposed transgression according to Judge Grewel there was no benefit to them from the leak since they already were given the licensing terms beforehand, having been advised of them by Ericsson sometime back. That's on page 10 of the AI linked doc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203366929/Sanctions-Over-Breach-of-Apple-Nokia-Licensing-Information
Appears the earlier posters hadn't bothered to read the court document before commenting.
Yet another proof how much $$ Samsung is willing to spend to keep their A$$ out of troubles!
Someday someone somewhere is gonna share a lot of unseen / unheard info over all these .... mark my words!
So....the law form works for Samsung but they are blaming only the law firm...how is that not like blaming another company for worker rights issues at one of it's suppliers. A contract is a contract.
You (and Disturbia) should really read the court's sanction order, at least from page 17 on. I personally don't care for Samsung's business ethics, sprinkles of over-promising proclamations of the wonderful products to come, or their commitment to customer satisfaction. In this specific instance tho it appears Samsung themselves weren't benefiting from the Quinn Emanuel error which is why there were not sanctions against them.
Even with regard to Apple demands for satisfaction lodged against the law-firm the court said "The vast majority of these are ludicrously overbroad" and that "By the final hearing on December 9, 2013, this lack of clear evidence was obvious in the tone of the moving parties. Apple and Nokia’s allegations had shifted... In short, what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions."
Thanks for the thorough work, GatorGuy. Sad to see comments going off half-cocked ... or for that matter, half-testicled.
Reminder that they stole this image and slightly edited it to serve their own purposes.
Instead of "stolen" I'd guess that the image was based on stock art from some clearinghouse, which is why at least one other webpage from someone had a very similar image. I haven't othered looking around for it tho so it's certainly possible they used it without permission of the artist.
...... I haven't othered looking around for it tho so it's certainly possible they used it without permission of the artist.
Well, that would be in keeping to their profile, wouldn't it.
You (and Disturbia) should really read the court's sanction order, at least from page 17 on. I personally don't care for Samsung's business ethics, sprinkles of over-promising proclamations of the wonderful products to come, or their commitment to customer satisfaction. In this specific instance tho it appears Samsung themselves weren't benefiting from the Quinn Emanuel error which is why there were not sanctions against them.
Even with regard to Apple demands for satisfaction lodged against the law-firm the court said "The vast majority of these are ludicrously overbroad" and that "By the final hearing on December 9, 2013, this lack of clear evidence was obvious in the tone of the moving parties. Apple and Nokia’s allegations had shifted... In short, what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions."
Thanks again to TeeJay2000 and to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who has the text of the judge's order.
Hell-bent on defending Samsung?! You don't bother reading what you're quoting before commenting do you? :rolleyes:
I said "I personally don't care for Samsung's business ethics, sprinkles of over-promising proclamations of the wonderful products to come, or their commitment to customer satisfaction. In this specific instance tho it appears Samsung themselves weren't benefiting from the Quinn Emanuel error which is why there were not sanctions against them."
In addition, AI linked the same exact court order that Mueller did. Look at the bottom of the article. Where do you think I got my info? Reading the AI-linked court sanction order. If you weren't so hell-bent on attacking you probably would have noted it, along with my mention of the exact pages where the court order quotes came from.
Geez o'Pete.
Right now those convicts at Samsung headquarters are patting each other on the back and congratulation each other for getting away with it.
These judges are making a mockery of our system and Samsung is playing them.
I think you misspelt that 2nd to last word...should have been "paying them".
Yes, Samsung is getting off easy. But to accuse the judges of making a mockery of the judicial system shows ignorant bias. Try to understand the law and history of such cases before you jump to conclusion. Or perhaps you care more about blind worship than reality?
If you're calling that blind worship, maybe you should take those Rose Tinted Glasses you view the U.S. Judicial system with and consider:
(i) that Samsung is an incredibly corrupt company - it's leaders legal entanglements in it's own country are testimony to that...
AND
(ii) they have the money to throw back handers at anyone 'including' so-called judges, that continually seem to make a mockery of the so-called legal and justice system in America.
No-one is looking at this blindly - apart from yourself!