Samsung avoids sanctions in accidental Apple-Nokia patent licensing disclosure

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 2014
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.

Ahn


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.

Sanctions Over Breach of Apple-Nokia Licensing Information

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,716member
    A travesty of justice. Samsung can't "unsee" that material any more than a bell can be "unrung". The fact that Samsung executives made wide use of the information disclosed in licensing negotiations should have been sufficient cause for action.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,334member

    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.

  • Reply 3 of 24

    I think you misspelt that 2nd to last word...should have been "paying them".

  • Reply 4 of 24
    So, what he's saying is that stealing is bad and you get to pay costs but no penalty if you're caught, but handling stolen goods is completely OK.

    Great legal brain. Great system.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. Frank Zappa
  • Reply 6 of 24
    So what sanctions, exactly, will Quinn Emmanuel face?
  • Reply 7 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,677member
    carthusia wrote: »
    So what sanctions, exactly, will Quinn Emmanuel face?
    They'll reimburse Apple and Nokia for the attorney fees spent on litigating this particular complaint. For details see the end of page 17 thru page 19 of the AI linked sanction order, (repeated below).

    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.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,590member
    Follow the money.
  • Reply 9 of 24

    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!

  • Reply 10 of 24
    diegogdiegog Posts: 134member

    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.

  • Reply 11 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,677member
    diegog wrote: »
    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."
  • Reply 12 of 24
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Edit: never mind ;)
  • Reply 13 of 24
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Ahn

     

     

    Reminder that they stole this image and slightly edited it to serve their own purposes.

  • Reply 15 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,677member
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





     ...... 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.  ;) 

  • Reply 17 of 24
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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."

     

    A nice little compilation of the company you are hellbent on defending along with your apparently sycophantic, testicle obsessed minion.


     




     


    •  July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."

    • October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.

    • Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.

    • Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.

    • July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-he was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.

    • May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).

    • Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.

    • March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.

    •  July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).

    • August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.

    • Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.

    • April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.

    • October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

    Thanks again to TeeJay2000 and to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, who has the text of the judge's order.

  • Reply 18 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,677member
    hill60 wrote: »
    A nice little compilation of the company you are hellbent on defending along with your apparently sycophantic, testicle obsessed minion.
    "http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-declines-to-sanction-samsung.html" style="color:rgb(0,66,118);margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;" target="_blank">FOSS Patents</a>
    ' Florian Mueller, who has the text of the judge's order.</p>

    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.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

     

    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.


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dogchop99 View Post

     

    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?

  • Reply 20 of 24

    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!

Sign In or Register to comment.