Samsung & Quinn Emmanuel ordered to pay Apple, Nokia over $2M for leaking secrets

Posted:
in iPhone edited June 2014
Samsung and its?Quinn Emmanuel attorneys have been ordered to pay over $2 million in legal fees to Apple and Nokia related to the leaking of their confidential patent licensing agreement.?

Samsung sanctions fees


The leak, dubbed "Patent Gate," was first revealed when Samsung's?Dr. Seungho Ahn told Nokia's?Chief Intellectual Property Officer?Paul Melin during negotiations last summer that he knew the confidential terms of the earlier licensing agreement reached between Nokia and Apple.?

Dr. Ahn reportedly claimed to have access to the terms of the settlement, "because all information leaks," but the court noted also that Samsung's representative "recited the terms and indicated that his lawyers had told him what they were."

An investigation into the matter indicated that the leak occurred because Samsung's Quinn Emmanuel lawyers failed to respect the confidentiality of the documents Apple was required to provide "for attorneys' eyes only" during the discovery phase of the iPhone patent infringement trial.

The documents were shared with Samsung by?Quinn Emmanuel and then casually passed around internally within Samsung, even to the point of being?openly used as a bargaining tool against Nokia in subsequent patent negotiations.?Quinn Emmanuel didn't inform Apple of the breach until months later, and Apple subsequently asked the court to sanction both Samsung and its attorneys as a public shaming for their behavior.

Quinn Emmanuel was sanctioned by the court in a ruling that initially did not appear to also address Samsung as bearing direct responsibility in the matter.

However, as noted in a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Paul S Grewal this week, "after reviewing the materials unearthed by discovery, the court granted Apple's motion for sanctions against Samsung and its counsel on two grounds: (1) failure to institute sufficient safeguards for third-party confidential information and (2) failure to comply with the notice and cooperation requirements set forth in Section 18(a) of the protective order entered in this case. The court ordered QE to reimburse Apple and Nokia any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it."

Quinn Emmanuel fails to convince the court it shouldn't have to pay

Apple and Nokia claimed extensive legal fees related to their investigation of the issue, resulting in figures that were twice reduced under numerous objections asserted by?Quinn Emmanuel.

Samsung's attorneys urged the court to "substantially reduce Apple's and Nokia's fee requests" in part because it was found that "Apple itself mistakenly failed to redact the terms of its license with Nokia from a document filed on the public docket in October," four months after Samsung announced to Nokia that it had the information. The court rejected this logic.

A second objection by Quinn Emmanuel argued that the investigation was "unnecessary work" with "limited success," claims that the judge ruled were "simply incorrect," noting that "The court's eventual order noted specifically that Samsung and QE's 'willful failure to institute sufficient safeguards for the information warrants sanctions when considered in light of the vast distribution of confidential information that occurred because such protections were not in place.'"

Quinn Emmanuel also argued "that the court should reduce the fees and costs requested because the billing records submitted are insufficiently detailed to allow anyone to evaluate their reasonableness," a third line of logic largely overruled by the court outside of a series of "limited exceptions" detailed in the order.

Judge Grewal completed a final review of the legal fees and has now ruled that Samsung and its attorneys must pay the amount claimed by Apple and Nokia within 30 days.?

"No later than 30 days from this order, Samsung and QE are to pay Nokia a total of $1,145,027.95 and Apple a total of $893,825.77 in fees and costs," the judge wrote in his order.?

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    That'll learn them
  • Reply 2 of 32
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    And you thought Nixon had a patent on dirty tricks.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    baytedbayted Posts: 13member

    2m? That is encouraging people like Samsung to cheat again.

  • Reply 4 of 32
    bayted wrote: »
    2m? That is encouraging people like Samsung to cheat again.

    That was my thought too. Even for Quinn Emmanuel that's pocket lint.

    "Only a couple mill? For a moment I thought you were going hit me with a real fine!"
  • Reply 5 of 32
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Samsung and its?Quinn Emmanuel attorneys have been ordered to pay over $2 million in legal fees to Apple and Nokia related to the leaking of their confidential patent licensing agreement.?

     

    Legal fees? No fines?

    What legal fees are they having to pay?

    Only the legal fees Apple & Nokia incurred investigating the issue of the leaks?

     

    Samsung and its Quinn Emmanuel attorneys leak info in a lawsuit.

    Apple & Nokia find out about it and sue (and it costs them $2M). and win.

    and they only get the legal fees they spent to sue for the leaks?

    No fines or sanctions or anything else against Samsung/Quinn Emmanuel for leaking the info?

     

    So what was the point of even bringing the case if nothing else is done?

  • Reply 6 of 32
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    There should be more punishment.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Are these maffiosi related to the holier-than-thou Rahm Emmanuel?
  • Reply 8 of 32
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member

    "He's a fair cop."

  • Reply 9 of 32
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,051member
    Any bets on whether they will ever pay any amount on this?
  • Reply 10 of 32
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,680member

    Two million is a damn joke. This only encourages future criminal behavior from the crooks involved.

     

    I want to see people behind bars. I want to see people's lives ruined.

  • Reply 11 of 32
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member
    It seems like if you have enough money that you can do anything you want and avoid any legal consequences.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member

    Is this the same agreement that Apple also made publicly accessible for a while, or was that from a different case?

  • Reply 13 of 32
    brlawyer wrote: »
    Are these maffiosi related to the holier-than-thou Rahm Emmanuel?

    Or hotter-than-thou Emmanuelle!
  • Reply 14 of 32
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,991member
    Samsung's attorneys urged the court to "substantially reduce Apple's and Nokia's fee requests" in part because it was <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/05/apple-accidentally-published-nokia-licensing-terms-while-seeking-damages-from-samsung-for-doing-the-same">found that</a> "Apple itself mistakenly failed to redact the terms of its license with Nokia from a document filed on the public docket in October," four months after Samsung announced to Nokia that it had the information. The court rejected this logic.
    d4njvrzf wrote: »
    Is this the same agreement that Apple also made publicly accessible for a while, or was that from a different case?

    Maybe if you read all of it, you can find out.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    It seems odd that Samsung & Quinn Emmanuel would get fined for "leaking" information that Apple made publicly available (even if it were an accident), but I'll trust the judgement of those in the courtroom who have much more information about the subject then any of us.

  • Reply 16 of 32
    I bet these leaks happen all the time, but only Samsung was evil and dumb enough to use them in a negotiation. Those in the know would disseminate only rumours to those in actual negotiations and they would round the numbers and say "we bet... ". When money is involved, the probability of corruption approaches 100 %
  • Reply 17 of 32

    A mere monetary penalty is meaningless to high-falutin lawyers and wall-street types.  The penalty here should be requiring the offender to work full-time with satisfactory performance in an Apple (or Nokia) production line in a Chinese factory for a year (2,000 hr) at the prevailing wage.  Yes, they get paid, but only the same rate as any other line worker.

     

    And of course they will be required to live in a worker's dormitory and eat in the factory cafeteria most meals as well.  THAT will be the punishment.  :)

  • Reply 18 of 32
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,295member
    bayted wrote: »
    2m? That is encouraging people like Samsung to cheat again.
    Agreed, that should be $2 Billion .
    No doubt gator-aid will explain why this was all a mistake.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    ksecksec Posts: 1,564member
    Come on, 2M? Seriously ? It should be 200M
  • Reply 20 of 32
    gcvgcv Posts: 10member
    Samsung's business model appears to be making mediocre clones of high quality products developed by other companies. When sued by those companies, Samsung has the financial resources to prolong litigation for years, while earning profits on stolen ideas. They then offer to settle out of court for pennies on the dollar.

    The financial cost to Samsung and its legal counsel needs to be substantial in order to deter such unethical practices.

    For the record, I purchased a Samsung "Smart TV" with great expectations and found it to be anything but smart. The user interface is terrible. Just more more example of mediocre design. Just once I'd like to see Samsung come up with totally new ingenious and revolutionary product developed by Samsung.
Sign In or Register to comment.