Apple wants court to rule Samsung infringes on iPhone patents in evidence leak sanctions
In an Apple v. Samsung court filing on Thursday, Apple requested sanctions against Samsung over a recent leak of excluded evidence amount to a favorable ruling of the Cupertino company's claim that the Galaxy maker infringes Apple's phone design patents.
While "terminating sanctions" are extreme and very rare, Apple believes Samsung's actions warrant such a punishment and call the leak of excluded exhibits to media outlets an act of "egregious" misconduct.
Samsung on Tuesday sent out an email to various media outlets containing demonstrative exhibits featuring text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori which mentions a "Sony-styled" iPhone. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh excluded the evidence from the case in an earlier order.
To go along with the media packet, Samsung issued a statement which read in part, "the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." In a declaration from Samsung attorney John Quinn, it was revealed that he green-lit the email and statement but claimed both were within the limits set forth by the Court and not meant to sway jury bias.
Apple, on the other hand, claims Quinn's actions were intently directed at the jury and "impugned the integrity of the Court."
From Thursday's response declaration:
For the reasons described, Apple requested the Court hand down "severe sanctions" against Samsung for "bad faith conduct" especially pertaining to the press leak debacle. The iPhone maker claims "no remedy other than judgment on Apple's phone design patent claims could fully rectify the harm that Samsung and Mr. Quinn have caused," noting exclusionary sanctions or a mistrial would be insufficient and possibly harmful to its case.
While "terminating sanctions" are extreme and very rare, Apple believes Samsung's actions warrant such a punishment and call the leak of excluded exhibits to media outlets an act of "egregious" misconduct.
Samsung on Tuesday sent out an email to various media outlets containing demonstrative exhibits featuring text of a deposition from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori which mentions a "Sony-styled" iPhone. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh excluded the evidence from the case in an earlier order.
To go along with the media packet, Samsung issued a statement which read in part, "the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." In a declaration from Samsung attorney John Quinn, it was revealed that he green-lit the email and statement but claimed both were within the limits set forth by the Court and not meant to sway jury bias.
Apple, on the other hand, claims Quinn's actions were intently directed at the jury and "impugned the integrity of the Court."
From Thursday's response declaration:
The declaration goes on to note Samsung's press statement is the latest in a "string of litigation misconduct" of which Apple points out four examples including the spoliation of evidence related to the Korean electronics giant's email deletion protocols.Mr. Quinn made clear Samsung?s position on whether it would respect the Court?s determinations during arguments on July 31. Confronted with the Court?s decision to exclude the disputed evidence (after multiple failed motions for reconsideration), Mr. Quinn challenged, ?What?s the point . . . of having the trial? What?s the point?? Samsung then took its ?What?s the point?? message to the public—claiming that the Court was improperly denying Samsung a fair trial.
For the reasons described, Apple requested the Court hand down "severe sanctions" against Samsung for "bad faith conduct" especially pertaining to the press leak debacle. The iPhone maker claims "no remedy other than judgment on Apple's phone design patent claims could fully rectify the harm that Samsung and Mr. Quinn have caused," noting exclusionary sanctions or a mistrial would be insufficient and possibly harmful to its case.
Comments
If the judge did that, Samsung would have an appeal within seconds of the verdict and then be dragged through the courts for years.
Then again, if the jury sides with Apple and the trial is over, Samsung will still revolve the door and file paperwork.
This is going to make both lawyers very rich, but it will send a message to all of the iClone makers that they are officially on notice to make their own stuff and stop using Apple as their R&D department.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[Certain posters are] really going to get his panties in a bunch over this one.
Maybe all these men should stop wearing panties. It might make them more comfortable and open to something that isn't anti-Apple nonsense.
More dung from Samsung that'll probably get'em hung.
When you grapple with Apple don't call them a Sony-phony.
It boils down to one thing there is no respect for the court in the US.
Lawyers do whatever they like with impunity, without regard to the rule of law. They can even boast that they have done no wrong by leaking information with the purpose of influencing the decision of the jury.
You have companies like Google demanding that patents which companies spent billions developed them to be shared by it and others.
Can't believe that a highly regarded lawyer stoop so low to do such a desperate act.
One thing can be said the respect for the rule of law is sadly missing and the worst part is those who know it is wrong are the ones who point their middle finger at it.
Quinn is full of crap. His statement "the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design" is pure bunk.
How does an Apple prototype that Samsung never saw and never made it to production somehow show that the Galaxy S phone isn't a rip-off of the original iPhone? He didn't just make a leap in connecting the dots - he hit warp 9 and ended up in a completely different Galaxy.
He's hoping that his comments get to the jury somehow. In that case, the jury thinks there's some conclusive evidence and Apple just had it squashed. In some ways, it's even better for Samsung this way because Apple doesn't have a chance to refute it. If it gets to the jury, it helps Samsung a lot - which is why Apple is pushing for major penalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Quinn is full of crap. His statement "the excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design" is pure bunk.
How does an Apple prototype that Samsung never saw and never made it to production somehow show that the Galaxy S phone isn't a rip-off of the original iPhone? He didn't just make a leap in connecting the dots - he hit warp 9 and ended up in a completely different Galaxy.
No kidding! This so-called "Sony Design" is no more than one more internal Apple prototype. It is NOT a Sony design or Sony product that Apple somehow copied. Apple designer Nishibori clearly states that it was a design he came up with based on how he thought Sony might approach the process. This is an egregious misinterpretation of facts by Quinn, I wish Koh had just let Samsung present it. The rebuttal from Apple would have been incredibly embarrassing to Samsung. I wouldn't mind if the next gen iPhone used this design!
He's hoping to get a mistrial by tainting the jury, with the hope that a) they can drag this out and b) possibly do better in pre-trial arguments, which have gone totally against them. In other words, he's desperate because he knows he will lose, and stooped to totally unethical behavior as a hail mary.
Taser him square in the nuts.
Why do you think they issued a statement saying they thought it was ethical and legal? Obviously trying to establish that, "they didn't think they were doing anything wrong." Or, to steal a phrase from Google, "the tainting was inadvertent."
There's no plausible explanation for his behavior other than a deliberate attempt to taint the jury, that's why Apple is asking for an immediate judgement in their favor.
As idiotic as Samsung's legal team has presented themselves, with not submitting evidence in time on more than one occasion, this "declaration" and so forth, the simplest conclusion is that they couldn't be so stupid and that they are just setting up for the appeal. Unless Samsung's lawyers really are failures.
That would be insanely stupid, as well.
You don't go into a trial 'setting up for the appeal'. In fact, getting an appeal is not all that easy. You have to demonstrate that the judge made an error of law (simply an error of discretion isn't enough). It's not clear what Samsung could base an appeal on - and their own actions certainly don't help their case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Looking forward to the judge's response. Clearly Samsung is aiming for a mistrial. After all the other bad behavior by Samsung and their lawyers up to this point in this particular case the requests by Apple actually seem reasonable. Financial punishment hasn't stopped them yet, serious consequences seem called for now.
Agreed. Samsung wants a mistrial. This is a way to stall for time in what it sees as a likely loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I don't think Quinn wants a mistrial based on his releasing information to the media. Think about it - if a mistrial does happen because of tainting the jury, then who would be guilty of tainting the jury? Quinn himself, which likely means getting charged.
Quinn wants either to taint the jury, or a mistrial. If the Court orders a mistrial, the most Quinn is going to get is sanctioned, which means monetary damages. You only get charged with a crime for lying to the Court. He hasn't done that.
Honestly, Considering Quinn tried to get it reintroduced after Apple brought up the F700 in the trial, he was probably referring to those prototypes, not the Sony one:
On a side note... I have to admit I really like the sony designs. Shame they can't get their software in line. I would seriously consider buying an Sony over the iPhone if it ran AOSP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
He's hoping to get a mistrial by tainting the jury, with the hope that a) they can drag this out and b) possibly do better in pre-trial arguments, which have gone totally against them. In other words, he's desperate because he knows he will lose, and stooped to totally unethical behavior as a hail mary.
I really question your legal knowledge here. Most people on here seem to derive theirs from television shows. The jury is most likely the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Agreed. Samsung wants a mistrial. This is a way to stall for time in what it sees as a likely loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Quinn wants either to taint the jury, or a mistrial. If the Court orders a mistrial, the most Quinn is going to get is sanctioned, which means monetary damages. You only get charged with a crime for lying to the Court. He hasn't done that.
The jury was already instructed not to watch news, read the paper, etc. They are supposed to isolate themselves from media influence. Regarding stuff like the F700, I wasn't surprised they included that as an infringing device. They just blanketed their accusations across anything with a large display even though its release was only a month apart from the initial iphone (and prior art dates back further). Anyway as long as the jury follows their preceding instructions, your concerns are completely invalid. It's not likely that this was anything more than a PR statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The jury was already instructed not to watch news, read the paper, etc. They are supposed to isolate themselves from media influence.
That didn't stop the trial that I sat on as a juror being dismissed because one of the jurors read something about the defendant in the media.