Judge denies Samsung motions meant to delay investigation of protective order violation
Presiding Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday denied three Samsung motions meant to delay an investigation regarding the disclosure of confidential Apple-Nokia patent licensing terms, which were unlawfully shown to the Korean company's executives.
In the court order, Judge Koh not only denies two motions for relief and one motion to stay, but goes further by calling Samsung's actions up to this point inexcusable, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.
As Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal outlined earlier this month, Samsung counsel Quinn Emmanuel disclosed -- accidentally or purposely -- highly sensitive information to a number of its client's employees. Specifically, an unredacted document discussing the terms of Apple's confidential patent licensing agreement with Nokia was made available to Samsung licensing executives, as well as counsel handling other ongoing cases involving the iPhone maker.
The information was being used by a Samsung expert witness who had access to the data under a protective court order, meaning it should have been viewed only by outside counsel. After the document was disseminated, Samsung allegedly used its knowledge of the terms to gain an unfair advantage during licensing negotiations with Nokia in June.
Judge Grewal recommended in a subsequent order filed last week that Quinn Emmanuel admit to the violation, as existing evidence clearly pointed to a breach. Instead, counsel decided to bring the three motions to Judge Koh on Tuesday, saying Judge Grewal's findings were incorrect.
In lodging the motions, Quinn Emmanuel lawyer Susan Estrich attests that there was no wrongdoing on the part of her firm, as well as Samsung.
Mueller likens Estrich's argument to a divided infringement case in that "what happened shouldn't have happened, but two parties contributed to it in different ways and neither one is really guilty with respect to its contribution." In this case, Samsung's counsel did not intentionally divulge the confidential terms, while Samsung executives acted on the information without knowing it was obtained unlawfully.
Judge Koh was not impressed:
Perhaps most damning is the possibility that Samsung used the Apple-Nokia terms to bolster its claims in a separate ITC complaint. Apple previously stated it believed Samsung used the information to sway the trade body's decision. Judge Koh noted that, if true, such an act would be "particularly egregious."
A hearing will be held next week to further discuss the matter.
In the court order, Judge Koh not only denies two motions for relief and one motion to stay, but goes further by calling Samsung's actions up to this point inexcusable, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.
As Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal outlined earlier this month, Samsung counsel Quinn Emmanuel disclosed -- accidentally or purposely -- highly sensitive information to a number of its client's employees. Specifically, an unredacted document discussing the terms of Apple's confidential patent licensing agreement with Nokia was made available to Samsung licensing executives, as well as counsel handling other ongoing cases involving the iPhone maker.
The information was being used by a Samsung expert witness who had access to the data under a protective court order, meaning it should have been viewed only by outside counsel. After the document was disseminated, Samsung allegedly used its knowledge of the terms to gain an unfair advantage during licensing negotiations with Nokia in June.
Judge Grewal recommended in a subsequent order filed last week that Quinn Emmanuel admit to the violation, as existing evidence clearly pointed to a breach. Instead, counsel decided to bring the three motions to Judge Koh on Tuesday, saying Judge Grewal's findings were incorrect.
In lodging the motions, Quinn Emmanuel lawyer Susan Estrich attests that there was no wrongdoing on the part of her firm, as well as Samsung.
Mueller likens Estrich's argument to a divided infringement case in that "what happened shouldn't have happened, but two parties contributed to it in different ways and neither one is really guilty with respect to its contribution." In this case, Samsung's counsel did not intentionally divulge the confidential terms, while Samsung executives acted on the information without knowing it was obtained unlawfully.
Judge Koh was not impressed:
The jurist also takes issue with the company's unwillingness to cooperate in discovery, which would help the court determine how the ill-gotten information was used and to what extent.Samsung's exhibits to its motions for relief show that Quinn Emanuel did in fact improperly disclose information about the other Apple licenses to Samsung's employees.
Perhaps most damning is the possibility that Samsung used the Apple-Nokia terms to bolster its claims in a separate ITC complaint. Apple previously stated it believed Samsung used the information to sway the trade body's decision. Judge Koh noted that, if true, such an act would be "particularly egregious."
A hearing will be held next week to further discuss the matter.
Comments
Burn Samsung. Burn.
I really hope Samsung gets the hammer dropped on them hard. I'm not talking crumbs, but serious cheddar. Samsung has essentially used the courts to stall and drag everything while they sit back and continue collecting billions of dollars on infringing products.
I also want the law firm that was responsible for leaking the documents to not only get a fined into obscurity, I was them to have actual jail time. A message has to be sent to these clowns that this is serious.
To date, they have just been laughing all the way to the bank. No more.
I think Koh might threaten them with an oreo. S**t could get serious then.
That picture always makes me think the lady is saying 'look, I've got a new phone,' & the man replying 'that's OK, I've just copied it.'
Out of all of Samsung's egregious misdeeds with regard to Apple, this one really has to be the worst. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be anything close to a serious penalty.
Out of all of Samsung's egregious misdeeds with regard to Apple, this one really has to be the worst. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be anything close to a serious penalty.
Yep! Well said ....
Hopefully this time she not only gives them a suitable punishment, but takes into account previous actions by Samsung that indicate a pattern of abuse.
Reminder:
THEY STOLE THIS IMAGE FROM DAEWOO CONSTRUCTION.
Specifically, the Ministry of Employment. Specifically The Daewoo Human Resources consultant who writes for their blog. It’s part of a series of images, and look: Samsung edited out the paint rollers (so THAT’S what these two morons are holding up, not sticks of string cheese) so that it would be “different”.
I can't imagine telling a sitting judge what my 9 year old daughter always says when she gets caught doing something like hitting her little brother... "but Daddy, I didn't mean to". The fact that someone at Quinn Emanuel approved this defense is unbelievable. All I can say is the hubris and lack of self examination involved in this type of behavior is extreme. The Biblical quote that comes to mind is "Pride goeth before the fall". The consequences will be Biblical in scope and pain if these courts expect to be able to continue the rule of law as the rule of the land in America. I can't think of any behavior short of physical violence that could cause the court to be more unrelenting in its judicial anger.
So what sort of sanctions are possible if Samsung and their lawyers are ultimately found guilty of breaching these orders?
I hope someone can answer this. I'd really like to know.
I don't think there is any equivalent in Korea for the type of change in legal proceedings that is going on here in America. In Samsung's experience, all courts are bought and paid for. The Judges in this case are going to feel it is more important to make an example of Quinn Emanuel and Samsung because this attitude is so pervasive and irredeemable. Courts of Law in America are expected to have a layer of unquestioned honesty. Failure to adhere to at least the appearance of honesty is going to change all the rules going forward. Every case that is under appeal is going to be examined to see if this conduct is evident and if any evidence shows that it is, we will see the hammer come down.
I can't imagine telling a sitting judge what my 9 year old daughter always says when she gets caught doing something like hitting her little brother... "but Daddy, I didn't mean to". The fact that someone at Quinn Emanuel approved this defense is unbelievable. All I can say is the hubris and lack of self examination involved in this type of behavior is extreme. The Biblical quote that comes to mind is "Pride goeth before the fall". The consequences will be Biblical in scope and pain if these courts expect to be able to continue the rule of law as the rule of the land in America. I can't think of any behavior short of physical violence that could cause the court to be more unrelenting in its judicial anger.
I agree with your assessment of the situation, but I really think what you see going on is the law firm is denying any wrong doing and will continue to deny doing anything wrong. Their comment about Samsung should not be held responsible since they have no idea they were not allowed to know what was in those agreements is basically saying that if the law firm did screw up they really screwed up since they did not tell Samsung they were not to have access to that information.
I believe the Law firm is challenging the Judge to prove they did what she thinks that did. Remember Bill Clinton, he did the same thing, deny until confronted with actual evidence then argue about what the meaning of sex is. This may work with Congress, but I do not think the Judge is going to play that game. I think the approach will be the fact Samsung had the document proves the law firm was responsible and they will have to prove they were not, this is civil law not criminal.
To your example, it is more like your daughter saying just because my brother has a bloody nose does not mean I actually hit him since you did not see it happen and the bother has a motive to say the sister did it.
For an accurate answer, you might want to ask Florian Mueller, he has the most experience in covering patent trials like this. The one thing that I noticed is that he was very concerned about how damaging this is to the way our court system works. Especially when Judge Grewal wrote: "A casual observer might reasonably wonder what magic a protective order works that allows outside counsel access to confidential information to advance the case without countenancing untoward uses by the client," Judge Grewal writes. "The answer is not a magical one at all: confidential information remains confidential because counsel and clients alike follow court orders. If parties breach this basic rule, the court’s assurances become meaningless."
With that said, Judge Koh has all eyes on her on what she will do. If she does nothing, or gives out a scolding or meaningless fine, then the whole world knows that our court system will not protect your sensitive documents and can be used illegally and improperly.
Quinn Emanuel's lawyer Susan Estrich attests that there was no wrongdoing on the part of her firm, as well as Samsung, which nobody is buying. She basically says that the document was by accident, not redacted, and Samsung did not know that the document should not have been looked at which is basically a lie. The reason being is that Samsung themselves admitted to Nokia that there was a leak of sensitive information, they read the information when they knew they shouldn't and they used that information to gain an advantage with agreement talks with Nokia.
Quinn Emanuel cannot use the defense that they did not know that the agreement was improperly redacted, because they have over 100 lawyers who are trained in the ITC's method of protecting sensitive documents from outside parties. The fact that the document itself was on their own FTP site not redacted and accessed by Samsung employees makes it worse.
There will be some major changes in our legal system on how to handle sensitive information like this agreement. If not, future cases will have sides refusing to hand over documents for fear of being "Samsunged".
....
I believe you have just coined a new legal term!!!
You heard it first, here, on AppleInsider.
edit: then we use Google and it goes back to 2012...oh well. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Samsunged
For example, interview question 36b:
"Which is worse?"
a.) You are fired by Samsung
b.) You are disbarred
The correct answer is a.)
"As Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal outlined earlier this month, Samsung counsel Quinn Emmanuel disclosed -- accidentally or purposely -- highly sensitive information to a number of its client's employees"
Had to chuckle at the "accidentally or purposely" line added. Seriously? Probably had to cover his butt against a defamation countersuit.
Lawyers.
Hope the penalties have teeth on this one.