The end of the second day (July 31) of the multi-billion dollar Apple v. Samsung trial was defined by Samsung’s failing to get ‘critical’ evidence for their side included in the case, and a spat between Samsung’s high profile lead lawyer and the judge presiding over the case.
Samsung was barred by Judge Lucy Koh from presenting images of a smartphone with a “simple, rounded rectangular body” that it claims to have been developing in 2006 — a year before Apple introduced the iPhone.
Samsung did not submit the evidence in question by a deadline established by the court. While Samsung has requested that the evidence be considered for submission, Judge Koh denied the company’s request. This didn’t stop Samsung’s lawyer, John. B. Quinn, from asking again, this time reducing his request to “begging”.
“Your honor, I’ve been practicing law for 36 years and I’ve never begged the court. I’m begging the court now,” Mr. Quinn said.
Judge Koh, unimpressed with Mr. Quinn’s reluctance to give the request up, threatened to sanction the lawyer.
“We’ve done three reconsiderations on this and we have a jury waiting. You’ve made your record,” Judge Koh scolded Mr. Quinn. “Don’t make me sanction you, I want you to sit down please.”
This didn’t stop Samsung from wanting to have the last word. Late Tuesday, journalists received an email from Samsung with the excluded evidence.
Below is a statement that was included in the e-mail.
“The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”
Mr. Quinn acknowledged he authorized the release in a declaration to the court Wednesday.
“Contrary to the representations Apple’s counsel made to this Court, Samsung did not issue a general press release and more importantly, did not violate any Court Order or any legal or ethical standards,” he wrote in the declaration. ”These false representations by Apple’s counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally.”
Understandably, Judge Koh was not impressed by Mr. Quinn’s actions.
Apple’s lawyer Harold McElhinny said Mr. Quinn was trying to pollute the jury, and his actions should be considered “contempt of court”.
Apple’s attorneys are filing for emergency sanctions and “whatever other relief may be appropriate”.
The trial resumes on Friday.
Tags: Apple v Samsung