Samsung told to reveal emails in Apple battle
Samsung has failed to overturn a ruling requiring it to reveal documentation relating to an alleged leak of secret files belonging to rival Apple.
On October 15, Judge Lucy Koh upheld an October 2 ruling which ordered the Korean electronics company to provide details of its internal emails and communications by October 16.
The ruling, at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, came as a result of a patent case between the pair which began in 2011.
During the fast discovery process of the case, Apple was required to turn over copies of its licensing deals with other technology companies including Nokia and Ericsson.
The details were only supposed to be seen by Samsung's outside counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, but were allegedly made available to other Samsung employees.
Presiding over the October 2 case, US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal said the documents addressed “highly confidential, attorneys’-eyes-only information,” adding that it was unclear if they were intentionally or accidentally revealed.
Grewal referred to a meeting in which Samsung’s chief IP officer, Seungho Ahn, allegedly told Nokia it had seen its licensing agreement with Apple and pushed the Finnish firm to sign a similar agreement with Samsung.
Samsung, which described the ruling as “grossly overboard,” filed for a motion calling for a reprieve on the order.
However, rejecting Samsung’s claims, Judge Koh described Grewal’s ruling as “eminently reasonable.”
“… while Samsung claims it will face ‘irreparable harm’ … because Samsung will have to disclose privileged information, which cannot be undone, the court disagrees,” Koh wrote.
Judge Grewal’s order also said Samsung had failed to supply any evidence regarding other uses of the Apple-Nokia licence and other confidential licences.
Koh added that Samsung had been “unable to produce satisfactory answers” to questions about alleged improper disclosures despite having three months to investigate and that Samsung's exhibits in its motions for relief show that “Quinn Emanuel did improperly disclose information about the other Apple licenses."
“… this court finds that it was necessary for Magistrate Judge Grewal to order court-supervised discovery and that the scope of his order was not overly broad,” Koh wrote.
“It seems like the court just wants to get to bottom of this,” said Rory Radding, partner at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, in New York, who said Samsung’s lawyers had “got themselves into a hole.”
“Judge Grewal was clearly not satisfied with Samsung’s information, despite the three month time period, Judge Koh got it right to at least order an investigation to find out what happened and why,” Radding said.
“I doubt whether it was the actual full agreements that were sent out but whatever it was probably included a summary. These things have to be taken at face value and something labelled ‘attorneys eyes only’ should not have been disclosed.”
