Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 30, 2014, 05:16 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Judge Declines to Sanction Samsung for Role in Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks




Last October, Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions against Samsung and its outside lawyers, accusing both of unlawfully obtaining sensitive data about Apple's 2011 patent license agreement with Nokia. Samsung responded to the allegations by filing three motions intended to slow the investigation. However, those motions were denied by Judge Lucy Koh, who also proceeded to call Samsung's lack of information about the alleged violation "inexcusable."

Now, FOSS Patents reports that Judge Paul S. Grewal yesterday ruled against imposing sanctions on Samsung, instead choosing to solely penalize its law firm, Quinn Emanuel. By Judge Grewal's order, Quinn Emanuel will be required to reimburse Apple, Nokia, and their legal counsel for all costs and fees incurred during the litigation.

Judge Grewal also explained why some further-reaching and more dramatic sanctions proposed by Apple and Nokia were not appropriate:
Quote:
The vast majority of these are ludicrously overbroad, such as the suggestion that both Samsung and Quinn Emanuel should be banned from any situation in which they might make use of licensing information for the next two years. Although the evidence has shown Quinn Emanuel failed to notify the relevant parties at the relevant times, and that [Samsung in-house lawyer Daniel] Shim made use of the information, there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation.
The decision by Judge Grewal can be appealed to Judge Koh and then on to the Federal Circuit if necessary, where Apple or Nokia could attempt to win additional sanctions. Samsung cannot appeal any part of the decision further as it was not sanctioned.

The ruling comes as a second patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung is set to begin on March 31, 2014. Notably, Samsung will only have four patents claims to bring to the upcoming trial, as Judge Koh invalidated two of its patent claims last week. Both companies will also partake in a trial centered around Apple's new call for a U.S. ban on Samsung products set for January 30.

[center]

Article Link: Judge Declines to Sanction Samsung for Role in Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 05:49 AM   #2
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
The law firm, Quinn Emanuel paying all Apple and Nokia's legal fees, rather than the more deep-pocketed Samsung? Could be an expensive lesson for the firm. I'm guessing they'll make it up the next round.
__________________
Due to my aversion to bragging and clichés, no words of wisdom to be found on this line.....
macs4nw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 06:55 AM   #3
Jibbajabba
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
So bored of that never ending story. Just get Tim Cook and Kwon Oh Hyun into a white collar arena and let them fight over it like men.
Jibbajabba is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 06:59 AM   #4
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Makes sense. It was the law firm that goofed up and FTP'd the unredacted document to Samsung's servers, where various people read it.

Not that Judge Grewal has ever been known to favor Quinn Emanuel. He is the one who primarily denied all their prior art in the billion dollar trial, because of a technicality.
kdarling is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 07:31 AM   #5
albusseverus
macrumors 6502a
 
albusseverus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Show me the part again, where Samsung didn't illegally obtain information and then use it.

It's not like they didn't know they weren't entitled to it.
It's not like they unknowingly bought stolen goods from someone at the pub.

Samsung sure gets a good run in U.S. courts. Remember everything they did to get a mistrial when they could see things weren't going their way?

I can't see how paying costs, which are mostly imaginary, is any discouragement from offending again. Banning the lawyers and Samsung for 2 years from being in a position to offend sounded extremely lenient.

Good to see lawyers (apparently) being brought to task for malpractice, though. Not that anybody seems to see it as anything other than the cost of doing business.
albusseverus is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 09:12 AM   #6
FloatingBones
macrumors 65816
 
FloatingBones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Makes sense. It was the law firm that goofed up and FTP'd the unredacted document to Samsung's servers, where various people read it.
The outside law firm definitely goofed up, but this would not have been a problem unless Samsung did what they did with the information. From the original MR report of this violation:

Quote:
Licensing executives from Samsung and Nokia held a meeting on June 4, 2013 to discuss a patent license deal between these parties. In that meeting, a Samsung exec, Dr. Seungho Ahn, "informed Nokia that the terms of the Apple-Nokia license were known to him" and according to a declaration from Nokia's Chief Intellectual Property Officer, Paul Melin, "stated that Apple had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung's outside counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license". The Melin declaration furthermore says that "to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that 'all information leaks'.
Samsung execs knew they shouldn't have had that information. They could have chosen to act in an ethical fashion with that ill-gotten information. They did not. They bragged about having it, and used it as a negotiating tool in conversations with Nokia.

Samsung should be punished for those actions.
FloatingBones is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 09:33 AM   #7
lolkthxbai
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Wow, how lame. It just doesn't seem very fair that Samsung will be getting away with this. And of course, the money to pay the law firm's penalties will come from Samsung because that's how they do business. Wasn't there a quote about how Nokia was approached with details of the Apple-Nokia licensing agreement...? Isn't that evidence enough of abuse.......?
lolkthxbai is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 11:47 AM   #8
charlituna
macrumors G3
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
The law firm, Quinn Emanuel paying all Apple and Nokia's legal fees, rather than the more deep-pocketed Samsung? Could be an expensive lesson for the firm. I'm guessing they'll make it up the next round.
I could see them having to so that. And to me if it would be fair if they were placed on a kind of probation. Slap them with a fine that will be waived so long as they don't try to pull the same crap again. Do it and they pay for it. They do it with criminals why not with civil issues as well.
__________________
Return of the Non Tech's Wish List
(She's family so I'm biased )
charlituna is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 01:00 PM   #9
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Judges and prosecutors empathize with people in the legal profession, so they tend to be exceptionally lenient towards them for missteps and misjudgments, even though they do not mind ruining other people's lives for not following every letter of some obscure law. It is in human nature. If you think "oh, this could have happened to me just as easily", you tend to be a lot more forgiving.
theBB is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 01:10 PM   #10
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
I think it has more to do with not penalizing a company (Samsung) unless you are sure that they are guilty.

So even though we think and it's maybe likely that Samsung was doing wrong, we still have to base things on evidence in court. And since there is "insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation" they can't be penalized. Let's see how the appeal turns out.

.
paul4339 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 02:35 PM   #11
sailmac
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
One way to read this is that judge Grewal just made it easier for Apple and Nokia to ultimately prevail.

By ruling against sanctions at his level of authority, Grewal paves the way for Apple/Nokia to appeal this matter to judge Koh without interference by Samsung. It is clear that Koh sees Samsung's actions for what they are and it is reasonable to think she will find in favor of Apple/Nokia.

I will be surprised if this is the last we hear about it.
sailmac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 06:29 PM   #12
Nevaborn
macrumors 6502a
 
Nevaborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailmac View Post
One way to read this is that judge Grewal just made it easier for Apple and Nokia to ultimately prevail.

By ruling against sanctions at his level of authority, Grewal paves the way for Apple/Nokia to appeal this matter to judge Koh without interference by Samsung. It is clear that Koh sees Samsung's actions for what they are and it is reasonable to think she will find in favor of Apple/Nokia.

I will be surprised if this is the last we hear about it.
Agreed, this will be appealed and will raise it's head again.
__________________
(>^^)> *** A Wild Kirby Appeared ***
Nevaborn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 07:52 PM   #13
BC2009
macrumors 68000
 
BC2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
Makes sense. It was the law firm that goofed up and FTP'd the unredacted document to Samsung's servers, where various people read it.

Not that Judge Grewal has ever been known to favor Quinn Emanuel. He is the one who primarily denied all their prior art in the billion dollar trial, because of a technicality.
It does make sense to sanction the law firm. I'm sure Apple/Nokia will appeal for sanctions against Samsung though. The law firm screwed up -- Samsung just used the information they wrongfully obtained. Samsung also retained the law firm so I guess you could argue some liability there in an appeal, but ultimately this seems like an attorney being guilty of misconduct.
BC2009 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2014, 08:26 PM   #14
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
Judge Grewal also explained why some further-reaching and more dramatic sanctions proposed by Apple and Nokia were not appropriate:
Quote:
"The vast majority of these are ludicrously overbroad, such as the suggestion that both Samsung and Quinn Emanuel should be banned from any situation in which they might make use of licensing information for the next two years. Although the evidence has shown Quinn Emanuel failed to notify the relevant parties at the relevant times, and that [Samsung in-house lawyer Daniel] Shim made use of the information, there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation."
The above left out the second half of that quote from Judge Grewal:

Quote:
"By the final hearing on December 9, 2013, this lack of clear evidence was obvious in the tone of the moving parties.

"Apple and Nokia's allegations had shifted, acknowledging that the evidence of misuse is 'circumstantial,' must overcome facial 'inconsistencies,' and that even they could only characterize it as 'more likely than not' that the information had been used.

"In short, what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions."
In other words, as the ruling stated throughout, the original Nokia / Apple accusations were a bit overblown.

Most interestingly of all, the ruling notes that the document actually DID have Nokia's name redacted, but that the Samsung negotiation lawyer deduced who they were, anyway, from the amounts and currency (Euros).

As for previous posts talking about lawyers protecting their own, it's true. The ruling decides that:

Quote:
"It is undisputed that at some point in late March 2012, a junior associate working late one night failed to fully redact Apple’s confidential license terms from an expert report."

... then later...

"That said, every lawyer in this case has acknowledged that these types of mistakes happen. In a case of this size and scope, it would be completely unreasonable to expect every person on every team to perform perfectly at all times. "
So the Judge didn't ding the law firm for the mistake itself. He penalized them because the same junior associate who had goofed up, also realized six months later that he'd made a mistake... yet the firm didn't inform Apple then or later on.

Last edited by kdarling; Jan 31, 2014 at 01:52 PM.
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2014, 04:23 PM   #15
Swytch
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Although the evidence has shown Quinn Emanuel failed to notify the relevant parties at the relevant times, and that [Samsung in-house lawyer Daniel] Shim made use of the information, there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation.
This is irrelevant, if they broke the law there should be consequences, just because their action didnt affect the litigation doesnt mean they didnt break the law.
Swytch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2014, 12:21 PM   #16
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swytch View Post
This is irrelevant, if they broke the law there should be consequences, just because their action didnt affect the litigation doesnt mean they didnt break the law.
The ruling said they didn't break the law on purpose, but more because of poor organization.

However, they failed to correct it by telling Apple. That's why they had to pay Apple's and Nokia's fees.

--

The other ruling was that now they have to get Apple/Nokia approval of any redacted documents _before_ sending them anywhere.

Which makes me wonder why that isn't the norm anyway. It would avoid all sorts of potential problems.
kdarling is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2014, 02:04 AM   #17
sailmac
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
The other ruling was that now they have to get Apple/Nokia approval of any redacted documents _before_ sending them anywhere.

Which makes me wonder why that isn't the norm anyway. It would avoid all sorts of potential problems.
That's a great point.

IIRC, Apple/Nokia anticipated the possibility of documents getting transmitted to Samsung (accidentally or otherwise) and that's one reason why the whole thing is so flabbergasting. In advance they sought constraints and protection while allowing for reasonable discovery.

I'm with you, scratching my head wondering why required consent for transmitting redacted docs wasn't in place from the start?...
sailmac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2014, 07:16 AM   #18
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Oops! Apple's lawyers made an even worse mistake

In one of the most ironic turn of events possible, it turns out that Apple's own law firm had accidentally posted all the same Nokia license details IN PUBLIC last year, and neither Apple nor Nokia noticed the mistake for several months.

Samsung's lawyers naturally want any sanctions for their own junior associate's redaction goof, reduced appropriately, since they weren't the only ones to screw up. Moreover, their internal leak to one company wasn't as bad as Apple's law firm leak to the public.

It's a good guess that Apple's lawyers will now see their request for extreme sanctions against Samsung's lawyers, in a totally different light
kdarling is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Released Confidential License Terms with Nokia While Sanctioning Samsung for Role in Leaks MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 50 Mar 7, 2014 09:59 AM
Judge Invalidates Two Samsung Patent Claims Ahead of Second Patent Lawsuit with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 60 Jan 23, 2014 02:31 PM
Samsung's Request to Delay Investigation of Apple-Nokia Patent License Leaks Denied MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 75 Oct 18, 2013 12:58 PM
Apple Seeks Sanctions Against Samsung for Unlawful Use of Apple-Nokia Patent License Terms MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 179 Oct 7, 2013 10:54 AM
UK Judge Who Chastised Apple Over Samsung 'Apology' Now Consulting as Patent Expert for Samsung MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 253 Mar 9, 2013 08:25 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC