To b fair, that was actually used in a courts decision and it wasn't to downplay the iPad's innovation and market expansion. (hopefully nobody denies this)
The only reason it is brought up because of the whole "Square with round corners" and their motions to sue other tablet makers over what is called "trade dress".
Correct. Apple sued Samsung over a design patent,
D504,889.
Samsung's lawyers wanted to use Arthur C. Clarke's predicted "Newspad", depicted in the 1968 movie, "
2001:A Space Odyssey", as a defense against Apple lawyers' claim that their design patent was a unique idea.
However, although Samsung's lawyers had shown that (and many other pieces of prior art) in pretrial hearings as tablet history without any complaints, they failed to specifically note that the prior art would also be used later to try to prove invalidity and non-infringement. (They assumed this was obvious.)
Apple's lawyers saw the mistake, and waited to oppose the evidence until after the deadline to be specific had passed for Samsung. This meant a legal technicality successfully got most prior art thrown out of the trial. (At which time Samsung's California head lawyer said to Judge Koh, "What's the point of having a trial?" and then leaked the info to the press.)
If Apple was secure in its innovation claims, they didn't show it. Making sure that a lot of prior art was withheld from the jury, was not a sign of confidence in their claims of uniqueness.
As it turned out, the 2001 reference wasn't needed anyway. The jury ruled that Samsung had not infringed on Apple's tablet design, and Koh had to lift her preliminary injunction on the Tab.