Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1539

RESPONSE to re 1533 Declaration in Opposition, Apple Inc.'s Response to Declaration of John B. Quinn and Recommendation Regarding Appropriate Sanction by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

Exhibit B

In Apple-Samsung trial, it's John Quinn v. Judge Koh

Login to OnePass | Settings | Help

LEGAL

HOME

NEWS

INSIGHT

Search

LEGAL MATERIALS

In Apple-Samsung trial, it's John Quinn v. Judge Koh
8/1/2012

COMMENTS (0)

What was John Quinn thinking when he authorized a press statement on behalf of his client Samsung in a patent
trial against Apple, discussing exhibits the judge had specifically barred that very morning?
Quinn, of course, is the managing partner of the powerhouse litigation shop Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan. Besides Apple v. Samsung, the firm has a hand in lots of high-profile fights: It represents Google and it

RELATED COURT DOCUMENTS &
INSIGHT
Koh order
Quinn declaration
Apple response
Quinn exhibit A

is a major plaintiff-side player in billion-dollar litigation over failed mortgage-backed securities.
The patent trial -- which will decide whether Samsung violated iPhone and iPad IP -- kicked off this week with jury
selection, opening statements and the first witnesses. But the pretrial run-up was not kind to Samsung or the
lawyers at Quinn Emanuel. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, issued two pretrial injunctions
against Samsung in June: one against the Galaxy Nexus phone and the other against the Galaxy Tab 10.1. This is
a decidedly different environment from the one Google's Motorola Mobility unit faced with Judge Richard Posner
in Chicago, who tossed Apple's case because he thought it could not prove damages (he also tossed Motorola's
much slimmer case against Apple).
Koh handed down evidentiary rulings on in limine motions for and against both sides. But Samsung just couldn't
get past one of the decisions that went against it: what slides it could present to the jury during Quinn Emanuel

Are MBS class actions a bust?
And is that good for banks?  read
more »
In Apple-Samsung trial, it's John
Quinn v. Judge Koh  read more »
The Stoker verdict and Citi's
settlement with the SEC  read
more »

partner Charles Verhoeven's opening statement. The South Korean company wanted to display images of
Samsung designs that were in development before the iPhone, which look similar to the Apple product and could
undermine the validity of Apple's patents. Samsung also wanted to discuss evidence of Apple's reliance on Sony
phone designs, to show that even Apple is inspired by others.
But U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal had ruled those contentions had not been disclosed in time, so Koh said
Samsung couldn't use them during opening arguments. The Quinn team asked her to reconsider. Denied.
That's when Quinn stepped onto the stage on Tuesday, the day after a jury was sworn and just minutes before
openings were set to start. Dressed in a stylish blue suit with mussed hair, Quinn stood before Koh and said he
had "been practicing for 36 years" and had never begged the court, but that now he was begging that she
reconsider on the slides. Again, Koh said no.
"What's the point of having a trial?" Quinn said, his voice rising. "What's the point?"
Koh tried to shut him down. "Mr. Quinn, please, please, we have done three reconsiderations on this. You've made
your record."
"Can I get some explanation..."
"Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you, please!" the judge barked. "I want you to sit down, please."
Quinn did, but the drama was just getting started. At 2:48 p.m., after openings were done and a suave Apple
industrial designer was testifying, a Samsung press statement hit our inbox (along with those of other reporters)
with a link to the excluded slides. (The linked material has since been removed, but All Things D snagged it.) "The
excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design," the
statement said. "Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence."
Less then two hours later, after Koh sent the jury home for the day, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny of Morrison
& Foerster stood up. McElhinny said he had been unsure what Quinn was up to that morning, but the press
statement made it clear.
"This is an intentional attempt to pollute this jury," McElhinny said, adding that it should be considered "contempt
of court."
Koh jumped all over it.
"Call Mr. Quinn," she told the Samsung legal team. "I'd like to see him today." When they told her he had already

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=53590&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27[8/1/2012 4:21:50 PM]

In Apple-Samsung trial, it's John Quinn v. Judge Koh
gone back to Los Angeles for an event, Koh ordered Quinn to file a declaration by Wednesday. "I want to know
who drafted the press release, who authorized it from your legal team," Koh said, "and I want Mr. Quinn's
declaration as to what his role was."
Quinn's declaration hit the docket Wednesday morning.
"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. "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."
Instead, Quinn said Samsung was merely responding to press inquiries about the issue (though this reporter didn't
ask about it) and attached a redacted email he said was from a journalist. All of the material in the excluded
exhibits was previously in the public record, Quinn argued, and lawyers have a First Amendment right to speak to
the press. The case has "enormous potential commercial impact," and Koh had already ruled that pretrial
submissions are a part of trial, he wrote.
"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated
by or designed to influence jurors," Quinn wrote. "The members of the jury had already been selected at the time
of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read
any form of media relating to this case."
In a filing on Wednesday, Apple said Quinn had not answered all of the judge's questions and that it would file an
emergency motion seeking sanctions. Since the trial is dark until Friday, we may have to wait until then to hear
what Koh makes of his explanation.
(Reporting by Dan Levine)
Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel, @ReutersLegal, @fedcourtjunkie| Like us on Facebook   

Register or log in to comment.
© 2012 THOMSON REUTERS
CONTACT US

PRIVACY POLICY

TERMS OF USE

COPYRIGHT

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=53590&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27[8/1/2012 4:21:50 PM]

SITE MAP