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 C

Print : Samsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to Undercut Apple’s Design Claims

8/1/12 5:32 PM

News

Samsung Goes Public With Excluded Evidence to
Undercut Apple’s Design Claims
Published on July 31, 2012
by John Paczkowski
Denied the opportunity to make the argument in court that the design of the original iPhone was derived from
Sony concepts, Samsung has decided to make it in the court of public opinion. Moments ago, the company
released to the media two batches of evidence excluded from the trial currently occuring in San Jose, Calif.,
along with the following statement:
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.
Ahead of opening arguments on Monday, Samsung lawyer John Quinn asked the court to hear further
arguments and allow evidence showing that Samsung designs for what became the P700 predate the
iPhone. Judge Lucy Koh denied the request, saying that she had already heard three motions to reconsider
the point.
Quinn persisted, saying he was begging the court to hear more discussion, something he said he hadn’t
done in his 30-plus years of law.
“You’ve made your record for appeal,” Koh said. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”
Update: Apple’s legal team was quick to take issue with Samsung’s release of evidence excluded from the
trial, saying the action was contemptible. Judge Koh was none too pleased with the move herself, calling for
an immediate meeting with Quinn.
“Tell Mr. Quinn I’d like to see him today,” Koh said. “I want to know who drafted the press release, who
authorized it from the legal team.”
AllThingsD’s Ina Fried contributed to this report.
1 of 12 Back Next

http://allthingsd.com/?p=236306&ak_action=printable

Page 1 of 3