Samsung: We weren't trying to influence jurors
In a new filing, Samsung argues that the excluded trial evidence it sent out to media yesterday was public domain.
In a court filing this morning, Samsung explained why it was not at fault for offering excluded trial evidence to the press, saying that information was in the public domain because it had already been published.
"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," John B. Quinn, of Samsung's law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP said in a filing this morning.
"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," Quinn added.
The response comes after a squabble at the end of yesterday's court session that had Apple's counsel complaining to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh that Samsung had released excluded evidence to the press. Apple's counsel said the information had the potential to influence jurors, who might have any subsequent media reports.
In his response, Quinn said that the jury was unlikely to see the evidence, since they had been instructed not to look at any media reports.
"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors," He said. "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."
The evidence in question were slides of Samsung phone designs, as well as an excerpt from the deposition of former Apple designer Shin Nishibori. In its controversial statement yesterday, Samsung said the "excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design." So far, the rest of the company's case has relied on its own internal documents of phone prototypes that pre-dated the iPhone design, as well as design patents from other companies and individuals that it argues bear resemblance to some of Apple's own.
The case picks back up in court this Friday, with the continued testimony of Apple SVP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller. Schiller took to the stand briefly yesterday at the end of the session, weighing in on the company's market research tactics, or a lack thereof.
