Samsung not sanctioned over leakage of Apple documents

The judge said the information had not been misused in license negotiations

Article comments

A court in California has decided not to sanction Samsung Electronics for the leak of confidential Apple licensing information, stating that the information had not been misused in patent negotiations.

The court has, however, asked the external counsel to reimburse costs and fees incurred by Apple and Nokia on litigating the motion and related discovery.

Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Wednesday that Samsung could not have benefited from the leaked information for its license negotiations with Nokia or Ericsson, pointing out that Samsung had argued that it already knew the terms of the agreement ahead of the leak.

The court said in November that it was considering sanctions against Samsung and its lawyers in view of allegations of the suspected breach of confidential information, including information on Apple's patent licensing agreements with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp and Philips, which were marked for viewing by the attorneys alone.

Key terms of the four patent license agreements were contained in a draft expert report on damages that was forwarded to Samsung without redaction by its external counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

The counsel posted the expert report on an FTP (file transfer protocol) site that was accessible by Samsung staff, and emailed instructions for accessing the site, which over 50 Samsung employees including licensing executives are said to have accessed.

Apple had provided the information to Quinn Emanuel during the discovery phase of a lawsuit in California in which Apple was awarded damages of US$1.05 billion against Samsung, later whittled down to about $930 million.

Samsung explained that Ericsson told it the terms of its license with Apple in the course of their mediations. "Given that no representative from Ericsson or anyone else has come forward to refute that assertion, the court credits the testimony and accepts this explanation," Judge Grewal wrote in his order. He said he was also not persuaded, despite Samsung's "tenuous" explanations, that the South Korean company had used the confidential information in the expert report.

With regard to Quinn Emanuel, the court found that the reimbursement of costs, in addition to the public findings of wrongdoing was sufficient "both to remedy Apple and Nokia's harm and to discourage similar conduct in the future." Quinn Emanuel will also be responsible for ensuring that all copies of the expert report "containing confidential information are deleted, erased, wiped, or otherwise permanently removed from Samsung's control within fourteen days of this order."

"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," Grewal said about Quinn Emanuel's role. "One inadvertent mistake resulted in the widespread distribution of confidential information to hundreds of people who were not authorized to have access to it."

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

Share:

Comments

  • Thomas Of course they felt no compulsion to self disclose this inadvert distribution of highly confidential and potentially beneficial information I mean after all they already knew of it previously Thus of course it was of absolutely no use to them So self reporting the breach would A reflect positively on their integrity B protect them legally C save them from any embarrassment and D would probably come at no cost financially and certainly informationally after all they already knew I mean they told us themselves Even if we didnt believe themjust to be safe they could just forget what they saw in the unredacted documents The judge surely will see to that After all he ordered all copies of the relevant documents remaining with the offending party be destroyed That is a clearly feasibleenforceable and punitive result And dont forget the staggering court costs for such a small company This decision is sure to change future behaviorNOT ltsarcasmgtltsarcasmgt
Advertisement
Send to a friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.


We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message

ComputerworldUK Knowledge Vault

ComputerworldUK
Share
x
Open
* *