Samsung seeks court order to see Apple’s next-gen iPhone, iPad samples in patent dispute

“Samsung Electronics Co. sought a court order to force Apple Inc. to disclose iPhone and iPad models under development, claiming it needs the information to defend against allegations of copying,” Jun Yang reports for Bloomberg.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung needs Apple’s plans in order to produce the prototypes that the court last week ordered them to show Apple. It’s a catch-22 for Samsung.

Yang reports, “The move comes a month after Apple asked the court to order the South Korean company to disclose unreleased Samsung products, according to the filing. Samsung’s request is part of a legal dispute between the two companies, which began in April when Apple claimed Samsung’s Galaxy products ‘slavishly’ copied iPad and iPhone technology and design.”

“The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. 11-cv- 01846. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose),” Yang reports.

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Judge orders Samsung to hand over five unreleased Android phones, tablets to Apple – May 24, 2011
Samsung files new lawsuit against Apple in U.S. – April 29, 2011
Samsung phone sales drop 14%, profit drops 30% – April 29, 2011
NPD: Apple iPhone 4 for Verizon best-selling mobile phone in U.S.; causes Android to lose share for first time since Q209 – April 28, 2011
Samsung’s new Galaxy S phone shows few changes from model that prompted Apple lawsuit – April 28, 2011
Samsung countersues Apple over iPhone, iPad; lawsuits filed in South Korea, Japan and Germany – April 22, 2011
Apple lawsuit against Samsung deemed no threat to supply – April 19, 2011
Apple v. Samsung: a complete lawsuit analysis – April 19, 2011
Samsung vows to countersue Apple over patent suit – April 19, 2011
Why Apple is suing Samsung and why Samsung will likely settle – April 19, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011


  1. Even copying the legal strategies of Apple.

    Hey Samsung, how about copying the notion of innovation. that is something Apple does, and but won’t sue you for!

  2. SamDUNG wants to see prototypes, unreleased models, stuff that Jobs and his core group are the only ones privy to view? Are you kidding me? What a bunch of freaking morons! LOL

  3. Samsung has NO CAUSE to see the Apple prototypes.

    Apple has a good case for “Trade Dress” infringement, especially since Galaxy products have been advertised as “just like an iphone (or ipad).” The infringement is premeditated. Apple has good cause to bar Samsung access to any unreleased models.

    Samsung needs to demonstrate good CAUSE (are they accusing Apple of copying them?!?), especially since it can be demonstrated that Samsung has a history of copying competitor’s models. Their request for access to unreleased models borders on the ridiculous.

      1. What? I did not direct my comment at you. It is just my opinion.

        Now that you bring it up, though, I do agree with you that everyone has rights. Everyone has a right to privacy, and a right to protect their work. In order to see someone else’s protected work, you need to show CAUSE. It’s not just a “right.”

        Apple demonstrated CAUSE to suspect Samsung copied their “Trade Dress”. Now, the burden is on Samsung to demonstrate they have CAUSE to violate Apple’s right to privacy about their work.

        Show me CAUSE that they should have access to Apple’s private protected work, and I may agree with you. I just don’t see that they have any CAUSE in this case.

      2. Getting access to “prototypes” really just boils down to privacy.

        I don’t think that you really believe that anyone would have the “right” to search your private property, unless they had CAUSE (ie: a Warrant).

        Do you?

        1. Nathan, don’t even bother to defend yourself against this goon. Some Apple fans go way too far, almost cult-like in worshiping Apple. I absolutely love Apple and all of their products but Jobs is not a god nor is his company a church. While I will probably buy every product they come out with, they do wrong and I will be the first to admit it and point it out. Every company has its skeletons, INCLUDING Apple.

          They actually conducted a survey in which Apple “cult worshipers” had the same brain activity of a church-going Christian. That scares me sometimes.

          1. Thx:)

            I was enjoying the process of understanding the issues by trying to articulate them. I wish he had actually given a real argument; I learn a lot from healthy discussion.

            I do agree with you about Apple. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes Apple’s attitude makes them an easy target (they don’t seem to care what people think about them, which can be good and bad).

            I use Apple products because (for me) they “just work.” They also anticipate the products that I have been “waiting for SOMEBODY to make.” With regard to that, they seem to be in tune with consumers.

            I don’t think I know any “true believers” (Apple Fanboys). I do have friends who have used Apple products for years, though. I don’t think I know any Google or Windows “cultists” either, though I have some friends who have been coding since the Commodore 64.

            I think the only “cultist” I know uses Linux exclusively (would use a Linux phone, if he could write the code for it). Heh!

          2. From The Macalope’s recent article about that “Apple is a religion” study:

            “The researchers were not asked what other things might also stimulate the same brain centers. Sports? Politics? Entertainment stars? Your mom? The point being that it’s possible those centers of the brain are triggered by a superset of social imagery, of which religion and consumerism are just two examples.

            The BBC didn’t ask about that. They got the answer they wanted—Apple = religion—and then went off to look for organ music and choir tracks to play over pictures of Steve Jobs.”

      3. LOL… here read this so you can get even madder like the HULK.

        “An important difference between Apple’s motion and Samsung’s however, is that the five products that Apple sought discovery for had already been announced and in most cases shown or released to the press. Judge Koh cited that particular fact in her decision. Samsung, on the other hand, is attempting to gain access to hardware that it merely believes Apple has in the works—Apple has made no public revelation about its next-generation hardware, even though it is likely that the company has prototypes floating around somewhere in its headquarters.”

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.