Samsung tries to get some of Apple’s lawyers kicked off the case

“The wide-ranging intellectual property spat between Apple and Samsung is full of acrimony and controversy at all levels,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “They can’t even agree on schedules, and there’s no détente in sight: Samsung has asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to disqualify at least some or potentially even all of Apple’s outside lawyers from the case, citing concerns over a conflict of interest and the treatment of privileged and confidential information gathered in the past.”

“Samsung’s motion is 20 pages long,” Mueller reports. “The gist of it is that Samsung wants the recently-founded law firm of Bridges & Mavrakakis barred from the case because at least five of its lawyers — including one of its founders, Kenneth Bridges — previously represented Samsung while they were with another firm, Kirkland & Ellis.”

Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.

Mueller reports, “Samsung then goes on to argue that this fact “taints all attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis through imputation”. But not enough: Samsung additionally demands that Apple’s two other law firms involved with this federal lawsuit (Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Hale) “provide affidavits confirming they have not received any Samsung confidential information from attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis” while those firms were coordinating Apple’s representation so far or, absent such assurance, be disqualified as well.”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: If Samsung had decided to make their own unique phones and tablets instead of peddling pretend iPhones and fake iPads to the ignorant, none of this rigmarole would be necessary.

Related articles:
Apple continues pressing for February 2012 trial against Samsung in California – July 25, 2011
Judge denies Apple’s request to expedite federal lawsuit against Samsung – July 13, 2011
Apple’s ITC complaint against Samsung: 5 technical, 2 design patents against 6 smartphones, 2 tablets – July 7, 2011
Apple files ITC complaint seeking to bar Samsung imports into U.S. – July 6, 2011
Judge to Apple: August 5 too early for hearing on preliminary injunction against Samsung – July 5, 2011
Samsung drops a patent-infringement counter-suit against Apple – July 2, 2011
Apple files preliminary injunction in U.S. against Samsung Infuse 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Droid Charge, Galaxy Tab 10.1 – July 2, 2011
Samsung scoffs at Apple in California lawsuit defense filing – July 1, 2011
Samsung files U.S. ITC complaint against Apple: Long-time partners heading for ugly divorce? – June 29, 2011
Apple sues Samsung in South Korea in patent fight – June 24, 2011
Judge denies Samsung request to see Apple iPhone 5, iPad 3 – June 22, 2011
Samsung denies negotiating with Apple over iPhone and iPad infringement – June 20, 2011
Apple and Samsung executives in talks on patent lawsuits – June 18, 2011
Apple amends complaint against Samsung, asserts more IP rights against more products – June 17, 2011
Apple feels ‘harassed’ by ‘copyist’ Samsung’s demands iPhone 5 and iPad 3 previews; showdown on Friday – June 14, 2011
Samsung seeks court order to see Apple’s next-gen iPhone, iPad samples in patent dispute – May 31, 2011
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
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008

20 Comments

  1. Hmmm, it would seem like if lawyers representing samsung many years ago are now representing Apple, the bias would be good for Samsung… unless Samsung did something rotten to the lawyers in question. Did Samsung not pay them, or deny benefits, or berate, or some other ‘thing’ that is not nice? Maybe they are just worried about revenge and need to be worried.

  2. Looks like they are circling the wagons and ducking their heads and hoping for the best.

    If Apple winds big here, I wonder what that will mean for rhe other mfgs.

  3. So Samsung, a company that – the best of my knowledge – had some intimate knowledge of unreleased Apple products, is upset that Apple’s lawyers may have some intimate knowledge of private company information? Hm..

  4. While I was shopping for HDTV, I narrowed down to 2 options: One is Samsung 46″ and other one is Sony 46″. I got the Sony 46″ instead of Samsung although Samsung is about $100 cheaper. No more Samsung product in my household!!

    Samsung, you should go back to the “Dear Leader” country NOW!!

  5. Wow, Samsung is arguing that inside information will taint the lawyers as they had access to confidential information.
    Sounds like Samsung is making a case for Apple. They had inside design information and knowledge on Apple future products. Does this mean they are factor stating that they were tainted by Apple with their products? Sounds like it to me. How can a lawyer be tainted and not their design and manufacturing engineers?!

    Well, answer that Samsung.

  6. What’s wrong with this? Apple using inside lawyers from Samsung? This is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST people. Samsung has every right to motion for this. You fanboys are sad.

    1. It is an *alleged* conflict of interest. The lawyers in question previously worked another law firm that handled Samsung business. That is not exactly the “smoking gun” of evidence. I’m not a stinkin’ lawyer, so I don’t know all of the ins and outs of COI. But I can state with great confidence that just because one party in a lawsuit spends 20 pages saying there is COI does not make it so.

      The part that I found most interesting was that Samsung claims that this “taints all attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis through imputation” and then even has the gall to attempt to extend that “taint” to two other independent law firms, demanding that they submit affidavits attesting to the contrary. Samsung is basically accusing all of the law firms of an illegal activity (using confidential information), and I believe that they are treading on very treacherous ground that is more likely to irritate the judge than provide any positive result for Samsung.

      It would be simply delightful if one or more lawyers employed by Samsung had represented Apple at some point in the past thirty years. By their own argument, all of the other Samsung lawyers would be tainted through imputation.

      1. Well obviously most of you have no experience with lawyers and the legal system. Conflict of interest is a very big deal and if there is one, a lawyer can’t work on your case. For example, even if it was years ago and a lawyer was working at a different law firm for company x, if he then, now, decides to work for a law firm representing company y in a case involving company x, it’s a conflict of interest and by law, all things being equal, he wouldn’t be able to work the case.

  7. I represent Samsung and we are ready to file an additional page 21 and with the support of Google Inc. are wishing to request the removal of the entire legal system and patent process because it is unfair to us and stifles innovation.

    What would the conflict of interest really be? Samsung wouldn’t shouldn’t be concerned unless they have something to further to hide is what it seems.

    1. Apple could buy flash chips from a range of manufacturers (Intel or Toshiba for example), processor manufacturing by TSMC, display from LG… Say good bye to Samsung.

  8. Apple should source all the parts they buy from ‘Samdung’ to other suppliers.

    Im sure there are other suppliers out there just waiting to give apple the components it needs to make its market leading products.

  9. American Lawyers try their damnedest to do everything other than argue the case. It’s all procedural bullshit. It’s a big part of what is wrong with our country.

  10. Korea is probably one of those cultures where saving face is the most important consideration in any dispute. From that perspective, they are in a very tight space. Did not Samsung or some other interested party suggest the two combatants try to settle this outside of court? Seemed innocuous but perhaps something that simple is the solution.

    I applaud Apple’s efforts to defend its patents/copyrights, put others on notice, I just hate to see all these lawyers unleashed. Little good can come of that.

Reader Feedback

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