Australian federal judge losing patience with Samsung over Patentgate affair

“In California, Samsung has a deadline today for delivering to the court copies of all English-language documents that will be reviewed in camera in connection with the ‘Patentgate’ scandal of improperly-disclosed terms of Apple’s highly confidential patent license agreements with Nokia, Ericsson, Sharp, and Philips,” Florian Müller reports for Foss Patents.

“Late on Friday, Apple’s lawyers sent a letter to Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal ‘to apprise the Court of four matters that [they had] learned since the hearing on Tuesday that are relevant to the current sanctions proceedings.’ One of the four items is completely redacted so I have no idea what it relates to,” Müller reports. “Another one relates to privilege logs. The first one says that even Apple’s counsel received only a redacted version of Samsung’s main brief filed on Monday in preparation of the Tuesday hearing, apparently relying ‘on its non-disclosure agreement with Nokia.’ I guess Apple’s counsel will soon get to see the entire pre-hearing brief.”

“The most interesting item in Apple’s letter relates to a hearing held by Justice Annabelle Bennett of the Federal Court of Australia on Thursday, October 24, over the Patentgate matter,” Müller reports. “The Australian court is concerned because it’s currently holding an extensive Samsung v. Apple FRAND trial, and Samsung may have made use of otherwise confidential information in Australia.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung is a thoroughly despicable outfit.

Related articles:
U.S. District Judge Koh denies Samsung motions, finds Apple licensing disclosures ‘improper,’ cover-up ‘inexcusable’ – October 16, 2013
Apple lawyer on Samsung scandal: ‘I’m old enough not to believe in coincidences anymore’ – October 5, 2013
Sanctions loom large: Samsung may have spied on sealed Apple-Nokia documents to aid patent deals – October 3, 2013


  1. MDN noted “Samsung is a thoroughly despicable outfit.” I would add “in the U.S.”

    However, in S. Korea, their actions are considered part of a viable business model, that is all too well known.

    A pharma supplier I know hired a top Ivy League PHD graduate only to find he left the firm later with all the company’s formulations. The PHD started his own company making competing products in S. Korea. I’ld bet that PHD was lauded in S. Korea.

    1. The same can be said for the US. Case in point: 2 businessmen from company A licence the right to sell a pharmaceutical product from a Russian company for $4 million and a new lab building. They sublicence everything to another company B and declare company A bancrupt. The Russian company never sees a cent. Company B makes millions selling the product.

      Now guess who the directors of company B are?

      The Russians went to court in the US … and lost. “Everything above board and legal”.

      Yeah, right. Stone – meet glass house.

  2. What’s too bad is that we can’t count on the integrity of the buyer to avoid their products like the excrement of a vile, morally bankrupt institution that they are.

Reader Feedback

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