In court on Friday afternoon, Northern California District Judge Lucy Koh ruled that most of the documents in the giant Apple v. Samsung case would have to be submitted as public documents, something both companies were hoping to avoid. In the days leading up to the case, Judge Koh said that her court will operate with the presumption that every piece of evidence would be publicly disclosed, and will require both corporations to fight for sealed information. And yesterday her decision was no different.
IDG News reported that Judge Koh will allow some "source code, royalty rate,s and unreported financial data to be sealed," but she will need to review and approve the redacted data first. Koh was stern with both companies on Friday, chastising both for trying to claim confidentiality for information that had already been publicly submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Many of the documents in dispute have yet to be released to the public so far, but will certainly cause an uproar when released during the trial. Jury selection will begin on Monday.
The result of Judge Koh's stern ruling, however, has been that multiple companies that have done business with Samsung or Apple have come forward to ask that their confidential information remain sealed. "Intel, Motorola Mobility, Philips, IBM, Research in Motion, and InterDigital asked Koh to allow contracts and royalty rates to be kept private," IDG wrote. "Koh indicated she was more likely to accept such pleas from companies that had been brought unwillingly into the case."
Microsoft, too, has filed an emergency motion, saying the order that all documents be made public could threaten the privacy of the terms used to secure a cross-license patent agreement with Samsung in September 2011. Microsoft has historically tried to keep its licensing terms under NDA. Motorola also recently filed an emergency motion in the case asking for certain documents pertaining to licensing agreements to be sealed.
Finally, Judge Koh ruled that Samsung would remain seated farther from the 10-member jury, the place usually reserved for the defendants, and Apple closer to the jury, despite the fact that both companies are both plaintiffs and defendants in the case involving patent infringement on both sides. However, the judge suggested that lawyers refer to Apple and Samsung by company name, rather than "plaintiff" or "defendant" in order to secure fair rulings for both parts of the case.
reader comments
66