Apple won a court ruling keeping its second patent case against Samsung Electronics in San Jose, Calif., on track for a 2014 trial after losing a bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming the iPhone maker improperly collected and shared customers’ personal information.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Friday ruled against putting the second patent case on hold. At a hearing last month, Koh expressed skepticism about the need for both cases to proceed, especially while the August verdict in the first case is being appealed. Apple objected to delaying the case, while Samsung supported it.
The second patent lawsuit was filed last year and covers technology in newer smart phones made by both companies, including Samsung’s Galaxy S III and Apple’s iPhone 5. On March 1 Koh reduced a jury’s $1.05 billion damages award to Apple in the first case by $450.5 million.
The jury, in a case that was part of a legal battle for the global smart-phone market, based its award for 14 Samsung products on an incorrect legal theory, Koh ruled. Koh denied Apple’s request to ban sales of infringing Samsung devices as Samsung denied copying Apple devices. Both companies have filed appeals.
In a separate lawsuit in federal court in New York, Apple may learn this month whether Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook will be required to testify in a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit over e-books pricing.
The U.S. sued Apple and agroup of book publishers last year, claiming they conspired to raise prices for electronic books in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Cook’s possible testimony was disclosed Friday in a brief order by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan, who is overseeing the case.
In the customer privacy lawsuit that is also before Koh in San Jose, the judge said in a ruling that she was “disturbed” to learn that in its court filings seeking dismissal of the case, Apple relied on documents that it was required to have disclosed to opposing lawyers and didn’t.
Calling the company’s conduct “unacceptable,” Koh said “the court cannot rely on Apple’s representations about its compliance with its discovery obligations.”
Front Section, Pages 6 on 03/10/2013