The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan managing partner John Quinn, whose firm is representing Samsung in the Apple v Samsung trial in California, has defended his decision to send reporters rejected evidence as “lawful” and “ethical”.
The smartphone giants are in locked horns after accusing each other of copying various designs, with Charles Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel advising Samsung and San Francisco-based Harold McElhinny of Morrison & Foerster (MoFo) advising Apple.
Samsung sent a statement to reporters on Tuesday afternoon after US District Judge Lucy Koh banned its attorneys from introducing pieces of evidence to the jury because it was presented too late in the legal process.
The statement, which was published on the AllThingsD blog, included a link to the rejected material and said: “The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.”
Samsung argued that the jury should know the details of its F700 phone because they claim the phone was developed months before the release of the iPhone, which Apple alleges Samsung copied.
A reporter from The Verge, who has been covering the trial from court, said that Judge Koh was “livid” when she found out about the AllThingsD story and demanded to know if Quinn authorised the press release.
Quinn’s subsequent six-page declaration confirms that he authorised the release of Samsung’s statement, but argues that the decision did not violate any court order and was not designed to influence the jury.
“The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case,” read the declaration.
He also said that the evidence had appeared in a number of publications, including those from the New York Times and Huffington Post, prior to jury selection.
Lead trial counsel for Apple is WilmerHale partner William Lee. Apple is now asking Koh to rule that Apple’s phone design patents in the case are valid, and that Samsung has infringed them, according to reports.
This is the latest in a number of patent spats between Samsung and Apple worldwide. Just a few weeks ago, the High Court ordered Freshfields client Apple to run a series of adverts in The Financial Times, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine highlighting that Samsung did not copy its iPad (24 July 2012).