A Battle of the Giants: Apple v. Samsung.
(written for PIPSELF Blog)
As our lives have turned
more and more digital and print-out copies of magazines such as Newsweek are
almost obsolete,[1]
patenting technology has become more of a priority. Two electronic
giants, Apple, Inc. and Samsung, have currently been engaged in intense intellectual
property battles across Europe, Asia and the United States that often lead to
vastly different court rulings depending on the jurisdiction. While mostly suing over patent infringements
involving design of their products, these epic battles raise a myriad of other
legal issues and concerns. One of the
recent issues was spoliation of documents before commencement of an action. More specifically, it dealt with a competitor’s
obligation to preserve evidence relevant to the action.[2]
In a recent
ruling, Lucy Koh, a district court judge, held that Samsung had a duty to
preserve evidence relevant to litigation which had arisen before the actual
suit formally commenced.[3] The Court stated that Samsung’s duty was
triggered when Apple, Inc. officers had given a presentation to Samsung
illustrating its alleged infringement.[4]
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 34 (“FRCP”) legally
controls this issue.[5] FRCP 34 and its counterparts permit a party
to request other parties to produce documents, electronically stored
information, and tangible items in their possession and control.[6] Courts have had ample opportunity to
interpret this rule. Zubulake v. UBS
Warburg LLC is a great illustration on the range of
accessibility of electronic data as well as a party’s obligation to preserve
this evidence.[7] In Zubulake, the Court stated that “[t]he
obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence
is relevant to litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence
may be relevant to future litigation.”[8]
Preservation of electronic data is of paramount
importance since withholding vital electronic data may lead to adverse court
rulings and increase in the cost of litigation.[9] In Qualcomm, plaintiff Qualcomm
withheld a large number of emails that were highly relevant to the major issue
of the case. [10] Qualcomm’s misconduct in hiding the emails and
electronic documents prevented Broadcom from correcting the false statements
and countering the misleading arguments.[11] It is highly unlikely that the case would
have proceeded to trial, if those emails had been turned over to the defendant.[12]
As the legal saga
between two electronic giants continues in the arena of patent infringement,
courts have to resolve other issues that arise in these lawsuits, establishing new
precedent in the area of civil procedure and interpretation of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The instant case emphasizes
a party’s duty to preserve evidence before commencement of the actual litigation
but right after a notice to sue by an adversary was given. Thus, in the future, other companies should
retain all relevant emails to fully comply with discovery demands under FRPC 34[13]
once they receive a notice about a potential litigation.
[1] Christine
Haughney, At Newsweek, Ending Print and a Blend of
Two Styles, N.Y. Times (Oct. 18,
2012),
[2] Apple
Inc. v. Samsung Elecs Co., 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 3627731 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 21, 2012).
[3] Id. *4.
[5]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
[6] Id.
[7] 220
F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2003).
[8] Id.
[9] See Qualcomm
Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 05CV1958-B (BLM), 2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7,
2008) vacated in part, 05CV1958-RMB
(BLM), 2008 WL 638108 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
[10] Id. at *5.
[11] Id. at *6.
[12] Id. at *5.
[13]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
