With litigation between the two companies in California still underway and a trial date set for July 30, FOSS Patents today reported Apple and Samsung filed a joint statement with Judge Lucy Koh outlining the “evidence-related issues” they hope to discuss in the months leading up to trial. Perhaps the most interesting piece of information in the filing is a request from Apple to obscure Samsung’s logo on televisions and video displays being used in the U.S. District Court in California where the case is being held.

Foss Patents also explained that Apple is requesting to exclude former CEO’s Steve Jobs quotes from Walter Isaacson’s biography and “any reference to working conditions in China”:

Apple wants the court to exclude any “argument or evidence regarding statements attributed to Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson”. This one obviously relates to the “thermonuclear war” quote and similar rhetoric… Apple furthermore wants the court to exclude “any reference to working conditions in China”.

As for what Samsung is requesting…

Samsung wants the court to exclude “Apple related blogs, and articles by non-expert newspaper reporters, regarding any assessment of Apple and Samsung and/or their products”… Samsung wants the court to strike the “opinions and testimony of Henry Urbach, Apple’s expert on the alleged cultural significance of Apple”. Samsung argues that “[t]he ‘cultural significance’ of Apple’s designs and Apple’s ‘commitment to design’ are not at issue in this litigation”

The best 4K & 5K displays for Mac

In related news, Foss Patents said Judge Richard A. Posner is presiding over an Apple v. Motorola patent lawsuit that will go to trial in two months. He previously called a claim construction submitted by Motorola as “ridiculous,” but now he appears to be railing against Apple.

An order dated April 26 went into the public record yesterday, but the motion is still sealed. Apple apparently brought the motion to stop Motorola from expelling an expert. The judge denied a comparable motion, however, just a couple days before. The repetitive motions seem to draw a harsh rebuttal from Judge Posner:

“I deny the second half of Apple’s motion (seeking prohibition of the deposition) as frivolous and the first half (seeking substitution) as untimely. I’ve had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple. The next such motion, and I shall forbid it to file any motions without first moving for leave to file.”

About the Author