As the high-profile ongoing Apple versus Samsung patent trial is closely monitored, Samsung has managed to anger both Apple and U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh by leaking rejected evidence to the press. Koh demanded that Samsung explain why it provided the press with evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in court and Apple has asked her to issue sanctions against the South Korean company for trying to use the media for influencing the jury.

"This deliberate attempt to influence the trial with inadmissible evidence is both improper and unethical," Apple lawyer William Lee wrote in a letter to Judge Koh on Thursday, Aug. 2. Lee further noted that Apple will file "an emergency motion for sanctions and other relief that may be appropriate."

The two tech giants have been fighting a patent war over the similarity of their products. Koh rejected Samsung's bid to show evidence including phone designs that predated the iPhone, saying that the company should have submitted the evidence earlier. In response, Samsung leaked the evidence to the press.

"Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone," said the South Korean company.

Public Record

According to the BBC, Koh had previously ruled that Samsung submitted the evidence too late in the legal process and was angered with the evidence leak to the media. Samsung attorney John Quinn has now responded to Koh's demand for a written explanation, admitting he authorized the public release of the Samsung statement and exhibits he wanted to show at the trial. Quinn added that this release did not violate any court order, and argued that "all of the material in the excluded trial demonstrative exhibits at issue was previously in the public record."

Quinn further noted that the evidence in question would have shown "that the iPhone was inspired by 'Sony style' and that Samsung has independently created the design for the F700 phone," which Apple claimed was an iPhone knock off. Providing details to the press in response to media inquiries was not a violation of the legal process, argued Samsung's attorney.

"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility... and legal authorities regarding authorities' communications with the press," wrote Quinn.

Influencing the Jury

Apple, however, found this explanation unsatisfactory, and said Samsung's move to leak rejected evidence to the press aimed to influence the jury. "Samsung's multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press," argued Lee.

Apple did not specify what kind of sanctions it wants the Court to issue against Samsung, but will likely detail its views and claims in the emergency motion its plans to file.

The exhibits Samsung was not allowed to show at the trial include slide decks picturing Samsung phone designs from 2006 (before the first iPhone launched), as well as quotes from Shin Nishibori, a former Apple designer who mentioned "Sony-like" designs influencing Apple's early iPhone prototypes.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).