The mêlée surrounding the Apple Inc. versus Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd patent trial is enough to give any primetime drama a run for its money! With Samsung claiming that it asserted its rights to publicly respond to the "unfair" and "malicious" attacks, the fiery high-profile lawsuit battle has all the makings of a courtroom potboiler! Popcorn anyone?

The mudslinging continues with both parties slugging it out and contending that the other infringed on its smartphone patents. Samsung concurs that it was exercising its right of free speech. The company had no intention of influencing the jury, as challenged by Apple, when it e-mailed a press release to certain members of the media on Tuesday (July 31).

The press release read that "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."

On Thursday (Aug. 2), in its motion, Samsung noted that the cited material, which was rattling Apple and creating a furore, was already public and part of the court record.

Pointing to reports by the New York Times, CNET, and Huffington Post, Samsung averred that "Virtually all the information and images in the excluded slides not only appeared in publicly filed documents, but also had already appeared in media reports".

Earlier, an irate Judge Lucy Koh had demanded an explanation from Samsung's legal counsel John Quinn and had wanted to know who had authored and authorized the press release. Quinn, a managing partner of Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the litigation powerhouse representing Samsung, said he had "okayed" a brief statement responding to media queries that sought excluded material explanations; however, "It was not a general press release." Quinn argued that his client Samsung had the right to respond publicly to Apple's "unfair and malicious attacks".

According to a Reuters report, Quinn wrote, "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".

Reuters reported that Apple called Quinn's conduct "egregious, because it impugned the integrity of the court." The trial took a turn when Apple's request that the Court implement sanctions against Samsung for its alleged misconduct was denied.

Judge Lucy Koh said "Having considered the papers submitted, and good cause having been shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Samsung's Motion to Strike. Alternatively, the Court denies Apple's request to enter a judgment finding Apple's asserted design patents valid and infringed."

Samsung did not take the Apple action lying down and said "Apple's request is an affront to the integrity of the jury. Apple proceeds on the groundless assumption that the jury, already instructed by the Court not to read media accounts, will violate the Court's instructions and do precisely that. As explained in the Quinn declaration, Apple's premise is factually unfounded and contrary to settled law. Nowhere does Apple even address, let alone refute, these points."

The trial will resume on Friday, Aug. 3. Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller (who had answered a few questions before court adjourned for the day) is set to retake the stand.