|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM EST |
"Samsung can't lose, I don't think, one way
or the other."
I think this is always a dangerous thing to say. Denials
without prejudice are common. This motion didn't look like a
winner to begin with. Here's a key phrase:
"Here, the court has no information regarding whether the
Japanese court will permit discovery, and if it does not, on
what grounds it finds denial appropriate."
To me, that's particularly relevant. Samsung and Apple will
be back in front of the Japanese tribunal. Apple will be
able to correctly point out that Samsung was trying to
short-circuit the process, whereas Samsung will have to now
argue that they were incorrect or inconsistent, and that
their prior argument (they were not entitled to any
discovery under the Japanese equivalent discovery rules)
should be discounted.
Moreover, the Intel factors (and our rules) do not require
that discovery in foreign jurisdiction be equivalent or the
same. If the Japanese court now denies Samsung's request on
appropriate grounds, there will be no recourse.
Doesn't mean they will re-ask, but this isn't a heads I win,
tails you lose situation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 02:10 PM EST |
>> Where there's a negative, it
is that in Japan, to hear Samsung tell it, there
is no such thing as discovery. <<
IANAL and PJ knows more than me about these things,
so I must have misread when I took it to mean
Japan does not allow extra-territorial discovery.
IOW this is another gambit for multinational corpns
to game the disparate legal systems. Which I thought
was what webster said.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
