As a part of one of its lawsuits against Samsung, Apple is asking US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal for access to Google's Android source code records, Bloomberg
reports. The documents are being demanded as part of pretrial information sharing; Apple argues in a court filing that Android is used in all of the Samsung devices accused of infringing Apple patents, and "provides much of the accused functionality."
A lawyer representing Apple, Mark Lyon, told
Grewal on Monday that it's a "question of transparency," and his side has "concerns that they're not doing a full search." A lawyer for Google and Samsung, Matthew Warren, countered however that Apple made a "strategic decision" when filing its lawsuit to "keep Google off the complaint." Warren argued that as a third party, Google doesn't have the same rights as Apple and Samsung when it comes to "reciprocal discovery." Giving Apple the added documents could lead to "future discovery that we don't think they're entitled to," and offer "ideas about how to proceed that they wouldn't have had," he suggested.
Grewal heard the statements as part of the second US Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, not to be confused with the original which rendered a $1.05 billion verdict last year. The aftermath of that case is still being disputed; a November 12th trial date
has been set to recalculate some of the owed damages. Yesterday, Apple filed opposition
to motion by Google and other companies wanting to submit an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to an appeals court.
"The lead party on the brief, Google, Inc., admittedly has a direct interest in the outcome of this appeal. As the motion explains, Google is the developer of the Android operating system running on the Samsung smartphones that Apple seeks to enjoin in this case. That interest conflicts with the traditional role of an amicus as 'an impartial
friend of the court -- not an adversary party in interest in the litigation
'," Apple wrote, citing a 1991 United States v. Michigan case. "Indeed, when amici have such a stake in the outcome of the case, courts have denied them leave to participate to prevent 'an end run around court-imposed limitations on the length of parties' briefs.'"