Apple Bid for Sanctions Against Susman Godfrey Rejected by Judge

A Susman Godfrey LLP attorney and Arendi S.A.R.L. beat allegations they revealed Apple Inc’s confidential information during a trial alleging various Google LLC products infringed a computer program patent.

Apple, which is not a party to the suit, filed a motion for sanctions in May alleging Arendi’s counsel, Seth Ard of Susman Godfrey, and an expert witness made its confidential information public when discussing a hypothetical negotiation. Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the US District Court for the District of Delaware denied the bid for sanctions in an oral order.

“The court witnessed the entire trial, including the events in question,” Hall said. “The court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s counsel or its expert disobeyed a court order, that counsel or the expert intended to disobey a court order, or that Apple was damaged.”

The judge declined on Dec. 28 to make a finding of civil contempt and to sanction Arendi’s attorneys and expert.

Arendi sued Google in May 2013 alleging it infringed US Patent No. 7,917,843 by creating and selling various products including Gmail, Google Chrome, and Google Docs.

Ard asked an expert during the trial to discuss how the differences between real-world rates for a license to use the invention and hypothetical rates impact the expert’s assessment, according to court records. The expert mentioned Apple held a license and that he used the information for his assessment.

A federal jury determined in May 2023 that Google’s products did not infringe the patent and that two of the patent’s claims were invalid due to being obvious and anticipated by prior art, according to court records.

Apple said in its May motion for sanctions that it observed the trial in fear that Arendi would reveal its information. Arendi and Apple entered a settlement and license agreement in September 2021 to resolve separate litigation, according to court records. Apple argued Arendi violated the protective order concerning their agreement during the expert’s examination. Arendi didn’t request to seal the courtroom before the examination that led to information about Apple’s agreement and lawsuit, according to Apple.

Apple’s request is “bewildering and worse is that it would ascribe some improper motivation to Arendi’s counsel in asking it,” Arendi said in a May opposition filing. The company said it did ask the court to close the courtroom twice when it anticipated a question that may lead to a discussion of Apple’s confidential information.

Counsel for Arendi, Apple, and Google, and the court agreed on a protocol concerning confidential information, including handing the jury print outs concerning the value of license agreements instead of placing the information on screens that were viewable to the public, according to Arendi.

Arendi said Apple and other companies, including Samsung and Microsoft, hold licenses for Arendi’s inventions, but only Apple was against making information public during the trial.

“Though there is a fundamental question about whether Apple’s position comports with the access to courts required by the Constitution, Arendi nonetheless went to great lengths to comply with Apple’s request,” Arendi said.

Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

DLA Piper LLP represents Apple. Susman Godfrey LLP and Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP represent Arendi. Paul Hastings LLP, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP represent Google.

The case is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, D. Del., No. 1:13-cv-00919, order filed 12/28/23.