Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc

The Federal Court of Australia dealt with an application by Samsung Electronics Co. Limited against Apple Inc. regarding the admissibility of certain proposed lay evidence. The case revolves around allegations of patent infringement concerning Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standards, specifically around licensing obligations under the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Apple alleges that Samsung has not offered to license its SEPs on FRAND terms, while Samsung denies this and seeks to introduce new evidence in its defence.

The court was tasked with deciding whether Samsung's proposed evidence, including statements from Mr Kim and Mr Korea, should be admitted. The key legal issues included the timeliness of the evidence, the potential for undue delay and prejudice to the proceedings, and the relevance and probative value of the proposed evidence against the risk of unfairness. The court needed to balance Samsung's right to present its defence against the principles of case management and the potential for disrupting the established hearing timetable.

In its reasoning, the court highlighted that Samsung had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the nearly 12-month delay in presenting the proposed evidence. The court found that allowing the new evidence would likely cause substantial delay and increased costs, disrupt the carefully set hearing timetable, and potentially prejudice Apple. The court emphasised the importance of case management principles and the discretion provided under section 135 of the Evidence Act. It concluded that the probative value of the proposed evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time and unfair prejudice to Apple. Therefore, the court dismissed Samsung's application to admit the proposed evidence, with costs awarded against Samsung.

This decision underscores the importance of timely presentation of evidence and the potential consequences of late applications to introduce new evidence, particularly in complex litigation involving significant costs and resources.