Samsung Electronics again lost its bid to use evidence a lawyer for the company described as “critical” to rebutting Apple Inc.’s central allegations in a patent-infringement trial in California.

Samsung was barred by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose from presenting images of a smartphone that it claims to have been developing in 2006, the year before Apple introduced the iPhone. Samsung said in a filing that the images show evidence that it was developing the next generation of mobile phones with a “simple, rounded rectangular body” before Apple’s January 2007 announcement of the iPhone.

Before jurors heard opening arguments in the trial on Tuesday, John B. Quinn, a Samsung lawyer, asked Koh to reconsider her July 30 decision barring the evidence.

Quinn, who said he had never begged in court in more than 30 years of practicing law, told Koh that he was “begging now.”

Koh rejected the request for what she said was at least the third time, standing by her ruling that the evidence wasn’t “timely disclosed” in Samsung’s arguments pertaining to patent infringement.

“We’ve done three reconsiderations on this and we have a jury waiting,” Koh told Quinn. “You’ve made your record.”

“Don’t make me sanction you, please,” Koh said when Quinn persisted with his argument. “I want you to sit down please.”

Samsung said in an e-mailed statement that Koh’s ruling means “Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone.”

“The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design,” the Suwon, South Korea-based company said in the statement.

Samsung’s statement included attachments of the evidence that Koh had excluded, prompting a demand from Koh for an explanation of who drafted and issued the release.

Harold McElhinny, a lawyer for Apple, told Koh the release was “on perception an intentional attempt to pollute this jury” rising to “contempt of court.” 

(Bloomberg)