Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


More On

Are mass email searches necessary?

Experts question whether far-reaching discovery was necessary in patent dispute between Apple and Samsung

Lost in the discussion of spoliation in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is the question of why email from August 2010 would be relevant to a patent dispute involving design decisions and activities many months before, according to BakerHostetler Partner Gil Keteltas.

“Email is not typically the place where the most relevant trade secrets are likely to reside in a case like this—and where relevant email exists, it is likely closer to the time of infringing events rather than within a few weeks of the legal hold trigger,” Keteltas says.

Keteltas cites the Federal Circuit’s model patent e-discovery order: “Most discovery in patent litigation centers on what the patent states, how the accused products work, what the prior art discloses and the proper calculation of damages. … Far reaching e-discovery, such as mass email searches, is often tangential to adjudicating these issues.”

Michael Kozubek

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.