SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Nearly half an hour before the jury even stepped into the room, tension was in the air.
Both Apple and Samsung, who are in the beginning phases of a month-long patent trial here, were awaiting a decision on what U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh would do about a spat between the two companies stemming from excluded evidence Samsung sent out to press. Apple had drawn concern about the issue, saying it might taint the jury.
Koh put that to rest this morning. She dismissed Apple's request to punish Samsung's attorneys and instead brought jurors out one at a time, asking if they had heard any news about the trial, and re-affirming that they could be fair and impartial.
Most jurors told Koh they hadn't heard anything about it.
One male juror, however, noted that he had seen a headline pertaining to the testimony of Apple witness, Christopher Stringer, who appeared on the stand on Tuesday. The juror said that he had seen mention of the "kitchen table" details Stringer mentioned, but that he hadn't read the story. Koh then asked him if it kept him from being impartial, which he said it did not.
Koh said that the court would collect all the articles about the trial, and provide it to jurors after the case so that they could catch up.
Before the questioning began, Koh chided both sides, saying their filings had gotten out of hand -- particularly the objections.
"Some of these objections are ridiculous, they're five paragraphs long," Koh said. "If you're going to do that messy objection, you're going to do it in front of the jury, and the time clock is going to be ticking."
Koh also warned both sides that any additional "theatrics or sideshows" would not be allowed.
"I will not let any theatrics or sideshows distract us from what we're here to do, which is to fairly and timely decide this case," she said.
Koh also ruled before court got underway that Samsung can use Apple consumer research surveys in its cross-examination of Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller. Apple had sought to keep the survey private, saying it was proprietary information that competitors could see and use to shape their own products.
The case picks back up today with the testimony of Schiller, who is Apple's second witness so far.