Apple hopes to take more prisoners in its patent war against arch rival Samsung, asking a judge to add six of the Korean company's flagship phones and tablets to the list of gadgets infringing upon its patents.

Apple contends it has "good cause" to add the Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9 WiFi, Rugby Pro and Galaxy III Mini to its lawsuit against Samsung.

"Apple has acted quickly and diligently to determine that these newly-released products do infringe many of the same claims already asserted by Apple, and in the same way that the already-accused devices infringe," Apple claimed in the filing. It adds that granting the motion would "promote judicial economy and efficiency."

"If Apple were not allowed to supplement now, Apple would be required to bring an entirely separate suit against the new products, involving exactly the same patents, patent claims, and legal theories,” Apple wrote.

This is the latest salvo in an ongoing smartphone patent war. Last week, Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, allowed both Apple and Samsung to add devices like the Galaxy Note and iPhone 5 to the case, which is set to go to trial in March 2014. Adding devices to the case means the litigation will take longer to resolve and cost more for everyone involved but could prevent future separate lawsuits in the future.

The two companies are neck-deep in lawsuits and trials across the globe. It began in April 2011, when Apple sued for patent infringement, saying Samsung blatantly copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad as well as key user interface elements. Samsung counter-sued, arguing Apple infringed on its 3G standards-related patents. The latest case in the U.S. covers more recent products but addresses similar complaints.

In the case filed in April 2011, Samsung recently requested an opportunity to check out the confidential licensing agreement between Apple and HTC. The agreement ended an intellectual property battle the two companies had fought for nearly three years.

According to Samsung's legal team, that settlement undermines Apple’s claim that an injunction (a product sales ban) is a more appropriate solution to the situation than monetary damages in the form of licensing fees. If Apple could broker a deal with HTC, the reasoning goes, it can broker one with Samsung and settle the matter.

"In general, open licensing information increases the chance of settlement," Robin Feldman, a law professor at UC Hastings and author of Rethinking Patent Rights, told Wired via e-mail. "If you know what the other party is willing to take, there is less room for posturing and you know what to offer."

Apple said it would give Samsung a copy of the settlement agreement – then provided a redacted version that did not include the terms of the licensing arrangement. It seems HTC didn't want the financial terms of the agreement disclosed, but Grewal would have none of this.

"Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed -– without any redaction of financial terms," the judge wrote in the order filed Nov. 21. "HTC is not entitled to special treatment."

Thus, Samsung’s request to get access to an unredacted version of the settlement agreement was granted.