With the Apple v. Samsung patent trial underway, Samsung has angered both US District Court Judge Lucy Koh and Apple by providing the press evidence that had been ruled inadmissible in court. Koh demanded that Samsung lawyers explain the leak, and Apple today asked Koh to issue sanctions against Samsung for trying to influence the jury through the media.

"This deliberate attempt to influence the trial with inadmissible evidence is both improper and unethical," Apple lawyer William Lee wrote in a letter to Judge Koh today, noting that Apple will today file "an emergency motion for sanctions and other relief that may be appropriate."

Apple and Samsung have been arguing over whether the iPhone is a knockoff of Samsung products. But after Koh refused to let Samsung show evidence including phone designs that pre-dated the iPhone, Samsung leaked the evidence to the press (you can see it at AllthingsD) along with a statement. "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 company said.

Koh was not happy, as she had previously ruled that the evidence was submitted too late in the legal process, the BBC wrote. Koh demanded a written explanation, which was provided today by Samsung attorney John Quinn. Quinn admitted authorizing the public release of the Samsung statement and exhibits that he wanted to show at trial. But he said this did not violate any court order, and that "all of the material in the excluded trial demonstrative exhibits at issue was previously in the public record."

The evidence would have shown "that the iPhone was inspired by 'Sony style' and that Samsung had independently created the design for the F700 phone," which Apple alleged was an iPhone copy, Quinn wrote. Releasing details to the press in response to media requests was not a violation of the legal process, he argued.

"Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to media inquiries was lawful, ethical, and fully consistent with the relevant California Rules of Professional Responsibility… and legal authorities regarding attorneys' communications with the press," Quinn wrote.

That explanation did not appease Apple. Jurors have been repeatedly instructed not to read about the case in the press, but Lee argued that Samsung's leak was made with the intent to influence the jury. "Samsung's multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press," Lee wrote.

Apple did not say exactly what types of sanctions it wants against Samsung, but will likely expound on its views in the emergency motion it plans to file.

The exhibits Samsung wanted to show at trial include slide decks with images of Samsung phone designs from 2006, as well as quotes from former Apple designer Shin Nishibori who referenced "Sony-like designs" influencing Apple's early iPhone mockups. Samsung repeatedly tried to change Koh's mind about the admissibility of evidence, but the judge held firm, saying in court yesterday "Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you, please."