Although it is debatable that this constitutes 'News', because this outcome was easily foreseeable, it is still worth noting: The judge in the Samsung vs. Apple counter-suit case denied Samsung's request to get a 'legal peek' at the iPhone 5 and iPad 3. Here's a quote from the Engadget article with some details,
The court denied Samsung's motion on a number of grounds. For one thing, Apple's initial complaint pertained to infringement of existing products, parameters deemed legit by the court. Also, the court took into account the fact that Apple tends to be far more tight-lipped about its product releases, whereas Samsung made a point of offering up information about forthcoming products into the public domain, including the release of 5,000 Galaxy Tab 10.1 units as samples to the public. That said, the Judge was careful to note that Apple's suggestion that court protection of its trade secrets was insufficient "is not well taken."
Again, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. It was highly unlikely that the judge would have ruled differently, and was really little more than "legal maneuvering" from Samsung. Still, there is some indication that Samsung's arguments actually had some merit in the Judge's eyes. Within the final court document, the Judge made sure to add a passage hinting that Apple may not get a preliminary injunction against the sale of certain Samsung products in the United States at this stage of the court proceedings. Here is what the Judge said,
"Samsung is free to argue, for instance, that there is little likelihood of confusion because consumers will not encounter its products side-by-side with the iPhone 4 or iPad 2, but rather with Apple's next generation iPhone and iPad. Similarly, as to proximity, Samsung is free to argue that because the iPhone 4 and iPhone 2 will soon be outmoded and reduced in price, they are not being sold (or very soon will not be sold) to the same class of purchasers who are likely to buy new Samsung products. By choosing to allege infringement only of its current products, Apple opens itself up to these arguments."
Ultimately, it is still entirely possible that a preliminary injunction could be granted based upon other grounds, but at this stage in the game, Apple needs to proceed very strategically. If Apple requests a preliminary injunction and the timing and argument they make are weak, then it could be denied, and the effect would make Apple look bad (or just worse depending on your point-of-view) in the public's eye. They will obviously move forward cautiously, as they are assuredly some of the best lawyers that Apple's deep pockets can employ, but perhaps there is some truth to earlier reports that executives within the two companies are trying to work things out away from the courtroom. Apple's lawyers have confirmed it, but Samsung's lawyers denied it, so, the "soap opera" continues...

Source: Engadget and FOSS Patents