Samsung tries to gain access to unannounced next-gen Apple devices

Samsung's latest maneuver in what appears will be a long, drawn-out legal battle with Apple over mobile device copying is a bold one. The company filed a "reciprocal expedited discovery request" asking to see samples of Apple's expected, though unannounced, next-generation iPhone and iPad hardware.
The motion was filed shortly after Apple was granted an expedited discovery request which sought to gain access to upcoming Samsung hardware that is believed to infringe on Apple's design patents and trade dress. Apple had already claimed Samsung's Galaxy S smartphones and Galaxy Tab crossed the line between inspiration and rip-off, and Apple sought access to announced new products to determine if Apple should add them to its lawsuit against Samsung or potentially file an injunction barring their release.
The judge agreed with Apple's request to examine the Droid Charge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy Tab 8.9 because images Apple had submitted to the court in its original complaint showed "reasonable basis" for Apple's belief that Samsung's latest products might be "designed to mimic Apple's products."
(We have to note that we have seen a Galaxy Tab 10.1 "special edition," and there is a resemblance to the iPad 2.)
"In particular," wrote Judge Lucy Koh in her decision, "the design and appearance of Samsung's forthcoming products and packaging are directly relevant to Apple's trademark, trade dress, and design claims. Because these claims are subject to consumer confusion and 'ordinary observer' standards, the products themselves and the packaging in which they are sold are likely to be central to any motion for preliminary injunction."
The motion does not allow Apple to thoroughly examine the products, however—only its counsel may do so.
Samsung's lawyers last Friday filed their own motion to gain similar expedited access to Apple's next iPhone and iPad hardware designs. Samsung claims that the evidence goes directly to defending itself from an expected preliminary injunction that could bar Samsung from releasing some of the mentioned products (or result in the Droid Charge or Infuse 4G being pulled off the shelf since they have already been released).
An important difference between Apple's motion and Samsung's however, is that the five products that Apple sought discovery for had already been announced and in most cases shown or released to the press. Judge Koh cited that particular fact in her decision. Samsung, on the other hand, is attempting to gain access to hardware that it merely believes Apple has in the works—Apple has made no public revelation about its next-generation hardware, even though it is likely that the company has prototypes floating around somewhere in its headquarters.
Former IP attorney Nilay Patel reasoned that Samsung may have merely filed this motion in hopes that it can gain additional leverage against Apple. Patel argued that it doesn't seem likely that Samsung's motion would be approved, at least not based on the reasoning that Koh used to approve Apple's request. At the same time, Apple could merely file an injunction against Samsung's products citing similarities with current iPhone and iPad hardware, making Samsung's request to examine future devices moot.
Neither company has yet filed formal responses to the initial complaints in either Apple's original lawsuit or Samsung's ensuing countersuit.