Judge orders narrowed Apple v. Samsung damages trial to start in November
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Monday entered a case management order calling for a new trial to recalculate the $450.5 million she found may have been incorrectly awarded by a jury last August.
While not a complete retrial, the litigation scheduled November pertains to Judge Koh's March 1 order that vacated 40 percent of the Apple v. Samsung jury's award to Apple, reports The Recorder.
The jurist's ruling, which struck $450.5 million from the original $1.05 billon judgment, was the result of uncertainty over the jury's findings regarding 14 Samsung products. At the conclusion of the initial trial, the jury set only one damages figure per device despite there being multiple patents in suit against each.
On Monday, Judge Koh did, however, reverse a previous ruling on one Samsung device, the AT&T version of the Galaxy SII, and returned $40.5 million to Apple's award.
According to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the upcoming damages trial will be limited to 13 Samsung products, with a decision on damages being final for 14. There is a possibility of appeal.
"This is going to be Groundhog's Day," Koh said, referring to the jury trial. "You're going to be reliving July of 2012."
The eight jurors who will be selected for the five-day trial are to assess damages based on the original trial's legal scope, as the court denied Samsung's argument that a retrial must reexamine liability issues.
Mueller noted that while Samsung has the opportunity to lower damages, Apple can likewise raise damages during the retrial.
The new trial is set to begin on Nov. 12, while a separate patent trial dealing with additional IP claims is set for March 31, 2014.
While not a complete retrial, the litigation scheduled November pertains to Judge Koh's March 1 order that vacated 40 percent of the Apple v. Samsung jury's award to Apple, reports The Recorder.
The jurist's ruling, which struck $450.5 million from the original $1.05 billon judgment, was the result of uncertainty over the jury's findings regarding 14 Samsung products. At the conclusion of the initial trial, the jury set only one damages figure per device despite there being multiple patents in suit against each.
On Monday, Judge Koh did, however, reverse a previous ruling on one Samsung device, the AT&T version of the Galaxy SII, and returned $40.5 million to Apple's award.
According to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the upcoming damages trial will be limited to 13 Samsung products, with a decision on damages being final for 14. There is a possibility of appeal.
"This is going to be Groundhog's Day," Koh said, referring to the jury trial. "You're going to be reliving July of 2012."
The eight jurors who will be selected for the five-day trial are to assess damages based on the original trial's legal scope, as the court denied Samsung's argument that a retrial must reexamine liability issues.
Mueller noted that while Samsung has the opportunity to lower damages, Apple can likewise raise damages during the retrial.
The new trial is set to begin on Nov. 12, while a separate patent trial dealing with additional IP claims is set for March 31, 2014.
Comments
November
Apple had BETTER darn well get updated damages for all this useless time in between. What is Koh doing right now that is so important it can't be finishing the trial?
"This is going to be Groundhog's Day," Koh said, referring to the jury trial. "You're going to be reliving July of 2012."
Maybe you shouldn't have screwed up the first time.
Originally Posted by Sensi
More of the same debunked and ludicrously dishonest illustration...
Oh, so it should be reversed, should it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
More of the same debunked and ludicrously dishonest illustration...
True, everyone cherry picks. Here's Samsung's version, which shows that there were all touch devices before Apple, and that there was not a wholesale move away from sliders and flip phones, as Apple's version implied. The truth is, as usual, somewhere in-between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Maybe you shouldn't have screwed up the first time.
Don't blame Koh. It was Apple's lawyers who insisted on clumping everything together. They figured it would be easier to get a jury conviction that way... and they were right. Unfortunately, the same generality backfired on them when it came to reward calculations for each patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner
Does Samsung have to pay the first part of the damages any time soon?
I saw a reporter mention some payments in the latest Samsung quarterly report. Not sure if it it was for this trial or not.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Don't blame Koh. It was Apple's lawyers who insisted on clumping everything together.
Right, heaven forbid a company have a lawsuit against another based on ALL OF THE INFRINGING THAT COMPANY DID.
Come off it, man. Someone intelligent enough to be paid off to post this drivel has to understand how stupid it is to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Come off it, man. Someone intelligent enough to be paid off to post this drivel has to understand how stupid it is to say.
What?? Didn't you say that no one should imply another member is paid to post here without some kind of proof? Come on TS, you're better than that. If a moderator can't follow their own forum policies, , ,
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What?? Didn't you say that no one should imply another member is paid to post here without some kind of proof? Come on TS, you're better than that. If a moderator can't follow their own forum policies, , ,
That was just my policy, but I'm using it to make a point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What is Koh doing right now that is so important it can't be finishing the trial?
Here's her court calendar. Looks pretty full.
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CEO/cfd.aspx?7142#top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right, heaven forbid a company have a lawsuit against another based on ALL OF THE INFRINGING THAT COMPANY DID.
Nobody's forbidding a trial. Quite the contrary. Apple got exactly the trial they wanted.
Unfortunately, their insistence on a certain jury form method backfired later on. Now they get a second chance.
Quote:
Come off it, man. Someone intelligent enough to be paid off to post this drivel has to understand how stupid it is to say.
Did you seriously just accuse me of being paid? I've been posting freely online for over thirty years under my own name, and will be around long after discussion haters like you have come and gone.
Originally Posted by KDarling
I've been posting freely online for over thirty years under my own name, and will be around long after discussion haters like you have come and gone.
Sounds like a good solid job length.
Problem is, I support the company for which this website was made. Maybe I'm on the wrong side of the mirror, but I don't think that makes me a 'hater'.