Judge shuts down Apple motion regarding Samsung's 'misleading' opening statements
Just hours after Apple filed a motion asking to show evidence of alleged misleading and false statements delivered by Samsung counsel in the companies' second California patent trial, a district court judge late Thursday largely denied the request in a way that could narrow Apple's case moving forward.
California District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for curative action relating to statements made by Samsung counsel during the Apple v. Samsung trial's opening proceedings.
At question were comments made by Samsung that alleged Apple does not practice certain patent claims in its products, which would by strict definition make the company a non-practicing entity. As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple stipulated in a pretrial document that it does not practice certain claims from the asserted '959, '414 and '172 patents.
According to Apple's motion (embedded below), Samsung described the situation to jurors by saying, "Apple admits that three of the five patent claims that it is suing on were not in that iPhone and have never been in any iPhone since. Apple doesn't consider it valuable enough to even use."
In its motion, Apple noted several instances where Samsung counsel made "irrelevant, misleading and even untrue statements" and asked for curative instructions relating to these statements. Judge Koh denied the motion in part and requested supplemental briefs from both parties as to whether Apple practiced certain claims in each of the three patents.
In a pre-trial order, Judge Koh said, "Apple may present the invention story of [the '414, '172, and '959] patents, but may not contend that it practices the patents. Apple may not rebut any Samsung contention that Apple products constitute an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the '414, '172, or '959 Patents by contending that Apple practices an unasserted or asserted claim of the '414, '172, or '959 Patents."
Mueller points out Judge Koh's decision has roots in the trial's case management order that limited Apple and Samsung to five patent claims each. During case narrowing, Apple took the opportunity to drop non-duplicative claims in a more offensive approach that arguably brought the case to trial more quickly.
Apple could have fought to keep the non-duplicative claims as part of its arsenal, as per a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling in 2011 saying a court may narrow a plaintiff's claims only if they are duplicative. Mueller believes Judge Koh may have been to strict in her ruling and made the decision at least in part with case narrowing in mind.
While Apple may later make a statement regarding the patents in question, the Thursday order will be restrictive to claims already asserted against Samsung.
California District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's motion for curative action relating to statements made by Samsung counsel during the Apple v. Samsung trial's opening proceedings.
At question were comments made by Samsung that alleged Apple does not practice certain patent claims in its products, which would by strict definition make the company a non-practicing entity. As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple stipulated in a pretrial document that it does not practice certain claims from the asserted '959, '414 and '172 patents.
According to Apple's motion (embedded below), Samsung described the situation to jurors by saying, "Apple admits that three of the five patent claims that it is suing on were not in that iPhone and have never been in any iPhone since. Apple doesn't consider it valuable enough to even use."
In its motion, Apple noted several instances where Samsung counsel made "irrelevant, misleading and even untrue statements" and asked for curative instructions relating to these statements. Judge Koh denied the motion in part and requested supplemental briefs from both parties as to whether Apple practiced certain claims in each of the three patents.
In a pre-trial order, Judge Koh said, "Apple may present the invention story of [the '414, '172, and '959] patents, but may not contend that it practices the patents. Apple may not rebut any Samsung contention that Apple products constitute an acceptable non-infringing alternative to the '414, '172, or '959 Patents by contending that Apple practices an unasserted or asserted claim of the '414, '172, or '959 Patents."
Mueller points out Judge Koh's decision has roots in the trial's case management order that limited Apple and Samsung to five patent claims each. During case narrowing, Apple took the opportunity to drop non-duplicative claims in a more offensive approach that arguably brought the case to trial more quickly.
Apple could have fought to keep the non-duplicative claims as part of its arsenal, as per a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling in 2011 saying a court may narrow a plaintiff's claims only if they are duplicative. Mueller believes Judge Koh may have been to strict in her ruling and made the decision at least in part with case narrowing in mind.
While Apple may later make a statement regarding the patents in question, the Thursday order will be restrictive to claims already asserted against Samsung.
Comments
It is clear anytime you litigate anything your "day in court" is gonna be years and a judge's idea of the right to a quick and speedy trial is far different than my idea of quick. This is a freaking turtle race where they race but then Samsung wants best 2 out of three. By the time this is over the damn turtle is gonna be dead (and there are some specifies that live for a century .
Talk bull and when its called bull claim how fair the system is.
And its always been about Google, Samsung just stated the complete obvious there.
One thing I blame Samsung for is going via Jury. Apple have spent years training mindsets, they got a decision was obvious to anyone that has followed the complete marketing phenonima that Apple has always been.
The speedy trial part of the 6th amendment is for criminal cases not civil. It is also about how long of a delay until trial is started after arrest or indictment of the accused, not the length of the trial itself.
This should shut up those who think Apple gets preferential treatment by the courts since it's an American company against a Korean company in an American court. It won't shut them up, but it should...
This won’t shut anybody up. These types don’t argue logically. They merely spout their hate of Apple using any twisted logic that can come up with. You can’t silence these people. You can’t embarrass them. You can’t shame them. And you certainly can’t get them banned on AI. All you can do is block them so you don’t have to read their drivel.
This should shut up those who think Apple gets preferential treatment by the courts since it's an American company against a Korean company in an American court. It won't shut them up, but it should...
She has ruled both ways. Some of them have been overturned, but no matter what she does, someone will claim she is biased. The reason this genuinely annoys me is that the people who do so often don't seem to read more than a headline. There are frequent technical mistakes. What you can do is just ignore it.
She's tired of the BS, and patent trolling on both sides
I'm guessing they're just trying to implant the idea in order to lower the damages if they are found guilty. Since Apple is asking $40 a device, if they can make jurors think the patents aren't as useful, they may get that value lowered.
This generic statement humanizes her in ways she doesn’t deserve.
“Your honor, they’re lying, and we can prove it.”
“Nah.”
“Thank you, so exhibit… wait, what?”
“Nah, I don’t think so.”
“You don’t think we can prove it, don’t think they’re lying, or…?”
“I don’t think I’ll let you prove it.”
“… So…”
“So we’re moving on with the trial.”
“The trial in which we are explicitly set to prove (again) that Samsung is lying, you mean.”
“That’s the one!”
EDIT: Even tho Apple agrees with the court and Samsung that they don't practice those claims themselves they now want to say they used to make use of a really similar claim to one of them in the first iPhone. As I read it another of the claims might have been used in an internal test version of the OS, and yet another might have been in an Asian keyboard used on an old iPhone. IMO it wouldn't make the patent claims look any more (or less) valuable to me but I'm not on the jury.
I wish this trial was on TV. I'm sick of seeing murders and rapists.. This would actually get my attention.
What is Judge Koh's deal. Cut down the patents you want to prove Samsung stole cause this is taking too long. How the hell is that justice?
It is clear anytime you litigate anything your "day in court" is gonna be years and a judge's idea of the right to a quick and speedy trial is far different than my idea of quick. This is a freaking turtle race where they race but then Samsung wants best 2 out of three. By the time this is over the damn turtle is gonna be dead (and there are some specifies that live for a century .
She is right. The most important thing is whether Samsung stole/infringe Apple patents. How many patents are stolen/infringed is important in determining the damages/penalties.
Correct. The idea is that "since Apple themselves find so little value in those particular claims that they don't even use them for their own iPhones" (a fact Apple agreed with) they hope the jury comes to the conclusion they can't possibly be worth the $40 per device from Samsung that Apple wants.
I agree that that's what appears to be happening, but it should be an easy point for Apple to address when they make their own case. If a car company invented some clever new anti-lock brake technology and a competitor started using it, it doesn't really matter if the inventing company uses it. If it wasn't valuable why did the competitor include it in their design? If it wasn't valuable, why didn't they remove it as soon as someone alleged infringement? Frankly, I have no idea how one could put a value on most of these software patents. For example, if Apple had used some other approach to unlocking a phone, what would that have cost them in terms of sales? Depends on how crappy or elegant the alternative was, right? Or even more complicated "how much revenue did Apple lose because Samsung sold products with these particular infringing element?" Presumably the jury implicitly comes up with a number that is really "how much pain should Samsung be given for doing this" and they call that whatever it is the judge is actually asking for. I don't see how they have any other alternative.
www.jobs39.com
As it has already been presented, Samsung tone on this is they already admitted defeat since they can not show any independent development or thought process on how they arrived at their design, their own internal documents point to the analysis the competitor and copy it. They are just trying to devalue the patents at this point, so when they loose it not a big hit to the pocket book. Also keep in mind they will also appeal the decision so they can continue delaying any payment they will have to make.
As it has already been presented, Samsung tone on this is they already admitted defeat since they can not show any independent development or thought process on how they arrived at their design, their own internal documents point to the analysis the competitor and copy it. They are just trying to devalue the patents at this point, so when they loose it not a big hit to the pocket book. Also keep in mind they will also appeal the decision so they can continue delaying any payment they will have to make.
The payment amount is less important to Apple. Apple can achieve a big victory by demanding Samsung from removing these things.
So Apple, IBM, Microsoft and others formed their own advocacy group regarding patents (specifically software patents).
One of the jurors is a former IBM software systems manager.
How long after the guilty verdict can we expect Samsung to declare a mistrial over this jury member? After they let Hogan stay (even though they had a chance to question him during "voir dire", I'm expecting the same behavior this time around.
So Apple, IBM, Microsoft and others formed their own advocacy group regarding patents (specifically software patents).
One of the jurors is a former IBM software systems manager.
How long after the guilty verdict can we expect Samsung to declare a mistrial over this jury member? After they let Hogan stay (even though they had a chance to question him during "voir dire", I'm expecting the same behavior this time around.
Maybe Samsung is hoping that this IBMer knows about the long history of distributed databases, which is the crux of the Unified Search patent that's being asserted against them. He has probably the most technically oriented background of all the jurors, and Samsung would probably want as many jurors with software engineering experience as possible in a trial regarding software patents.