or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 Sure, and the email evidence has nothing to do with the design infringement (or "complete disgorgement") at issue here.   Samsung's emails were presented as evidence for Apple's trade dress claims, not design claims.  And that's after both Apple and Samsung had agreed not to bring any materials that might influence, or taint, the jury decision on Apple's non-trade dress claims (ie, design claims) for obvious reason.  note : while Koh allowed Apple to bring their evidence...
 @dasanman69 :  Well, it's either this or SCOTUS.  Samsung does have a fairly good case here and, if Samsung prevails, it's also likely to defend and benefit Apple in the long run (ie, $400M win from Samsung is nothing compared to what Apple might to have pay Ericsson if upheld).  CAFC has ruled in favor of some appropriate apportionment in previous cases, but, in the last Samsung appeal, they somehow decided not to deal with the design disgorgement (without any...
 This is nothing new.  I'm guessing Apple,Samsung, HTC, and Nokia phones must have saved at least dozen by now: "According to  9to5Mac, which reported the incident via AppleDaily, a Taiwanese man, identified by his surname Han, was shot during a bar fight on Monday. But lucky for him, a Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 was in his shirt pocket and served as a shield by stopping the bullet from penetrating through his chest. ...  According to the police, Xu shot Han from about 2-3...
 @fallenj : @sog35 and I have already been through this before.  Samsung's sales in China collapse in 3Q of 2014, not in 1Q of 2015 -- when Samsung slipped from 19% to 8%, or from #1 to #4 (or #3, #5 depending on whom you ask) and Xiaomi jumped to #1 out of nowhere.  Apple and Samsung were really never competing head to head in China -- Samsung (#1) was way ahead of Apple (#5) for most of the past 4 years, whereas now Apple (#1) is way ahead of Samsung (#4) in 1Q in...
Like I said, Samsung lawyer stated the outcome of the first trial during the damage-only re-trial, as a legal procedure. Use your common sense, it wouldn't make any sense to admit one's guilt, only to challenge it again in appeals. Your intellectual laziness is disgusting.
 @Brakken : what is "only under pressure of evidence"?  Samsung never admitted to this and, as we know from this ruling, it was part of the appeal Samsung challenged, though it was rejected.   I think you meant to say that Samsung's lawyer stated the result of the first trial during the damage-only retrial.  But it doesn't matter, you wouldn't know the difference anyway.
 @maestro64 :   Sure, I'm not saying that it is.  In Ferrari v Roberts, the main issues that the court addressed were : - Whether Ferrari's automobile designs have acquired secondary meaning;- Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between Ferrari's cars and Roberts' replicas;- Whether the appropriated features of Ferrari's designs are nonfunctional; and- Whether the injunction granted by the district court is excessively broad. and the main argument Samsung brought...
 @tzeshan : probably not. (1), Apple doesn't have any access to Ericsson's licensees to prove this claim (Apple did make the same claim back in 2012-2013 against Samsung, but without any evidence to back that up).  (2), Ericsson's FRAND rate is announced and published time to time, so it's highly unlikely that Ericsson is asking for a discriminatorily higher rate. (3) Ericsson is also asserting non-SEPs. Now that being said, Apple is not the only licensee complaining about...
 @tzeshan : Apple is challenging Ericsson on multiple fronts (eg, validity, non-infringement), but their main contention is that Ericsson's royalty rate should be based on smallest salable unit v. entire device (ie, approportionment) in multicomponent products -- and their rate should be accordingly much lower.
 @Maestro64  :  There are some restrictions on what can be trademarked, and the court notes, "trademark law allows for a perpetual monopoly and its use in the protection of “physical details and design of a product” must be limited to those that are “nonfunctional."    That's a pretty important factor to consider in trade dress cases and that's been Samsung's main argument against the first ruling all along.  The court likewise found that Apple failed to show there was...
New Posts  All Forums: