or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple motion to reschedule post-trial decisions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple motion to reschedule post-trial decisions

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday issued an order denying Apple's request to rearrange the schedule of post-trial hearings, allowing a hearing on Samsung's motion to dissolve the existing Galaxy Tab ban to come before a decision on motions to overrule the jury's decision.

After the landmark Apple v. Samsung decision was handed down, both parties filed post-trial motions. Apple is looking for a permanent sales ban on eight Samsung devices, while the South Korean electronics giant is requesting to dissolve an existing preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab 10.1.

In the interest of expediency, Judge Koh last week consolidated Apple's permanent injunction motion, initially scheduled for Sept. 20, with so-called "Rule 50" motions to overrule the jury's decision, scheduling the hearing for Dec. 6. Meanwhile, Samsung's motion to dissolve was inserted into the Sept. 20 date, causing what Apple said was asymmetry in the post-trial timeline as the dissolving of the Galaxy Tab injunction can possibly be overturned with a favorable Rule 50 decision.

Apple's request attempted to align the permanent sales ban hearing with the motion to dissolve, both of which would be heard on the Dec. 6 court date.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


Judge Koh explains that the scope of Apple's motion for a sales ban is broader than Samsung's request, saying, "[T]he Court finds good cause for setting different briefing and hearing schedules for the parties? respective injunction-related motions."

From Thursday's order:
Whereas Samsung?s motion to dissolve the June 26, 2012 preliminary injunction involves review of an injunction against a single product (the Galaxy Tab 10.1) based on alleged infringement of a single Apple patent (the D?889 Patent), [?] Apple?s proposed motion for a post-trial, pre-JMOL preliminary injunction would seek to enjoin eight different Samsung products based on the jury?s finding of infringement across seven different intellectual property rights.


Wrapping up the order, Judge Koh modified the schedule of the Court's post-trial proceedings, extending Apple's opposition filing due date to Sept. 10, while Samsung's reply is now expected by Sept. 14.
post #2 of 27

I guess that Samsung's billions in sales of stolen IP between now and December 6th doesn't mean much to the judge.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #3 of 27

The more Apple's IP is allowed to circulate in infringing devices, the more damaging it will be for Apple in particular, and the integrity of patents in general. 

post #4 of 27

The Patent system is obviously broken, it takes so long to get decisions that the devices the complaints are based on become obsolete and have been replaced by new devices which aren't covered by the original complaints.

 

There is no deterrent to IP theft, Samsung has shown that it is rewarded.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #5 of 27

The schedule doesn't matter, because this is not about the latest Samsung device. If Samsung sold some of those old phones before the hearing, that just means more damages assigned.

post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Judge is biased, Judge is Korean.
Just thought I'd post it before the trolls do. Then we can get it out of the way.
At least that's the plan.

 

I wasn't aware that a Korean could serve in the US magistrate. Did you possibly mean she has Korean heritage or is naturalized citizen (I don't know)? Sounds very biased to me.

post #7 of 27
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post
I wasn't aware that a Korean could serve in the US magistrate. Did you possibly mean she has Korean heritage or is naturalized citizen (I don't know)? Sounds very biased to me.

 

He's mocking the position of the people that say that, not saying it himself.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Judge is biased, Judge is Korean.
Just thought I'd post it before the trolls do. Then we can get it out of the way.
At least that's the plan.

 

note the sarcasm in the second line of his postlol.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

 

I wasn't aware that a Korean could serve in the US magistrate. Did you possibly mean she has Korean heritage or is naturalized citizen (I don't know)? Sounds very biased to me.

post #9 of 27
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #10 of 27
Quote:

 

So they stole and patented, and are going to sue with it?

 

lol.giflol.giflol.gif

 

I am sorry.  I can't help.

post #11 of 27
Quote:

 

That's awesome. If Apple wants to go thermonuclear and patent the wedge, they need to be prepared for attacks like this. Once you show the world how the patent office can be used as a weapon instead of a shield, you deserve what you get.

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Judge is biased…

maybe not because having korean heritage ….
But how about that: why she has hardly tried to persuade Apple to settle, knowing that the Jury sided nearly 100% with Apple from soup to nuts?

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply

Platanas IT Intelligence: digging for truth

Reply
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Platanas View Post

maybe not because having korean heritage ….
But how about that: why she has hardly tried to persuade Apple to settle, knowing that the Jury sided nearly 100% with Apple from soup to nuts?

 



Because, as one poster commented, the system is slow. No doubt Samsung will appeal, and if history is any indication, the judgement will be cut, likely in a severe manner (and there is always the possibility it is overturned entirely). Probably three years down the road, when all the disputed devices are obsolete, the Supreme Court may or may not take the case. In the end, Apple might get several hundred million dollars, but it will have likely lost several billion due in part to the dismal speed of the justice system.

 

Without being at the table for settlement talks, it's hard to guess what Apple wanted. However, they are a smart group. They might have tried for terms that favored them over the long-term.

 

So the Judge may still be correct in pushing Apple to settle.

post #14 of 27
Quote:

 

I'm sorry, we're going to have to launch a real nuke on that one.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

I'm sorry, we're going to have to launch a real nuke on that one.

Seriously. Couldn't even watch all the way through I was laughing so hard. There are no words. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #16 of 27

When will the judge decides if Samsung is "willful" infringing apple patents that will triple the 1b?

post #17 of 27
Originally Posted by makingdots View Post
When will the judge decides if Samsung is "willful" infringing apple patents that will triple the 1b?

 

That's not going to happen. It was just wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #18 of 27
Considering the foreman's comments it is likely a more informed jury wouldn't have found Samsung to infringe nearly as much as they do...the Trade dress claims almost 100% for sure...but the patents...had prior art that the jury disregarded because they were told erroneously by the foreman that it isn't prior art unless the code can run on the device.

As biased as most of you are...can you honestly agree with a decision that was provably based on erroneous thinking?
post #19 of 27
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post
As biased as most of you are...can you honestly agree with a decision that was provably based on erroneous thinking?

 

All I hear is whining about how the jury was biased. Sorry, I can't take that seriously. If it was erroneous, Samsung would have appealed. If it was erroneous, Koh would have sent them back.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

All I hear is whining about how the jury was biased. Sorry, I can't take that seriously. If it was erroneous, Samsung would have appealed. If it was erroneous, Koh would have sent them back.

but it was erroneous...don't let your Apple tainted glasses blind you.

Check the foreman's comments.

They may have come to the same conclusion even IF they followed jury instruction and understood/embraced their roles...but we won't know that because they didn't do any of that.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

All I hear is whining about how the jury was biased. Sorry, I can't take that seriously. If it was erroneous, Samsung would have appealed. If it was erroneous, Koh would have sent them back.


Are you suggesting that Samsung isn't going to appeal?  I was always operating under the assumption that an attempt to appeal would be an all-but-certain eventuality, regardless of who won the initial verdict, and regardless of how much merit that appeal would eventually turn out to have after being scrutinized the higher courts.

 

I also thought Samsung had about 60 days from the date of the jury's verdict to put their arguments together before the appeal deadline expired - so there's still plenty of time for the appeals process to go ahead.

post #22 of 27

Neither Samsung nor Apple would be filing an appeal at this point since there's still several motions before the Honorable Judge Koh that have yet to be ruled on, and which could significantly change the outcome.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 27
Quote:

 

That truly is bizarre -- unfortunately just cause you put a product out first doesn't mean you have a valid patent. That has to do with the filing dates for the technology and trade dress. I know this is China but hard to believe even China would get all gooey on this one and give it to gooPhone instead of Apple. Hard to believe that gooPhone would have enough bucks to pay more than Apple will will (make) for the Chinese.

 

If this was April I would call this the best one yet but we are a full half year away. /s

 

Edit: Sorry, kinda off the thread but hard not to respond to a report like that.

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Neither Samsung nor Apple would be filing an appeal at this point since there's still several motions before the Honorable Judge Koh that have yet to be ruled on, and which could significantly change the outcome.

 

Couldn't agree more. One hardly appeals the final verdict before it is handed down and the game is still in the fourth quarter while the ref reviews the replays.

post #25 of 27
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post
They may have come to the same conclusion even IF they followed jury instruction and understood/embraced their roles...but we won't know that because they didn't do any of that.

 

Then it was a mistrial. But Samsung said nothing about it.


Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post
Are you suggesting that Samsung isn't going to appeal? I also thought Samsung had about 60 days from the date of the jury's verdict to put their arguments together before the appeal deadline expired - so there's still plenty of time for the appeals process to go ahead.

 

I imagine their appeal would have been written up in advance to be submitted instantaneously once it was legal, but if that's not allowed I can see how they wouldn't have appealed… in the first few days after the trial. I don't know about appeal date ranges myself, but if they have been allowed to appeal since the verdict and have yet to, what does that say, really? 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I imagine their appeal would have been written up in advance to be submitted instantaneously once it was legal, but if that's not allowed I can see how they wouldn't have appealed… in the first few days after the trial. I don't know about appeal date ranges myself, but if they have been allowed to appeal since the verdict and have yet to, what does that say, really? 

TS, there's no final judgement by the court yet and several motions by both Apple and Samsung to be dealt with as a Matter of Law by Judge Koh. Way too early to file any appeals since much of the case is yet to be settled. It's even possible, tho highly unlikely, that the entire jury ruling could be tossed.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 27
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
TS, there's no final judgement by the court yet and several motions by both Apple and Samsung to be dealt with as a Matter of Law by Judge Koh. Way too early to file any appeals since much of the case is yet to be settled. It's even possible, tho highly unlikely, that the entire jury ruling could be tossed.

 

Oh, all right, then. We'll have to reserve appeal likelihood until they can, then, huh? lol.gif

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple motion to reschedule post-trial decisions