Court document from the Apple v. Samsung jury trial.
According to in-court coverage from The Verge and AllThingsD, Judge Koh had a busy day hearing arguments from Apple and Samsung regarding their respective proposed motions. Due to the sheer number of requests and the complexity of the case's legal issues, the post-trial proceedings were quickly bogged.
While Judge Koh had hoped to offer "one omnibus order on everything," she later recanted, saying instead that decisions would be reached in installments. Not all judgments are expected to be handed in by the end of December as the jurist is currently presiding over another patent trial.
Apple's utility patents, like the '163 patent for tap-to-zoom functionality were among the first topics discussed, with Apple angling for more damages and Samsung looking for possible outs to overturn the jury's original verdict.
As far as damages, one important argument concerned the "notice date," or the date when Apple first notified Samsung of possible patent infringement. The notice date is crucial as both rate and time are calculated to reach a damages amount. Apple argues that it told Samsung it suspected patent violations as early as 2010, however the company failed to mention an exact property.
Apple argued that law doesn't require notice of specific patent infringement, however Judge Koh disagreed.
?I don?t want to be avant garde [on this]," she said.
Judge Lucy Koh. | Source: U.S. District Court
Samsung proposed a new calculation based on a modified notice date that chops the jury's initial finding of $800 million in damages over ten infringing products to $17 million, while a separate decision over five infringed patents should be reduced to $4.6 million from $381 million.
Following a short break, the question of jury misconduct was broached. Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan acted improperly by not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit and bankruptcy relating to former employer Seagate. Judge Koh was quick to dismiss any such action as Apple did its due diligence in informing Samsung as soon as it knew of the situation.
"I think that topic has been fully briefed," Koh said.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, spoke about Apple's proposed injunctions against the Korean company's products. She pointed out a U.S. sales ban on products like the Galaxy S II, which are no longer shipping, holds no gain for Apple, but will harm Samsung. According to Sullivan, some 77,000 units of the S II still remain with retailers and the company would have to eat a loss if the handsets can't be sold.
Just before court adjourned, John Quinn stepped up to restate claims against jury foreman Hogan. He attempted drive home the point that Hogan lied to be part of the jury. Judge Koh didn't appear amused by Quinn's arguments, however she heard what he had to say before finally wrapping up the day's proceedings with a plea to the parties to broker a peace deal.
"It's time for global peace," Judge Koh told the parties' lawyers, according to CNet. "Is there anything the court can do? I'm more than willing to issue orders," she continued. "It would be good for consumers, good for the industry, good for the parties."
Samsung attorney said the company was willing to strike some sort of arrangement, alluding to Apple reluctance to do so.
"The ball's in their court," he said.
Since the Apple v. Samsung jury trial ended in August, the two companies have filed reams of paperwork holding post-trial motions and oppositions. The parties have another case set to start proceedings on March 31, 2014, in the same court. Apple and Samsung are both asserting utility patent claims against a number of devices, including the flagship iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III handsets.