or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung did not willfully infringe on Apple's patents, U.S. judge says [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung did not willfully infringe on Apple's patents, U.S. judge says [u]

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
Apple v. Samsung Judge Lucy Koh on Tuesday handed down some of the first rulings in the case's post-trial proceedings, granting an Apple motion to invalidate certain claims of a Samsung patent but denying five others, including a request for a new trial stemming from a contention that the Korean company willfully infringed on Apple's patents.

Update: Added Judge Koh's order denying Apple's damages enhancements.

Bressler Testimony
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In the document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Koh found that Samsung did not act willfully in infringing on Apple's patents, denying the Cupertino company a chance to triple damages associated with the suit.

The jurist granted Apple's motion that sought judgment as a matter of law to invalidate two claims of Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,675,941 for wireless data packet technology and denied five others:
  • DENIES Apple?s motion for judgment as a matter of law that Apple?s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress is protectable, infringed, and diluted;
  • DENIES Apple?s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes the D?889 Patent;
  • DENIES Apple?s motion for judgment as a matter of law that all accused Samsung phones infringe or dilute all Apple?s intellectual property as asserted, and that all acts of infringement or dilution by accused Samsung phones and tablets were willful and induced by SEC;
  • DENIES Apple?s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the ?893, ?711, ?460, and ?516 Patents are invalid; and
  • DENIES Apple?s motion for judgment as a matter of law that Samsung is liable to Apple for breach of contract and antitrust violations stemming from breach of the ETSI IPR Policy.
One of the more important findings in Tuesday's batch of rulings is an order on Apple's motion for judgment that Samsung was willful in infringing on the patents in suit, an issue that the Apple v. Samsung jury found to be the case in five cases. Judge Koh notes that in order to find willful infringement, a two-pronged analysis of subjective and objective inquiry must be satisfied. The judge found similarly for Apple's remaining JMOL contentions, including the D'889 design patent with which Apple previously won a short-lived injunction against the Galaxy Tab in 2012.

Agreeing with the jury's findings, the ruling stated, "Here, the jury found that there was no subjective willfulness, and the Court agrees that this finding was supported by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore, even if the Court were to find the objective prong satisfied, there can be no ultimate willfulness determination. Accordingly, the Court need not reach the objective analysis."

As for Samsung's '941 patent, the filing describes the property as "a system for data transmission over wireless systems by chopping up data in discrete packets, with headers containing information needed for data reassembly after transmission." Specifically, Apple argued that claims 10 and 15 were invalid due to a single piece of prior art called the "Agarwal Patent," which deals with similar technology when used in conjunction with satellite rather than cellular networks. Samsung previously attempted to demonstrate invention by noting several elements of claims 10 and 15 are absent from the Agarwal Patent, including three specific technical terms.

In response, Apple noted that the prior art does, in fact, address both ?satellite and wireless? networks, effectively nullifying Samsung's first argument. As for the three specific terms, Apple presented expert testimony from Dr. Edward Knightly that accounted for the missing elements.

On whether Apple's unregistered iPad and iPad 2 trade dress are protectable, Judge Koh sided with the jury and found no infringement or dilution from Samsung.



post #2 of 38
Original statement retracted. AI must see something I don't.
Edited by morganhighley - 1/29/13 at 8:39pm
post #3 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In the document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Koh overturned the Apple v. Samsung jury's finding that Samsung acted willfully in infringing on Apple's patents, denying the Cupertino company a chance to triple damages associated with the suit.

 

Umm... where do you see that she overturned any of the jury findings that Samsung acted willfully?

 

From what I see, she basically upheld everything the jury decided, which means the triple damages might still be in play.

 
--
 

What she denied, were Apple's motions to overturn each of the jury's decisions that said Samsung had NOT infringed.   (e.g. the 087 tablet design, the iPad trade dress, etc)... .. and then declare them willful as well.

 

She also denied Apple's motions to declare that Samsung had willfully engaged in FRAND abuse, etc.

 

--

 

Again, with the denials she was upholding what the jury had already decided.   Everything stayed the same as it was before, except for invalidating a couple of Samsung patent claims.

 

At least, that's the way it reads to me at first glance.  However, I'm tired and could have missed something.

 

EDIT:  AI added the link to the second ruling after I wrote this.  That's the one that denied willful damages.  The first ruling, which is all that was posted at the time, did not overturn the jury, just as I said.


Edited by KDarling - 1/30/13 at 4:25am
post #4 of 38
I'm just going to go ahead and assume that all the other geek/linux/gadget sites will write a headline that proclaims Apple was "smacked down by the law" or "loses big time in court."

Such is the way of things.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 38

This ruling makes no sense based on what was revealed in the courtroom. None whatsoever.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This ruling makes no sense based on what was revealed in the courtroom. None whatsoever.

 

The ruling makes perfect sense if you read it. 

 

Unless you think she should overturn what the jury decided.   Samsung would love the jury verdict to be overturned.

 

EDIT:  I repeat that all of the basic jury decisions about infringement were indeed upheld, so Samsung is still guilty of those.   What was denied in the second ruling, was Apple's request for treble damages on account of willfulness.


Edited by KDarling - 1/30/13 at 4:34am
post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that all the other geek/linux/gadget sites will write a headline that proclaims Apple was "smacked down by the law" or "loses big time in court."

Such is the way of things.

Amazing how being shot down in court on all counts will cause such headlines.  Feel free to provide any evidence (or even a wild-eyed conspiracy, like a moderator here would provide) that that's not the case.

post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This ruling makes no sense based on what was revealed in the courtroom. None whatsoever.

You mean, based on what was presented on this fan site by its editors.  Your only view of what was presented in the courtroom is filtered in advance by the creators of this and other Apple fan websites.

post #9 of 38

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #10 of 38
The wilful ruling surprises me. Apple warned Samsung twice. Google warned Samsung. Samsung had a "manual" on the iPhone listing everything they needed to improve on. I don't see how anyone could think their infringement was an "accident" or "coincidence".

Unless wilful infringement requires more evidence (like a Samsung employee telling another to specifically copy Apple). I had always assumed the only way you be found to not willfully infringe someone's IP is if you didn't know about their IP (which can happen with obscure or little known technology).

I have a feeling that ruling will be vigorously appealed by Apple.
post #11 of 38
Samsung did not act willfully in infringing on Apple's patents

 

No sane person can believe this statement.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No sane person can believe this statement.

Except Stefan Jobes.

post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No sane person can believe this statement.


Foss patents and Lucy Koh obviously can and do.  http://www.fosspatents.com/

 

Willfulness presumes that the purported infringer accepts that a patent is valid.  It appears Samsung didn't believe the patents were valid, and subsequent developments have supported them.  Koh seems to feel that Samsung's belief in invalidity was a justifiable defense.

post #14 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Umm... where do you see that she overturned any of the jury findings that Samsung acted willfully?

 

From what I see, she basically upheld everything the jury decided, which means the triple damages might still be in play.

She didn't technically overrule the jury's subjective finding of willful infringement. What she did rule was that Samsung infringement was not also objectively willful. In other words she found that Samsung took a defensible position that the patents were invalid and thus not infringed. Both objective and subjective must be true for possible triple damages on willful infringement theories. The court also noted that damages could not have been trebled under the law for the design patent part of the jury award anyway.

 

As a side note Judge Koh does include a couple of footnotes mentioning still ongoing patent office actions could invalidate the patents in question. The actual orders in their entirety are posted at Groklaw. This one is towards the end, as are the footnotes.

 

EDIT: I see that AI updated their article to mention much the same.

EDT2; AI may have reversed objective and subjective, or Florian Mueller may have been mistaken on the definitions, but no matter really. The result is the same. 


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/30/13 at 4:16am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

She didn't technically overrule the jury's subjective finding of willful infringement. What she did rule was that Samsung infringement was not also objectively willful. In other words she found that Samsung took a defensible position that the patents were invalid and thus not infringed. Both objective and subjective must be true for possible triple damages on willful infringement theories. The court also noted that damages could not have been trebled under the law for the design patent part of the jury award anyway.

 

Correct, and thanks.

 

At the time that I wrote my original responses, AI had only posted a link to the first ruling,...which as I said, upheld the jury's original decisions of infringement.

 

The second ruling link, which was posted after I went to bed, is the one that denies willful damages, for the reasons you pointed out.


Edited by KDarling - 1/30/13 at 4:39am
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

The wilful ruling surprises me. Apple warned Samsung twice. Google warned Samsung. Samsung had a "manual" on the iPhone listing everything they needed to improve on. I don't see how anyone could think their infringement was an "accident" or "coincidence".

Unless wilful infringement requires more evidence (like a Samsung employee telling another to specifically copy Apple). I had always assumed the only way you be found to not willfully infringe someone's IP is if you didn't know about their IP (which can happen with obscure or little known technology).

I have a feeling that ruling will be vigorously appealed by Apple.

Yes, I think you're right.

I think Apple will also appeal the ruling not to overrule the jury's decision that the Tab didn't infringe the design patent. After all, that's the one where the attorneys couldn't even tell them apart at 10 feet.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

She didn't technically overrule the jury's subjective finding of willful infringement. What she did rule was that Samsung infringement was not also objectively willful. In other words she found that Samsung took a defensible position that the patents were invalid and thus not infringed. Both objective and subjective must be true for possible triple damages on willful infringement theories. The court also noted that damages could not have been trebled under the law for the design patent part of the jury award anyway.

Then Samsung should have presented evidence that they believed at the time that the patents were not valid. They did not do so.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


Foss patents and Lucy Koh obviously can and do.  http://www.fosspatents.com/

Willfulness presumes that the purported infringer accepts that a patent is valid.  It appears Samsung didn't believe the patents were valid, and subsequent developments have supported them.  Koh seems to feel that Samsung's belief in invalidity was a justifiable defense.
Their delusion is a defense against this?! That's a ridiculous standard. This defense could practically eliminate extra damages for any patent not tested in court.
Edited by ifij775 - 1/30/13 at 5:12am
post #19 of 38
Wasn't it proven via internal documents that they were specifically copying the iPhone? Even if you take small features such as the software camera shutter button Sammy uses, it was directly taken from the iPhone. It's as if, time and time again when Sammy thought about a feature, they said, "you know what, to save time just copy how it looks and works on the iPhone, their design is rated very highly, therefore ours will be, and it'll save us loads and time and effort. And if they sue us we'll fight it. We're good at that."

Heck, they lost and had to pay $1B. Think about how much profit they made compared to that in the time period this cases is based on. For them, even after losing, it was financially worth it, for sure. The executives didn't even need to turn up, they just sent their lawyers and went on holidays.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Then Samsung should have presented evidence that they believed at the time that the patents were not valid. They did not do so.

Samsung did attempt to show the jury the patents were invalid based on prior art as one example. I'm sure you'll remember that if you think about it. The question the judge herself ruled on was the very specific question whether they were "indefinite" and thus invalid.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 38

So from now on a company can just claim patents are invalid and then proceed to use them without worry of being found guilty of wilful infringement? I think a LOT of companies are not going to be happy about this.

post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

So from now on a company can just claim patents are invalid and then proceed to use them without worry of being found guilty of wilful infringement? I think a LOT of companies are not going to be happy about this.

As long as both a jury and judge agree on willfulness. I don't think this judge's ruling created any new case law regarding that.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
I think Apple will also appeal the ruling not to overrule the jury's decision that the Tab didn't infringe the design patent. 

 

Apple has lost that comparison time and again all around the world.  E.g. remember the UK ruling that ended in an apology?  

 

That's because the design patent Apple always uses in their trials, is that old 2004 not-so-slim generic rounded rectangle one, not their actual iPad design patents.   As the judge noted it in her ruling, even Apple said in the trial that the iPad didn't use that 2004 design.

 

It's hard to convince a court or jury that Samsung infringed on something that Apple didn't even use themselves.  However, the iPhone designs presented were actually used for the iPhone that was sold, and that's why the jury found infringement for them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Their delusion is a defense against this?! That's a ridiculous standard. This defense could practically eliminate extra damages for any patent not tested in court.

 

Ironically, that defense came from a Seagate trial.  (Ironic because of all the furor over the jury foreman's past litigation history with Seagate.)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Then Samsung should have presented evidence that they believed at the time that the patents were not valid. They did not do so.

 

If you recall, Apple's lawyers managed to get a lot of critical evidence thrown out for technicalities.    That's the main problem a lot of people have with this trial.  It's one thing to prevail if ALL the evidence is presented to the jury, it's quite another if not. 

 

For example, in other design trials around the world, such as in the EU, Apple has lost design lawsuits because Samsung was allowed to present evidence such as the production Pidion smartphone (see below)....
 

 

... or Samsung's internal design documents that predated the iPhone:

 

The California jury wasn't allowed to see those things, and I suspect that most people here never have either.  Once they are seen, Apple's basic designs don't appear so original.

 

Mind you, it's clear that Samsung deliberately got as close to the iPhone look and feel as they thought they could away with, and thus if a jury decides that they infringed on the iPhone trade dress, that makes sense.

 

But Americans are brought up to be fair.  A jury (and forum readers) should get to make decisions based on all the facts, not just on one-sided evidence.  In this case there was also a fairly short time limit put on presentation of evidence, which worked against the defense.   Viewers on the internet have the luxury of much more time.

post #24 of 38
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
Willfulness presumes that the purported infringer accepts that a patent is valid.

 

Total. Frigging. Crap.

 

According to whom? You realize this means anyone can infringe on anything at any time for any reason simply if they pretend it isn't valid? You realize that's what some companies already do, regardless of actual validity?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Total. Frigging. Crap.

 

Lawyers.  What can you do?   Hey, but Apple still got $1 billion (at least, so far) plus likely future royalties.

 

Quote:
According to whom? 

 

According to the Supreme Court.   You can read all the legal background about determining willfulness in this PDF document.

 

Quote:
You realize this means anyone can infringe on anything at any time for any reason simply if they pretend it isn't valid? You realize that's what some companies already do, regardless of actual validity?

 

Nope, that's NOT even close to what it means.   Read the document above.

 

For one thing, this has nothing to do with determining infringement.  Juries do that.   This ONLY has to do with determining willfulness for adding on damage enhancements.

post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Total. Frigging. Crap.

 

According to whom? You realize this means anyone can infringe on anything at any time for any reason simply if they pretend it isn't valid? You realize that's what some companies already do, regardless of actual validity?

I think he's inaccurate. Simply claiming you believe a patent is invalid wouldn't be enough to convince a judge that you had legitimate and valid reasons to believe it and thus weren't willfully infringing based on all the available facts. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 38
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
According to the Supreme Court.   You can read all the legal background about determining willfulness in this PDF document.

 

So basically you can hire any idiot as a legal council, tell him to tell you that he thinks it's invalid, and you're automatically immune to any damages otherwise incurred therewith. 


Under this defense, an infringer who reasonably relies on competent legal advice does not “willfully” infringe if the legal advice concludes that the patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. 

 

No, that's not how it works. 


Black’s Law Dictionary defines recklessness as “[c]onduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but nonetheless foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk.”37 

 

Okay, so the defense is automatically invalid. Samsung desired harmful consequence. It's their sole purpose for existing as a competitor to Apple. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So basically you can hire any idiot as a legal council, tell him to tell you that he thinks it's invalid, and you're automatically immune to any damages otherwise incurred therewith.  

 

Nope, that kind of defense was usable prior to the Seagate decision.

 

You're reading that document too quickly and jumping to conclusions.   Wait until you're done.

post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think he's inaccurate. Simply claiming you believe a patent is invalid wouldn't be enough to convince a judge that you had legitimate and valid reasons to believe it and thus weren't willfully infringing based on all the available facts. 

 

Well, actually, that's exactly what this ruling would mean. All a defendant has to do is say, "Yes, we knew there was a patent. We technically 'infringed' it. But, at the time we decided it was invalid anyway." All they have to do is come up with a story, after the fact even, of why they thought it was invalid. It would make it virtually impossible to ever prove willful infringement unless you have a document stating that they knew it was infringement, that they believed the patent was valid, and that they intended to do it anyway. It essentially throws out the preponderance of the evidence and substitutes a standard of absolute proof.

 

Apple will probably appeal, and Judge Koh, having already been overruled on a number of points of law, is likely to be overturned on this one too, perhaps not entirely in Apple's favor, but at least to reject her notion that all you have to do is say, "I didn't think it was invalid."


Edited by anonymouse - 1/30/13 at 7:58am
post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Well, actually, that's exactly what this ruling would mean. All a defendant has to do is say, "Yes, we knew there was a patent. We technically 'infringed' it. But, at the time we decided it was invalid anyway." 

 

No, that part is the opposite of what you guys are saying.  The legal prong is not about if the defendant thought they were infringing.  It's if an objective observer thinks the defendant would've infringed.   Here, two notes from that document might help:

 

Quote:
143. An analogy might help clarify the importance of the independent objective inquiry. If a driver knowingly drives a car at 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone, he is violating the speed limit (infringement), but his actions do not rise to the level of recklessness (no willfulness). However, if the  driver was driving at 56 mph but thought he was driving through a 20 mph zone, he may have been subjectively reckless, but his actions were not objectively reckless. Under the old willfulness standard, the driver in the latter situation would probably have been willful because he: 1) violated the speed limit (infringed the patent), and 2) did not have a reasonable basis for thinking that he had a right to do what he did. Under the new standard the driver would fail the first prong and avoid willfulness altogether.
 
146. For example, an infringer who deliberately copied a patent would satisfy the second prong of the test. However, if at trial there are serious doubts as to the validity of the patent and, hence, there was not an objectively high likelihood of infringement, the infringer would fail to satisfy the first prong of the test. Therefore, an infringer may knowingly infringe a patent without willfully infringing.

 

In other words, the COURT as objective observer decides the willfulness to infringe, not the defendant.
post #31 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yes, I think you're right.

I think Apple will also appeal the ruling not to overrule the jury's decision that the Tab didn't infringe the design patent. After all, that's the one where the attorneys couldn't even tell them apart at 10 feet.

Dangerous thinking.

It would mean that if a company "thinks" your product "might infringe" on their patents, you can't sell it, even if YOU think it doesn't, and are ready to go to court...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

If you recall, Apple's lawyers managed to get a lot of critical evidence thrown out for technicalities.    That's the main problem a lot of people have with this trial.  It's one thing to prevail if ALL the evidence is presented to the jury, it's quite another if not. 

 

Complete BS. Samsung made mistakes (like missing deadlines SEVERAL TIMES). Missing a deadline is not a technicality. It's gross incompetence. This was discusssed in great detail while the trial was going on. The conclusions most observers made is it was a tactic of Samsung to have possibilities for appeal later on. Surely no law firm of that calibre could be so stupid as to MISS A DEADLINE. Or have a lawyer appear in court that wasn't licensed to.

 

Samsung even released information to the public after it was dis-allowed trying to sway public opinion that "crucial evidence that proves our innocence was dis-allowed". This shows how dis-honest Samsung and their lawyers really are. The evidence that was prevented from being shown was very weak in the first place, but as soon as the Judge said they couldn't use it suddenly it became "the DNA evidence that proves murder". Very shady on Samsung's part to try and imply they were not guilty and the ONLY piece of evidence that would prove this was dis-allowed, presumably for some unknown reason (nothing to do with the BEING LATE).

post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Total. Frigging. Crap.

 

According to whom? You realize this means anyone can infringe on anything at any time for any reason simply if they pretend it isn't valid? You realize that's what some companies already do, regardless of actual validity?


Not true at all.  If a patent has been challenged previously and been found valid, then such a defense wouldn't succeed.  Don't forget, what you see as a loophole might well be in Apple's interest if they are called out on infringing someone else's patent.

post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Complete BS. Samsung made mistakes (like missing deadlines SEVERAL TIMES). Missing a deadline is not a technicality. It's gross incompetence. This was discusssed in great detail while the trial was going on. The conclusions most observers made is it was a tactic of Samsung to have possibilities for appeal later on. Surely no law firm of that calibre could be so stupid as to MISS A DEADLINE. Or have a lawyer appear in court that wasn't licensed to.

 

I like reading the actual court documents instead of repeating shallow headlines.  Hint:  It was not just "missing a deadline."

 

Put briefly, what happened was that Samsung's lawyers showed a lot of prior art as part of pre-trial device history briefings.  Everyone, including court observers, assumed that Apple understood that everything presented might be also used for defense.  

 

Undoubtedly, Apple's lawyers did know that, because they waited until just after the deadline for pre-trial discovery had passed, and then filed motions claiming that they didn't know all of Samsung's presentation would be also used as evidence.  They could've pointed this out earlier, but they waited to spring their legal trap when they knew there was almost no way out of it.

 

Now, we could argue that Apple's lawyers are really clever, or that Samsung's lawyers were dumb to think that Apple's lawyers wouldn't stoop so low.  Either way, the evidence was left out even though Samsung's lawyers begged multiple times for it to be included.

 

As for tactics, personally I always figured it was Judge Koh herself who was giving Samsung a later appeals way out, since she could've included the evidence at her own discretion, but did not, covering herself by deferring to Magistrate Grewal's anti-evidence decision.

post #35 of 38
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
Not true at all.  If a patent has been challenged previously and been found valid, then such a defense wouldn't succeed.

 

That doesn't matter, according to this. If they don't think it's valid, they can do whatever they want.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That doesn't matter, according to this. If they don't think it's valid, they can do whatever they want.

 

Please read post #31 above.  It's not about what a defendant thinks. 

post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

No, that part is the opposite of what you guys are saying.  The legal prong is not about if the defendant thought they were infringing.  It's if an objective observer thinks the defendant would've infringed.   Here, two notes from that document might help:

 

 

In other words, the COURT as objective observer decides the willfulness to infringe, not the defendant.


I am having a hard time grasping the analogy you quoted.  Can you please provide a different analogy/perspective to help us better understand the legal requirement for willfulness?

post #38 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

The ruling makes perfect sense if you read it. 

 

Unless you think she should overturn what the jury decided.   Samsung would love the jury verdict to be overturned.

 

EDIT:  I repeat that all of the basic jury decisions about infringement were indeed upheld, so Samsung is still guilty of those.   What was denied in the second ruling, was Apple's request for treble damages on account of willfulness.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung did not willfully infringe on Apple's patents, U.S. judge says [u]