Apple takes issue with post-trial decision timeline, asks court to reschedule hearings

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a late Thursday filing, Apple requested Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh to reconsider the scheduling of post-trial decisions, saying that the current timeline may dissolve an existing Galaxy Tab ban prematurely.

Apple's motion to reconsider, first reported by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, points out the court's scheduling orders have "created a severe imbalance in the schedule for addressing injunctive relief" against Samsung's products, such as the current Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban.

After the Apple v. Samsung verdict was handed down last week, both parties immediately filed for post-trial decisions, one of which was a Samsung motion to dissolve the existing Galaxy Tab injunction in light of the jury's findings of non-infringement for that specific device. The request to dissolve followed Apple's own proposal for a preliminary injunction against eight smartphones made by the Korean company found to have violated its design and utility patents. Also scheduled for debate are so-called "Rule 50" motions to overrule certain jury decisions, for example Apple will be arguing against the ruling that its D'889 iPad patent was not infringed.

Mueller notes the issue is not merely about scheduling as Samsung can potentially be allowed to restart sales of its tablets in the U.S. before the lucrative holiday season.

Galaxy Tab 10.1


Judge Koh on Tuesday rescheduled the post-trial hearings, consolidating Apple's permanent injunction motion with the Rule 50 discussions in the interest of expediency. Originally, Apple's sales ban argument was scheduled for Sept. 20, but was pushed back to Dec. 6 with Samsung's motion to dissolve taking its place. This causes the asymmetry Apple mentioned in its recent filing as a dissolving of the current Galaxy Tab injunction can potentially be overturned with a favorable Rule 50 decision.

From Apple's request:
As explained [?], Apple?s motion for injunctive relief is more urgent than Samsung?s request to dissolve the injunction. Samsung?s motion certainly should not be addressed before Apple?s motion for injunctive relief.
While the motion to reschedule may seem to be directly aimed to uphold the sales ban against Samsung's tablet before Christmas, Mueller says "there's much more to it," explaining that the existing injunction is not limited to the Galaxy Tab 10.1, but "also covers any future products that are 'no more than colorably different.'" This means Samsung can't launch any future products that resemble the iPad if the injunction remains in place.



Apple's request itself won't produce a symmetrical schedule, however Judge Koh will need to divulge her reasoning as to why Samsung's motion to dissolve takes precedence over a hearing for a new injunction and Rule 50 discussions.

It remains unclear as to whether Apple will be successful in its request, however Judge Koh will issue an order regarding the matter soon.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 89
    kkerstkkerst Posts: 330member


    Wait, their domain is mofo.com?? Good lord...

  • Reply 2 of 89
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    I have to agree with Apple. Either keep the date, or allow a prelim ban to continue until then. Make Apple post a bond like they do in the EU if they haven't already

    And surprisingly this is better for Samsung since they can't launch any other models without a major overhaul and the holiday shopping season will be close following
  • Reply 3 of 89


    In Germany they have temporary injunctions that cover the period up until the real hearing takes place; since the jury said that Samsung was selling copies, they've been found guilty, so how come they will be allowed to carry on making profits off Apple's invention all through the biggest sales period in the year? It just makes the law look an ass.

  • Reply 4 of 89
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 5 of 89
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

    Wait, their domain is mofo.com?? Good lord...


     


    Were you looking to get the e-mail address [email protected]?

  • Reply 6 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post


    In Germany they have temporary injunctions that cover the period up until the real hearing takes place; since the jury said that Samsung was selling copies, they've been found guilty, so how come they will be allowed to carry on making profits off Apple's invention all through the biggest sales period in the year? It just makes the law look an ass.



     


    Are you really a Swiss?


     


    If so, shame on you for supporting a predatory american company!


     


    As we say in German speaking Europe: "Scheiss Amis!!!"

  • Reply 7 of 89
    kkerstkkerst Posts: 330member


    That has to be the best domain for a professional company I've ever come across. I should start a law firm with the domain of "suckonthis.com"

  • Reply 8 of 89
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

    That has to be the best domain for a professional company I've ever come across. I should start a law firm with the domain of "suckonthis.com"




    I'd say sosumi.com, but Apple wouldimage




    There's a site called pukeon.us, but I forget what it's for… 

  • Reply 9 of 89
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    Were you looking to get the e-mail address [email protected]?

    There i fixed it for you.

    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 10 of 89
    oolong wrote: »
    Are you really a Swiss?

    If so, shame on you for supporting a predatory american company!

    As we say in German speaking Europe: "Scheiss Amis!!!"

    Actually, worse shame on you for spending your time posting on a forum devoted to supporting said predatory American company.

    If I was from German-speaking Europe, I'd be kind of ashamed of compatriots like you....
  • Reply 11 of 89
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,650member


    What's with the Kraut trolls and their outdated, Nazi insults?


     


    So, a Swiss person is not allowed to like Apple, the best and most innovative tech company on the planet?

  • Reply 12 of 89
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,062member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oolong View Post


     


    Are you really a Swiss?


     


    If so, shame on you for supporting a predatory american company!


     


    As we say in German speaking Europe: "Scheiss Amis!!!"



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Actually, worse shame on you for spending your time posting on a forum devoted to supporting said predatory American company.

    If I was from German-speaking Europe, I'd be kind of ashamed of compatriots like you....


     


    I'm betting this was a drive-by troll that we will never hear from again.

  • Reply 13 of 89
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post




    If you're looking for immediate action on court rulings without waiting for appeal first, be careful what you wish for:


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18895384



    They'd fit in nicely next to "Samsung copied Apple" headlines.


     


    News report vs an ad.


     


    the judge would look like even more of an idiot than he does now.

  • Reply 14 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


     


     


    I'm betting this was a drive-by troll that we will never hear from again.



     


    Fick dich, du scheiss Ami!

  • Reply 15 of 89
    Why is Apple afraid of suing Google for copying iPhone. Apple, please stop abusing broken American patent system and bullying competitors who are disadvantaged by the broken US petent and legal systems which violate sprit of true innovations.

    I own many Apple products but, do not appreciate Apple constantly and unfairly attacking competitors. Thus, killing true and fair competion.

    We know that many Apple patents were based on inventions by others which Apple either copied and/or purchased. Thus, they are not true Apple inventions.

    Otherwise, the nuclear bomb that Steve Job invented will drop on Apple not Google.
    Please, please, stop the self-destruction while you can ...
  • Reply 16 of 89
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,980member
    "Apple wrote:
    [" url="/t/152257/apple-takes-issue-with-post-trial-decision-timeline-asks-court-to-reschedule-hearings#post_2180255"]What's with the Kraut trolls and their outdated, Nazi insults?

    So, a Swiss person is not allowed to like Apple, the best and most innovative tech company on the planet?

    He's a lil upset making him a sour kraut. Lol
  • Reply 17 of 89
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post

    Why Apple is afraid of suing Google for copying iPhone.


     


    Because they aren't. They're simply establishing a series of wins they can then use to punctuate all the more fiercely their final suit against Google.


     




    Apple, please stop abusing broken American petent system and bullying…



     


    And everyone has tuned out. Nice going. 


     



    I own many Apple products but, do not appreciate Apple constantly and unfairly attacking competitors. Thus, killing true and fair competion.


     


    Nope. Frigging broken record over here. I thought we settled all this nonsense during the Samsung verdict read… 






    We know that many Apple petents were based on inventions by others which Apple either copied and/or purchased. Thus, they are not true Apple inventions.



     


    The car is not a true invention. The light bulb is not a true invention. OS X is identical to the first UNIX code ever written. All these things are true if we go by your definition.






    Please, please, stop the self-destruction while you can ...



     


    Why does the Anti-Apple Brigade never heed their own words?

  • Reply 18 of 89
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post



    I own many Apple products but, do not appreciate Apple constantly and unfairly attacking competitors...


     


    So what do you think of Motorola/Google's continuing attacks on Apple and Microsoft?


     


    Seeing as how any court cases between these parties were originally instigated by Motorola/Google, Apple and Microsoft have acted defensively. 


     


    Please, please Google, stop Motorola's destruction of standards based licensing systems while you can.

  • Reply 19 of 89
    hill60 wrote: »
    edwardkim wrote: »
    I own many Apple products but, do not appreciate Apple constantly and unfairly attacking competitors...

    So what do you think of Motorola/Google's continuing attacks on Apple and Microsoft?

    Seeing as how any court cases between these parties were originally instigated by Motorola/Google, Apple and Microsoft have acted defensively. 

    Please, please Google, stop Motorola's destruction of standards based licensing systems while you can.

    I would ask ALL tech. companies to focus on inventions rather than wasting their talents and resources with the broken US patent system. There are enough opportunities and rewards to go around for all parties who invents ... peace/e.
  • Reply 20 of 89


    Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post

    I would ask ALL tech. companies to focus on inventions rather than wasting their talents and resources with the broken US petent system.


     


    No, that either needs addressed or left as it is. Companies have just as much right as any other entity to protect their intellectual property. 



    Ignoring copiers because "they should be spending time innovating* instead of litigating. If your products are innovative, you don't need to protect your stolen IP at all. " is not an argument that works.




    *generically, nonspecifically, and without any understanding of what that would imply, they say 'innovating'… 

Sign In or Register to comment.