Judge denies Apple motion to reschedule post-trial decisions

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,484member


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

  • Reply 2 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. 

  • Reply 3 of 27
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member


    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.

  • Reply 4 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.

  • Reply 5 of 27
    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.
  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 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 postimage


    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.


  • Reply 10 of 27
    hjbhjb Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    Still less bizarre than this...


     


    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/did-chinese-company-leaked-photos-copy-unreleased-iphone-165555052.html



     


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


     


    imageimageimage


     


    I am sorry.  I can't help.

  • Reply 11 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    Still less bizarre than this...


     


    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/did-chinese-company-leaked-photos-copy-unreleased-iphone-165555052.html



     


    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.

  • Reply 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?

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 14 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    Still less bizarre than this...


     


    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/did-chinese-company-leaked-photos-copy-unreleased-iphone-165555052.html



     


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

  • Reply 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. 

  • Reply 16 of 27


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

  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 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?
  • Reply 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.

  • Reply 20 of 27
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.