Apple points out possible $85M court error in order vacating Samsung damages

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a court filing on Tuesday, Apple claims Judge Lucy Koh made an error in vacating part of the $1.02 billion in damages awarded by the Apple v. Samsung trial jury, noting that two of Samsung's products look to be subject to the verdict.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple asserts that when Judge Koh vacated 40 percent of the $1.02 billion awarded by the Apple v. Samsung jury, the jurist believed part of the figure was granted based on an impermissible theory pertaining to "disgorgement of profits for design patent infringement" and an "aggressive notice date for all of the patents" presented by the Cupertino company.

Galaxy Infuse
Samsung's Galaxy S II AT&T (left) and Infuse 4G (right). | Source: Samsung


Apple claims that Samsung statements, as well as court evidence, show two of the Korean company's products were sold within the permissible period for design patent infringement, an assertion counter to Judge Koh's findings. If correct, the devices in question, Samsung's Galaxy S II AT&T and Infuse 4G, could restore a respective $40,494,356 and $44,792,974 to the original damages award.

Because the vacated $450 million requires a new trial with a new jury, Apple's motion, if successful, would remove the two devices from the 14 products for which a new determination is needed, concurrently adding to the existing 14 products found to be infringing on the company's design patents. This would bring the affirmed damages award to $685 million.

Looking at the public documents Apple's motion references, Mueller believes the company's theory is correct, but says the case against the Infuse 4G might be more complicated due to legal minutia and when the device was first put on the market.

He also points out the motion for reconsideration is currently conditional and would only move forward if Samsung's request for a partial final judgment is granted.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    dickprinterdickprinter Posts: 1,060member


    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.

  • Reply 2 of 10
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 3 of 10
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,589member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.



    I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know how things work in a courtroom, but is the judge supposed to be in charge of a US courtroom or are they the commandant of a gulag?


     


    If a court or a judge has committed an error, then people should obviously be free to point that out and set the record straight without any fear of reprisals.

  • Reply 4 of 10
    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.

    That is why democracies allow for appeals.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    muadibemuadibe Posts: 133member
    I'm not convinced this judge know what she's doing.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.



     


    The entire appeal process is a legally allowed telling  the judge you think he/she made a mistake. 

  • Reply 8 of 10
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

    The entire appeal process is a legally allowed telling  the judge you think he/she made a mistake. 


     


    You can do that at any time otherwise. They just don't have to care unless it's a formal appeal. image

  • Reply 9 of 10
    Rule #1: Don't point out to the court that they made a mistake, an action that would only serve to piss the Judge off, IYAM.

    So, no need for appeals courts?
  • Reply 10 of 10
    minicaptminicapt Posts: 219member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post







     


     



    ? Use original player



    Embedding disabled by request

    Watch on YouTube






    Apparently, problems were experienced in the initial roll-out of "Google Now".


     


    Cheers

Sign In or Register to comment.