Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2014
U.S. Judge Lucy H. Koh has overruled objections raised by Samsung regarding an instructional video providing jurors an introduction to the patent system.



AppleInsider exclusively reported on Saturday that Samsung had raised objections to the "how patents work" video, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.

Apple had proposed to use the latest version of "The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors," a video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system.

At the beginning of the first Apple vs. Samsung case, jurors were shown a similar video. However, over the past year the the FJC developed an updated version, replacing the dated-looking earlier edition that depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below).



The new video (below) appears on the US Courts YouTube channel, where it is described as being "carefully crafted, in consultation with judges and members of the bar, to present a balanced view of the patent process," noting that "individual judges will want to review it carefully and consult with counsel before deciding whether to use it in a particular case."



Samsung has filed an objection to showing the new version of video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."

Today, Judge Koh issued a ruling noting that "Samsung's objection to Apple's proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders."
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 77
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,736member
    So long as Samsung is profiting from copying Apple's IP, they will do absolutely everything and anything to drag this through the court system at a snail's pace.

    Shameful company. I absolutely, steadfastly refuse to directly give them any of my business.
    Apple moving to another supplier for its components can't come soon enough.
  • Reply 2 of 77
    Ok now, samshit, STFU, motherfuckers!
  • Reply 3 of 77
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

        Hopefully to be stated by Judge Koh



    All right, that’s it. Overruled with prejudice. Overturned with prejudice. Denied with prejudice. Injunction with prejudice. Guilty with prejudice. And that 3x damages? Make it 15x. Imports banned with prejudice. Case dismissed with prejudice. And anything else prejudicable. I’ve had it with you people.


  • Reply 4 of 77
    normmnormm Posts: 637member

    I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better.  It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.

  • Reply 5 of 77
    esoomesoom Posts: 155member

    Awesome

  • Reply 6 of 77
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,382member
    sflocal wrote: »
    So long as Samsung is profiting from copying Apple's IP, they will do absolutely everything and anything to drag this through the court system at a snail's pace.

    Shameful company. I absolutely, steadfastly refuse to directly give them any of my business.
    Apple moving to another supplier for its components can't come soon enough.

    I couldn't agree more.
  • Reply 7 of 77
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    It's the plaid's fault.
  • Reply 8 of 77
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,870member
    Don't worry, Sammy. Your products will still be shown on plagiarism and willful infringement videos.
  • Reply 9 of 77
    Shameful arrogant copying is all Samesung does and I too avoid buying anything with their rip off name attached to it. Get a different supplier Apple ASAP and wake up you people who buy the Korean knock off when all you're doing is buying a cheap imitation product. What especially makes me annoyed with their crap is to steal from Apple then turn around and make insane claims that their copy is better when it's actually junk in comparison.
  • Reply 10 of 77
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,502member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post



    It's the plaid's fault.

     

    I see that jury shot and think I'm watching, ``Kentucky Fried Movie.''

  • Reply 11 of 77
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

  • Reply 12 of 77
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    I see that jury shot and think I'm watching, ``Kentucky Fried Movie.''

    Best shower scene ever. :lol:
  • Reply 13 of 77
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,382member
    That jury photo is stock footage from 1970 surely? Look at the hair styles and clothes!
  • Reply 14 of 77
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

    That jury photo is stock footage from 1970 surely? Look at the hair styles and clothes!

     

    I was going to make a Sanford & Son joke, actually.

  • Reply 15 of 77
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I was going to make a Sanford & Son joke, actually.

    Dyno-mite!

    Watchoo lookin' at Willis!
  • Reply 16 of 77
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member

    Apple should propose that Samsung be sent for psychological testing. That turd of a company is past despair and lewd irrelevance. Maybe its a language deficiency (in whatever language it uses to justify the space and time it takes up in every parcel of life it squanders from, to and between its prattle to court). Maybe its council needs special council assistance; I know for a fact that the deficient of mind and reason have court appointed attendants to assist in keeping feet and other appendages out of mouths. A special court bopper paddle is used in Canada but I am sure a heftier device is use state side.

     

    It is only my gentle care and concern for Samsung that urges me to their assistance in their desperate hours of need, 24-seven.

  • Reply 17 of 77
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    It's like she flips a coin.
  • Reply 18 of 77
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NormM View Post

     

    I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better.  It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.


     

    And possibly (unlikely) if Samsung had made that argument, they may have won.

     

    But ...

  • Reply 19 of 77

    Schweeeeet!!!!

    The judge is going in dry!!!!

  • Reply 20 of 77
    arlorarlor Posts: 528member

    Honestly, this decision worries me a little. The trial doesn't require the video, and including the video (if appellate judges disagree with Koh that it may prejudice the jury) may provide Samsung with grounds for appeal if they lose. Better not to show it. There are other ways to introduce the jurors to patent issues. 

Sign In or Register to comment.