Jury to hear extended testimony due to federal appeals court ruling
Jurors in the second Apple v. Samsung patent trial in California, who were scheduled to begin deliberations early next week, will now hear an additional two hours of testimony clarifying a key phrase used in one of Apple's patents-in-suit.
Just as the Apple v. Samsung case was winding down, presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Friday said she will give each side an extra hour to address the implications of a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that same day, reports The Verge.
While the CAFC ruling deals with a separate action between Apple and Motorola, there is overlap with the California case in Apple's '647 patent covering "quick links" or "data detectors." With its decision, the CAFC overturned a prior dismissal by Judge Richard Posner, essentially reviving the Motorola case.
As noted by Re/code, the federal appeals court's ruling disagreed with Apple's claim construction of its '647 patent. Specifically, the court sided with Judge Posner's definition of a particular patent claim involving an "analyzer server," which the jurist described as "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client."
Because the Apple v. Samsung jury was given a different definition of analyzer servers, as presented by Apple, clarification is needed to render a sound decision. To that end, two expert witnesses, Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry and University of North Carolina professor Kevin Jeffay, will be called in to offer testimony.
Apple and Samsung were originally scheduled to offer their respective two-hour closing arguments on Monday, though the timeline has shifted presentation to Tuesday with jury deliberations to follow.
In its case against Samsung, Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages for lost profits and royalties on five alleged infringed patents. Throughout the trial, Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million assuming 37 million infringing devices.
Just as the Apple v. Samsung case was winding down, presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Friday said she will give each side an extra hour to address the implications of a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that same day, reports The Verge.
While the CAFC ruling deals with a separate action between Apple and Motorola, there is overlap with the California case in Apple's '647 patent covering "quick links" or "data detectors." With its decision, the CAFC overturned a prior dismissal by Judge Richard Posner, essentially reviving the Motorola case.
As noted by Re/code, the federal appeals court's ruling disagreed with Apple's claim construction of its '647 patent. Specifically, the court sided with Judge Posner's definition of a particular patent claim involving an "analyzer server," which the jurist described as "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client."
Because the Apple v. Samsung jury was given a different definition of analyzer servers, as presented by Apple, clarification is needed to render a sound decision. To that end, two expert witnesses, Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry and University of North Carolina professor Kevin Jeffay, will be called in to offer testimony.
Apple and Samsung were originally scheduled to offer their respective two-hour closing arguments on Monday, though the timeline has shifted presentation to Tuesday with jury deliberations to follow.
In its case against Samsung, Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages for lost profits and royalties on five alleged infringed patents. Throughout the trial, Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million assuming 37 million infringing devices.
Comments
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/19/galaxy-s5-water-damage/
F Jackie, and samsung too.
I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?
Oops...
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/19/galaxy-s5-water-damage/
I clicked on the link. The author updates it somewhat here.
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/21/galaxy-s5-ip67-meaning/
I found that from your initial link. Anyway the protection doesn't sound all that useful. It's like what you used to get with cheap watches.
F Jackie, and samsung too.
I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?
I'm assuming djkikrome is a Howard Stern fan referring to Jackie the Jokeman.
Should we believe the thief
I'm assuming djkikrome is a Howard Stern fan referring to Jackie the Jokeman.
Thanks. I don't listen to Howard Stern, so I didn't catch that possible reference.
That's a old reference. Not many people would know it.
The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
Great points - totally agree.
Samsung has asserted that Apple's patents are worth much less, with experts saying the total amount is closer to $38.4 million
Should we believe the thief
Do you mean the good thief or the bad thief ? Or do you really believe that Apple has never copied patented algorithms registered to other third parties and that all the court decisions that found Apple to have wilfully infringed were a communist plot :-) or made by Judges and Juries paid to hate Apple. ?
Just wondering /s
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !
Samson rips off many companies they are really good at copying other products
Many companies infringe on some things are debatable what's not in question . Samson are guilty and I for one disgusted samsung's behaviour that's only my opinion
I used to buy samsung's Products not any more !
Of course you buy Samsung products .. they are inside almost every device on the market to some extent.
But I take your point and you are quite entitled to hold any view that you find appropriate. I just think it is naive to believe that ethical considerations play any big role, despite the incantations to the contrary, in any company who'se driving motive is profit or "shareholder value". Its about money.
I frankly don't find Apple or Samsung or any of the others for that matter, have a monopoly on being the good guys.
Samsung is a good company to deal with and their products last quite a long time.
Components in devices I buy like the iPhone yes I can't help that . But their product line I do not purchase any more !
The term "server" is pretty generic. Technically speaking, a single App that has one thread dedicated to "serving" requests made by other threads in the same App could be a server. Or a process running in iOS that serves requests by multiple Apps is also a server. Or the term most people think of - a separate physical machine somewhere on the Internet that serves numerous applications on numerous machines.
The core concept to me is a separate process that analyzes data structures. It's irrelevant if it's inside the same App, part of the OS, or external (like Siri). It'd be a shame if Apple loses this because someone has a "strict" definition of what a server is.
Would manually calling "find and replace" be considered an instance of a server? Linkify recognizes links in a body of text only because the programmer explicitly invokes "addLinks()" on the TextView:
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/03/linkify-your-text.html
And the developer documentation describes Linkify as essentially a collection of search-and-replace functions:
"Linkify take a piece of text and a regular expression and turns all of the regex matches in the text into clickable links. " (http://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify.html) So it's up to the developer to decide what patterns he wants to search for; Linkify is just a general tool not unlike the unix sed utility. What part of this system would fall under the patent claims? Is it the part about using regular expressions? Since regular expressions were invented to let one search for any pattern, it would seem strange to prohibit one from using them to search for particular strings, such as "*.com" That would be like claiming that using quicksort to sort a particular array of integers is somehow novel or patentable when quicksort is designed to sort any array of items which can be ordered.
“Did I tell you to steal the iPhone? Who told you to steal the iPhone? No one told you to steal the iPhone!”
“Is that going to be a problem, Jackie?”
“Yeah, it’s gonna be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them!”
Though, really, Samsung’s lawyers can be represented better by Lionel Hutz.
That was exactly what I was thinking. But I wonder how the courts will define the term "server" if it is not explicitly defined in the patent application? Do they let it be broadly defined or strict such as a remote piece of hardware only? Seems to me that if Apple implements it in a certain way before the question came up that that method should be included in the definition where there is a question as it serves as an example on how the patent is implemented.
I'll probably regret this, but who is Jackie?
I clicked on the link. The author updates it somewhat here.
http://phandroid.com/2014/04/21/galaxy-s5-ip67-meaning/
I found that from your initial link. Anyway the protection doesn't sound all that useful. It's like what you used to get with cheap watches.
It's certainly better than what you get with Apple.
Samsung - makes an attempt to make devices water resistant.
Apple - puts liquid contact indicators on devices so they can void your warranty.