Judge bars Apple, Samsung from further filings after rapid-fire case entries

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2015
A federal judge presiding over the Apple v. Samsung patent trial laid down the law this week, prohibiting either party from filing without permission after being inundated by a series of motions, objections and letters.




U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday ordered Apple and Samsung to stop filing unless given express permission by the court. The ruling was issued shortly after Samsung filed an objection to an Apple proposal for partial final judgment lodged after the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's appeal of an order to pay out $399 million in damages.

Since Tuesday the court received five filings: Apple's letter proposing partial final judgment, a response from Samsung, a response to that response from Apple, a motion for judgment as a matter of law from Samsung and Thursday's objection, also from Samsung.

That last filing was apparently the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

"The Court has not yet received the mandate from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals," Judge Koh wrote in her order. "Despite this, the parties have already filed a letter, two responses, an objection, and a motion. The parties shall not file any further motions, briefs, or letters with the Court until authorized by the Court."

For its part, Samsung argues Apple's initial letter was procedurally improper, noting that if the court took action it would violate federal rules, contradict a previous ruling and "work a manifest injustice" by enforcing an invalid patent. To that last point, Samsung is referring to a final decision invalidating Apple's "pinch-to-zoom" UI patent handed down by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board last December. Apple is currently seeking a rehearing and if the PTAB chooses to pass must file a Federal Circuit appeal.

Apple is also facing a non-final decision from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Central Reexamination Division, which invalidated an iPhone design patent on multiple grounds.

This week's events come three years ago after the first Apple v. Samsung action ended in 2012 with a resounding win for Apple. Subsequent court actions reduced damages to $548 million, though both parties are contesting the sum. Samsung, for example, is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear its case relating to the recent CAFC denial.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41

    Yeah, there’s absolutely no way that she has the right to do this, nor is there any excuse for her being the judge presiding over this thing for year after year. She needs to step aside from tech industry suits at this point; she has become weary of justice and is therefore emotionally compromised.

  • Reply 2 of 41
    asciiascii Posts: 5,930member

    C'mon it's obvious they copied. You have to go through the motions for legal reasons, but enough is enough. Can't judge Koh just find her common sense, fine Samsung a metric f ton of money, then all parties can move on and get back to inventing the next generation of technologies.

  • Reply 3 of 41
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    ascii wrote: »
    C'mon it's obvious they copied. You have to go through the motions for legal reasons, but enough is enough. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Can't judge Koh just find her common sense, fine Samsung a metric f ton of money, then all parties can move on and get back to inventing the next </span>
    generation of technologies.

    YES.

    If you can't see the proof before your eyes you have got to be stupid as s***!

    Fine and move on.
  • Reply 4 of 41

    i think it is because all this being impartial and using logic is too hard. 

  • Reply 5 of 41
    Seems Samsung was the rapid fire party, not Apple.

    Apple filed two filings, Samsung four, two of them back to back.

    but of course, they have to punish Apple for Samsungs mistake.

    Koh just loves her homeland.
  • Reply 6 of 41
    lymflymf Posts: 65member
    Seriously though, as much as I agree that Samsung copied on Apple, this is becoming ridiculous. I've seen 4 y.o. kids acting less childish in a school courtyard.

    And seriously, don't tell me that it's Samsung's fault. At this stage, its both fault.

    I'm reading this and really, all I can think of is a fight between 4 y.o. kids...
  • Reply 7 of 41
    No It's Samsung's fault.

    Period.

    They copied.

    And when it looked like they might actually face some justice, they keep absing the system and getting out of it.

    Of course Apple is going to keep going back to make them pay.

    It's only right.

    Apple is simply doing what they have to in order to keep a runamick Samsing in check legally.

    Apple would not be forced to respond if Samsung would stop filing needlessly.

    And this latest is a case in poinnt. They filed and Apple didn't file back, so they just filed again preemptively. RIDICULOUS!

    It's that kind of thing that is an abuse of the system and Apple wasn't excessive. Samsing was.

    ONLY Samsung should be punished.

    But we have seen Koh's bias before.

    If Apple was the one, then Apple would be punished alone.

    since it's Samsung, she makes Apple pay for their folly.

    That's a poor judge right there.
  • Reply 8 of 41
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,110member
    Just to be safe Ssmsung should be barred from conducting any business in the U.S.
  • Reply 9 of 41
    I don't know if it's the legal system or th judge pushing it. But no, Apple is not wrong. And citing four year old kids: any four year old kid seeing the picture in the article would immediately come to the conclusion who copied what.

    The longer this drags out the more it becomes a farce.
    What angers me is that due to the vast speed of innovation in this field of course by now it's all "common" and "state of the art". Swipe to unlock. Overall shape and design. AppStore. But it was once INVENTED by SOMEONE.
    What angers me most is that obviously with deep enough pickets you can just sit and enjoy your latte while your lawyers drag the whole thing into oblivion, proving that immoral behavior on big scales is actually rewarded and accepted by society.

    They should have kicked Samsung back then strongly where it hurts most.
  • Reply 10 of 41
    Samsung is the desperate party here. Being forced to pay Apple would be another negative hit on Samsung's smartphone image. With Samsung's smartphone shipments crashing and it's buy one smartphone get another free, buy one smartphone and get a tablet free, test a smartphone and get a $100 Google Play Store credit then buy the smartphone and get $100 from Samsung shenanigans imploding, dealing with Verizon choosing to delay support beta testing Samsung Pay, and sidestepping the Taiwan verdict that it gained stolen knowledge of TSMC's manufacturing process in an attempt to win re-entry to being the primary Apple AP manufacturer all at the same time, Samsung is becoming irrelevant.

    I apologize for the running sentence! ????
  • Reply 11 of 41
    lymf wrote: »
    Seriously though, as much as I agree that Samsung copied on Apple, this is becoming ridiculous. I've seen 4 y.o. kids acting less childish in a school courtyard.

    And seriously, don't tell me that it's Samsung's fault. At this stage, its both fault.

    I'm reading this and really, all I can think of is a fight between 4 y.o. kids...

    4 year old kids will be 40 before Apple sees a dime from this legal battle. Judge Koh and Samsung have just reinforced the idea that patents aren't defensible. Apple should just make a like of devices that are identical to Galaxy and Notes just to spite these fuckers.
  • Reply 12 of 41
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,566member

    Seems sensible, when both the parties are falling over each other to get a word in, to tell both of them to shut up until the court is ready.  Good on the judge.

  • Reply 13 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dbolander View Post



    4 year old kids will be 40 before Apple sees a dime from this legal battle. Judge Koh and Samsung have just reinforced the idea that patents aren't defensible. Apple should just make a like of devices that are identical to Galaxy and Notes just to spite these fuckers.

     

    Here's another idea:

     

    Apple should take a page out of Android's book and give away their phones and tablets for one year only.

     

    That would expand their customer base and seriously f*ck with the competition, Samsung included.

     

    (Yeah, this is a joke. But it'd be fun to see)

  • Reply 14 of 41
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cali View Post





    YES.



    If you can't see the proof before your eyes you have got to be stupid as s***!



    Fine and move on.



    Not according to Samsung's Lawyers. Your eyes are telling you lies. They apparently have the proof that they are lying to you.

    IMHO, the Judge is sick to the back teeth with this case. My guess is that the next filing by the Samsung legal team will be to have her reclused and replaced by a more adaptable Judge.

    This might backfire on them but remember that officially the SCO vs IBM case is still alive (on life support) after close to 12 years.

    This has a long long way to go yet. Samsung want it to go on as long as possible in the hope that every Apple patent gets invalidated by the USPTO. Visual comparisons don't set precident in US Cases. You need more than that.

  • Reply 15 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,317member
    dbolander wrote: »
    4 year old kids will be 40 before Apple sees a dime from this legal battle. Judge Koh and Samsung have just reinforced the idea that patents aren't defensible.
    I wouldn't be so quick to throw Koh under the bus as she's not "anti-patent". For example she's the only judge in the world to find that Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent is valid. Also you may not remember she's the judge that granted two Apple requests for preliminary injunctions against Samsung.
  • Reply 16 of 41
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,206member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rotateleftbyte View Post

     



    Not according to Samsung's Lawyers. Your eyes are telling you lies. They apparently have the proof that they are lying to you.

    IMHO, the Judge is sick to the back teeth with this case. My guess is that the next filing by the Samsung legal team will be to have her reclused and replaced by a more adaptable Judge.

    This might backfire on them but remember that officially the SCO vs IBM case is still alive (on life support) after close to 12 years.

    This has a long long way to go yet. Samsung want it to go on as long as possible in the hope that every Apple patent gets invalidated by the USPTO. Visual comparisons don't set precident in US Cases. You need more than that.


    Every day that Samsung fights this, Samsung get weaker in mobile, and Apple gets stronger. If Apple gets defeated on patents, will just buy whatever technology that they need and as master of design and manufacture, crush everyone else.

     

    Every frickin' day, Samsung falls further behind.

     

    So fight to the end Samsung; invalidate every Apple patent,  and while you're doing that, don't look behind you as the other great copiers in Asia consume your market, then ultimately consume you. That's the real justice that will be visited on Samsung, you'll be dying a slow death in mobile.

  • Reply 17 of 41
    ronnronn Posts: 300member
    [B]"The Court has not yet received the mandate from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals," Judge Koh wrote in her order.[/B]

    Apple jumped the gun, procedurally. Samsung would never allow an opportunity to delay and frustrate to go to waste. The Feds will give Koh a mandate and all parties can proceed accordingly. Apple will keep fighting on, but justice will never be optained.
  • Reply 18 of 41
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,206member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I wouldn't be so quick to throw Koh under the bus as she's not "anti-patent". For example she's the only judge in the world to find that Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent is valid. Also you may not remember she's the judge that granted two Apple requests for preliminary injunctions against Samsung.

    Most of those in Europe I'm guessing.

     

     

    A little note on innovation just after the one minute mark.

     

    I'm sure there's no correlation with EU's patent laws, just an interesting bit of data.

  • Reply 19 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,317member
    tmay wrote: »
    Most of those in Europe I'm guessing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_VdTGdFeCs&list=PL67plOPT3Am0JbnL_LjU2X1DfraHvVsWd

    A little note on innovation just after the one minute mark.

    I'm sure there's no correlation with EU's patent laws, just an interesting bit of data.
    Of course. Koh is the only US judge to hear a case involving swipe-to-unlock AFAIK.
  • Reply 20 of 41
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,558member
    9secondko wrote: »

    Koh just loves her homeland.

    Since she was born in the U.S., I assume you mean America..
Sign In or Register to comment.