Second Apple v. Samsung damages retrial set for March or April 2016
A California federal judge presiding over the ongoing Apple v. Samsung legal spat on Tuesday set a March or April 2016 start date for the case's second damages retrial, an action that could see Samsung pay out some of the $548 million it owes for infringing on Apple's patents.
In her case management order, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh said she is moving forward with retrial proceedings after receiving an official mandate from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the CAFC denied Samsung's petition for an en banc rehearing of a prior decision that left the company saddled with $399 million in damages ruling, kicking the case back down to district court.
MLex's Mike Swift noted Judge Koh's order earlier today.
It appears that Judge Koh is looking to expedite an outcome, as she is not allowing either party to float new theories in the upcoming retrial. As it stands, the trial will calculate correct damages for five -- long discontinued -- Samsung products found to have infringed upon six Apple patents. Given the limited scope compared to 2013's partial retrial Judge Koh is allowing seven days for trial proceedings, including opening statements and closing arguments.
The retrial will be the third jury trial in the original Apple v. Samsung court case, which initially left Samsung on the hook for $1.05 billion, and the forth such action to come before Judge Koh's court as part of the companies' wider patent struggle. Subsequent retrials and CAFC decisions successfully argued by Samsung whittled Apple's award down to $548 million.
Last week both parties filed a flurry of documents including requests for a partial final judgment from Apple and a Samsung motion to stay trial proceedings on grounds of patent invalidity findings. After Samsung lodged an objection to Apple's proposal last week, the fifth back-and-forth filing in four days, Judge Koh banned both sides from entering briefs.
With the CAFC mandate handed down, Judge Koh ordered Apple to issue responses to Samsung's prior objection and motion for judgment as a matter of law by Sept. 8 and Sept. 9, respectively. The jurist took time to note in her order that Apple is still limited in its filing capacity.
Apple and Samsung have to file joint case management statements by Sept. 11 before meeting at the San Jose Courthouse on Sept. 16 for a case management conference.
In her case management order, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh said she is moving forward with retrial proceedings after receiving an official mandate from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Last month, the CAFC denied Samsung's petition for an en banc rehearing of a prior decision that left the company saddled with $399 million in damages ruling, kicking the case back down to district court.
MLex's Mike Swift noted Judge Koh's order earlier today.
It appears that Judge Koh is looking to expedite an outcome, as she is not allowing either party to float new theories in the upcoming retrial. As it stands, the trial will calculate correct damages for five -- long discontinued -- Samsung products found to have infringed upon six Apple patents. Given the limited scope compared to 2013's partial retrial Judge Koh is allowing seven days for trial proceedings, including opening statements and closing arguments.
The retrial will be the third jury trial in the original Apple v. Samsung court case, which initially left Samsung on the hook for $1.05 billion, and the forth such action to come before Judge Koh's court as part of the companies' wider patent struggle. Subsequent retrials and CAFC decisions successfully argued by Samsung whittled Apple's award down to $548 million.
Last week both parties filed a flurry of documents including requests for a partial final judgment from Apple and a Samsung motion to stay trial proceedings on grounds of patent invalidity findings. After Samsung lodged an objection to Apple's proposal last week, the fifth back-and-forth filing in four days, Judge Koh banned both sides from entering briefs.
With the CAFC mandate handed down, Judge Koh ordered Apple to issue responses to Samsung's prior objection and motion for judgment as a matter of law by Sept. 8 and Sept. 9, respectively. The jurist took time to note in her order that Apple is still limited in its filing capacity.
Apple and Samsung have to file joint case management statements by Sept. 11 before meeting at the San Jose Courthouse on Sept. 16 for a case management conference.
Comments
Hip, hip... Hooray! /s
I hope Samsung get a second stinger.
Add more bass to the treble damages!
Clueless Koh is Exhibit A.
It's just like when your favorite show gets a new season...
...and it sucks. Please, make it stop.
His last Twitter post was August 18(?). On vacation maybe?
Seems like the longer this drags on the amount of damages keeps dwindling.
This may not end nearly as well for Apple as they had hoped. One by one these patents are found to be invalid.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/before-apple-collects-dime-from-samsung.html
It does not appear that Apple has suffered damages over any of these patents.
Apple continues to sell more product than they can make, and are on top of the world for good reason. They simply make great products that people want to buy and use.
So at the end of the day, patents be damned. This has all been a huge exercise in wasting taxpayer money.
"Wasting taxpayer money"? Defense of constitutionally protected property rights in court is part of the deal in America. The courts are fulfilling their function. Arguably, they are doing a crap job of it, but there you go.
Seems like the longer this drags on the amount of damages keeps dwindling.
This may not end nearly as well for Apple as they had hoped. One by one these patents are found to be invalid.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/before-apple-collects-dime-from-samsung.html
It does not appear that Apple has suffered damages over any of these patents.
Apple continues to sell more product than they can make, and are on top of the world for good reason. They simply make great products that people want to buy and use.
So at the end of the day, patents be damned. This has all been a huge exercise in wasting taxpayer money.
"Wasting taxpayer money"? Defense of constitutionally protected property rights in court is part of the deal in America. The courts are fulfilling their function. Arguably, they are doing a crap job of it, but there you go.
I don't disagree with you mostly.
But if your "protected property rights" are found to be invalid in the first place, it's the patent office that is doing a crap job of it, not the court. In fact it is the court who is tasked with mopping up the mess made by the patent office and setting the record straight for the patent office.
I guess this is simply the system working itself out. The court is pushing the patent office in a "checks and balances" sort of way. So in that sense the system is working after all.
Actually I don't think Apple was "hoping" for anything other than to get Samsung and any other manufacturers with similar ideas to quit stealing their designs. The monetary reward was secondary and I doubt ever counted on receiving a substantial amount any time soon.
The longer Samsung fights this, the more it will be seen as a thief with enough to fight having to pay for a crime. The company is on track to spend more money fighting for the right to steal without penalty. With the eight consecutive quarter of slowing shipments and sales of its smartphones looming one would think getting rid of negative press would be a priority for Samsung. But no. The company is marching forward.
Regardless of morals or ethics, it was a bold, calculated... and might I add, successful... tactical business decision by Samsung and their lawyers after the fact.
As far as I can ascertain, Apple has and will always have a difficult time playing down the "patented rounded corners" bogus summary of their decision to sue Samsung.
In essence: Samsung won the short PR battle... but in the long-term and end will have lost the war.
Mainly... and I'll catch some flak over this statement I'm sure... but because of the unfortunate situation and circumstances surrounding Steve Jobs' illness and death, that put a far better tactician... namely Tim Cook... at the helm of Apple to take over the war effort known as going Thermonuclear". TC was the one that ramped up all efforts at Apple to make a smart-phone that Samsung could only copy from appearance (rounded corners? Take 'em who cares! Icons? Knock yourself out!)), but would NEVER be able to equal or reach technically from the insides looking out, or match the ecosystem that Apple cohesively wrapped all of their devices with.
The above tactic and strategy is what will go down in business schools as a case study to learn by, not the original Apple suit. Samsung moving for the short term gain will be seen as near-sighted and foolish in comparison, not because what they may eventually have to pay in dollars.... but in the sense of it all in regards to the big picture AKA Next Big Thing they bet the house on... and lost... Big Time!
All of course IMHO....:smokey:
Regardless of morals or ethics, it was a bold, calculated... and might I add, successful... tactical business decision by Samsung and their lawyers after the fact.
As far as I can ascertain, Apple has and will always have a difficult time playing down the "patented rounded corners" bogus summary of their decision to sue Samsung.
In essence: Samsung won the short PR battle... but in the long-term and end will have lost the war.
Mainly... and I'll catch some flak over this statement I'm sure... but because of the unfortunate situation and circumstances surrounding Steve Jobs' illness and death, that put a far better tactician... namely Tim Cook... at the helm of Apple to take over the war effort known as going Thermonuclear". TC was the one that ramped up all efforts at Apple to make a smart-phone that Samsung could only copy from appearance (rounded corners? Take 'em who cares! Icons? Knock yourself out!)), but would NEVER be able to equal or reach technically from the insides looking out, or match the ecosystem that Apple cohesively wrapped all of their devices with.
The above tactic and strategy is what will go down in business schools as a case study to learn by, not the original Apple suit. Samsung moving for the short term gain will be seen as near-sighted and foolish in comparison, not because what they may eventually have to pay in dollars.... but in the sense of it all in regards to the big picture AKA Next Big Thing they bet the house on... and lost... Big Time!
All of course IMHO....
I agree. Samsung won the battle (over copying), allowing them to catapult into the top tier along with larger displays. (Would Samsung be as large today if they had only copied but didn't have larger displays? Makes me wonder...)
Apple, always playing the long game, is winning the subsequent battles (in the marketplace) with better engineering/ecosystem/etc. When I first heard of TC buying years of component supply in advance (while SJ was still alive), I didn't realize the significance then. Now those forward-looking contracts look brilliant now (remember the Flash shortages that everyone not named Apple had during the iPod years?). Samsung may have more vertical integration than Apple for components, but that isn't beating Apple's engineering/ecosystem.
Apart from that, this isn't a criminal law case, but a civil lawsuit. In civil cases, doesn't the losing party cover court costs?