Judge "disappointed" over Apple and Samsung jury instructions, orders lead counsel to meet in person

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Sunday ordered Apple and Samsung's lead attorneys to meet and hash out final jury instructions, a point of contention since the trial began two weeks ago.

Judge Koh issued the order a day before the Apple v. Samsung patent trial enters its third week, saying the parties need to meet in person to hammer out joint and disputed final jury instructions by Monday.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, the somewhat unusual order was prompted by Apple and Samsung's failure to resolve disagreements as to what rules the jury must follow in deciding the case. Thus far, the parties have yet to produce a finalized joint document that outlines the agreements and disagreements, on which Judge Koh may need to resolve through a ruling.

Court Order
Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


In a filing on Friday, Apple said it has attempted to "advance the process" of reaching some sort of consensus regarding jury instructions, but claims "Samsung has stymied those efforts." The South Korean electronics giant filed a similar claim later that day disagreeing with Apple's assessment of the situation, saying it "has agreed to more than twenty revised instructions proposed by Apple and is continuing to review Apple's remaining disputed instructions for any common ground." Samsung's filing goes on to claim that Apple "agreed to only two complete instructions drafted solely by Samsung."

Mueller notes the parties' disagreements are unlikely to be resolved through negotiations, meaning Judge Koh will have to rule on the matter. While the final jury instructions are not required for at least a week, the Court must have time to review the disputed terms before issuing a ruling.

In another order also filed on Sunday, Judge Koh denied "Apple's Offer of Proof Regarding Evidence of its iPhone and iPad Advertisements," saying the Court construes it as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Samsung objected to the advertisements' admission into evidence, but was initially overruled on the grounds that they were relevant to the question of "fame" regarding Apple's trade dress claims. A second Samsung objection, however, was successful as the Court agreed with the company and found the clips were "cumulative" and "allowed only the indices into evidence."

From the order:
The Court construes ?Apple?s Offer of Proof Regarding Evidence of Its iPhone and iPad Advertisements? (ECF No. 1602) as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court denies Apple?s motion for leave because the motion does not meet the requirements for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Accordingly, Apple may not file a motion for reconsideration.
Apple v. Samsung picks up on Monday when Samsung's first witnesses will take the stand in defense of Apple's patent infringement accusations. According to the Korean company's rolling witness list, Adam Bogue and Clifton Forlines will give testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 "pinch to zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I wonder if this sort of thing is common for Koh.
  • Reply 2 of 27

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Apple v. Samsung picks up on Monday when Samsung's first witnesses will take the stand in defense of Apple's patent infringement accusations. According to the Korean company's rolling witness list, Adam Bogus and Clifton Foreskins will give testimony relating to prior art to Apple's '915 "pinch to zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents.


     


    Yeah... yeah... something like that...

  • Reply 3 of 27
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member
    Instructions to the jury:

    1) forget everything about the F700
    2) only allow Apple statements into consideration
    3) the guy Bressler, he's OK but the cross examination is irrelevant
  • Reply 4 of 27


    It'd be funny if the trial continued into September and some of the jurors asked to be excused to go stand in line for the next iPhone. Won't happen of course, but that would be pretty funny and awful at the same time.

  • Reply 5 of 27
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member


    I thought final instructions came from the judge herself.


    Why do the contestants have to create them?

  • Reply 6 of 27
    blitz1blitz1 Posts: 433member
    From the Apple motion to diismiss the F700

    [QUOTE]Going into the design history of the F700 in particular is extremely prejudicial because the risk is high that the jury will consider the F700 as evidence of independent development, invalidity, or non-infringement [/QUOTE]

    Only the iPhone had these design elements like a rectangular shape, rounded corners, ... You might take a look at Sammy's patent filing that Apple so blatantly copied.


    There is a logic to Apple trying to juridicial's filings that THE F700 DOES NOT EXIST!
  • Reply 7 of 27
    dmarcootdmarcoot Posts: 191member


    Yeah, because Samsung was doing so many amazing things prior to IPhone worth stealing. The truth is not what you think. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan

  • Reply 8 of 27
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post



    From the Apple motion to diismiss the F700

    Only the iPhone had these design elements like a rectangular shape, rounded corners, ... You might take a look at Sammy's patent filing that Apple so blatantly copied.

    There is a logic to Apple trying to juridicial's filings that THE F700 DOES NOT EXIST!


    I'm pretty sure that one was simply brought up as evidence too late and denied because of this.

  • Reply 9 of 27
    Apple want it 10 fold in their favour which is normal.

    Obviously there can never be any agreement if it is just them, it is just not Apple.
  • Reply 10 of 27
    jcallowsjcallows Posts: 150member


    Are we to believe that Samsung "has agreed to more than twenty revised instructions proposed by Apple"?  This coming from a company that destroyed evidence, released unapproved fabricated documents to the media, and claimed it drew inspiration from a bowl of water?

  • Reply 11 of 27
    It is common to require the parties to submit proposed jury instructions. When the instructions submitted by the parties are inconsistent, it is also not out of the ordinary for the judge to require the parties to try to come up with joint instructions. Improperly instructing the jury provides grounds for appeal, so having the parties agree to the instructions can take that out of consideration.
  • Reply 12 of 27
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    It'd be funny if the trial continued into September and some of the jurors asked to be excused to go stand in line for the next iPhone. Won't happen of course, but that would be pretty funny and awful at the same time.

    I'm sure they would be allowed to use proxy jurors to stand in line for them /smile
  • Reply 13 of 27
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.
  • Reply 14 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.


    Personally, as it's already four years in, I don't think it will happen. I also think that another 5 years from now Google will have moved past Android (as we know it now) as it's primary mobile OS anyway.

  • Reply 15 of 27
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dmarcoot View Post


    Yeah, because Samsung was doing so many amazing things prior to IPhone worth stealing. The truth is not what you think. http://nicklazilla.tumblr.com/post/29202801252/samsung-is-apples-biggest-fan



     


    #5 on the list was debunked and discussed here on the forums.

  • Reply 16 of 27
    nealgnealg Posts: 132member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    I just hope this moves us on to the real thing, the Google trial ... then the gutting of Android of all infringing aspects and Google being fined gazillions of dollars.


    It may also depend on what happens in this trial. If Apple wins, no matter if Samsung appeals, it may lead to Google/Motorola and the other phone manufacturers settling with Apple or having Google change things so that they don't infringe. As always, time will tell.

  • Reply 17 of 27
    j2fusionj2fusion Posts: 153member


    I lurk here a lot and very rarely post but I have to since seems like the trolls are really at it today so I have one question for them.  Are we really supposed to believe a company like this?


     


    http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/3028/samsung-power-corruption-and-lies/

  • Reply 18 of 27
    boredumb wrote: »
    I thought final instructions came from the judge herself.
    Why do the contestants have to create them?

    I had the same question.

    Isn't this what judges are for!?
  • Reply 19 of 27
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ... 5 years from now Google will have moved past Android (as we know it now) as it's primary mobile OS anyway.

    Really? Why, and to what?
  • Reply 20 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Really? Why, and to what?


    According to several news articles earlier this year Google is slowly merging Android and their Chrome OS. Probably unlikely that they'll be totally integrated anytime soon if at all, just as iOS and Mac may never be totally merged.


     


    A simple Google search for "Android and Chrome OS merge" should find several pertinent articles that explain the why's and what's from a couple of points of view.

Sign In or Register to comment.