Apple and Samsung meet in first major post-trial hearing following $1.05B jury verdict
The Apple v. Samsung post-trial proceedings kicked off on Thursday when both parties met in Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom to discuss various motions, with Apple looking to garner additional damages while Samsung seeks a reduction of damages and a possible retrial.
Court document from the Apple v. Samsung jury trial.
According to in-court coverage from The Verge and AllThingsD, Judge Koh had a busy day hearing arguments from Apple and Samsung regarding their respective proposed motions. Due to the sheer number of requests and the complexity of the case's legal issues, the post-trial proceedings were quickly bogged.
While Judge Koh had hoped to offer "one omnibus order on everything," she later recanted, saying instead that decisions would be reached in installments. Not all judgments are expected to be handed in by the end of December as the jurist is currently presiding over another patent trial.
Apple's utility patents, like the '163 patent for tap-to-zoom functionality were among the first topics discussed, with Apple angling for more damages and Samsung looking for possible outs to overturn the jury's original verdict.
As far as damages, one important argument concerned the "notice date," or the date when Apple first notified Samsung of possible patent infringement. The notice date is crucial as both rate and time are calculated to reach a damages amount. Apple argues that it told Samsung it suspected patent violations as early as 2010, however the company failed to mention an exact property.
Apple argued that law doesn't require notice of specific patent infringement, however Judge Koh disagreed.
?I don?t want to be avant garde [on this]," she said.
Samsung proposed a new calculation based on a modified notice date that chops the jury's initial finding of $800 million in damages over ten infringing products to $17 million, while a separate decision over five infringed patents should be reduced to $4.6 million from $381 million.
Following a short break, the question of jury misconduct was broached. Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan acted improperly by not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit and bankruptcy relating to former employer Seagate. Judge Koh was quick to dismiss any such action as Apple did its due diligence in informing Samsung as soon as it knew of the situation.
"I think that topic has been fully briefed," Koh said.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, spoke about Apple's proposed injunctions against the Korean company's products. She pointed out a U.S. sales ban on products like the Galaxy S II, which are no longer shipping, holds no gain for Apple, but will harm Samsung. According to Sullivan, some 77,000 units of the S II still remain with retailers and the company would have to eat a loss if the handsets can't be sold.
Just before court adjourned, John Quinn stepped up to restate claims against jury foreman Hogan. He attempted drive home the point that Hogan lied to be part of the jury. Judge Koh didn't appear amused by Quinn's arguments, however she heard what he had to say before finally wrapping up the day's proceedings with a plea to the parties to broker a peace deal.
"It's time for global peace," Judge Koh told the parties' lawyers, according to CNet. "Is there anything the court can do? I'm more than willing to issue orders," she continued. "It would be good for consumers, good for the industry, good for the parties."
Samsung attorney said the company was willing to strike some sort of arrangement, alluding to Apple reluctance to do so.
"The ball's in their court," he said.
Since the Apple v. Samsung jury trial ended in August, the two companies have filed reams of paperwork holding post-trial motions and oppositions. The parties have another case set to start proceedings on March 31, 2014, in the same court. Apple and Samsung are both asserting utility patent claims against a number of devices, including the flagship iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III handsets.
Court document from the Apple v. Samsung jury trial.
According to in-court coverage from The Verge and AllThingsD, Judge Koh had a busy day hearing arguments from Apple and Samsung regarding their respective proposed motions. Due to the sheer number of requests and the complexity of the case's legal issues, the post-trial proceedings were quickly bogged.
While Judge Koh had hoped to offer "one omnibus order on everything," she later recanted, saying instead that decisions would be reached in installments. Not all judgments are expected to be handed in by the end of December as the jurist is currently presiding over another patent trial.
Apple's utility patents, like the '163 patent for tap-to-zoom functionality were among the first topics discussed, with Apple angling for more damages and Samsung looking for possible outs to overturn the jury's original verdict.
As far as damages, one important argument concerned the "notice date," or the date when Apple first notified Samsung of possible patent infringement. The notice date is crucial as both rate and time are calculated to reach a damages amount. Apple argues that it told Samsung it suspected patent violations as early as 2010, however the company failed to mention an exact property.
Apple argued that law doesn't require notice of specific patent infringement, however Judge Koh disagreed.
?I don?t want to be avant garde [on this]," she said.
Samsung proposed a new calculation based on a modified notice date that chops the jury's initial finding of $800 million in damages over ten infringing products to $17 million, while a separate decision over five infringed patents should be reduced to $4.6 million from $381 million.
Following a short break, the question of jury misconduct was broached. Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan acted improperly by not disclosing his involvement in a lawsuit and bankruptcy relating to former employer Seagate. Judge Koh was quick to dismiss any such action as Apple did its due diligence in informing Samsung as soon as it knew of the situation.
"I think that topic has been fully briefed," Koh said.
Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan, former dean of Stanford Law School, spoke about Apple's proposed injunctions against the Korean company's products. She pointed out a U.S. sales ban on products like the Galaxy S II, which are no longer shipping, holds no gain for Apple, but will harm Samsung. According to Sullivan, some 77,000 units of the S II still remain with retailers and the company would have to eat a loss if the handsets can't be sold.
Just before court adjourned, John Quinn stepped up to restate claims against jury foreman Hogan. He attempted drive home the point that Hogan lied to be part of the jury. Judge Koh didn't appear amused by Quinn's arguments, however she heard what he had to say before finally wrapping up the day's proceedings with a plea to the parties to broker a peace deal.
"It's time for global peace," Judge Koh told the parties' lawyers, according to CNet. "Is there anything the court can do? I'm more than willing to issue orders," she continued. "It would be good for consumers, good for the industry, good for the parties."
Samsung attorney said the company was willing to strike some sort of arrangement, alluding to Apple reluctance to do so.
"The ball's in their court," he said.
Since the Apple v. Samsung jury trial ended in August, the two companies have filed reams of paperwork holding post-trial motions and oppositions. The parties have another case set to start proceedings on March 31, 2014, in the same court. Apple and Samsung are both asserting utility patent claims against a number of devices, including the flagship iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III handsets.
Comments
If I were to guess, and based partly on the reporting of today's proceeding by those in the courtroom, Judge Koh is going to severely cut the jury's damages award. She reportedly saw logic with Samsung's explanation of how the jury arrived at a flawed damage finding. The blow-by-blow at TheVerge gets into that pretty well.
http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-samsung-patent-trial-hearing/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If I were to guess, and based partly on the reporting of today's proceeding by those in the courtroom, Judge Koh is going to severely cut the jury's damages award. She reportedly saw logic with Samsung's explanation of how the jury arrived at a flawed damage finding. The blow-by-blow at TheVerge gets into that pretty well.
http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-samsung-patent-trial-hearing/
This still makes me laugh. In case anyone hasn't seen it, go to page 10 and on. I should add I mention that because Appleinsider is still using that silly graphic, and some of those older styles are represented in the pdf. Also the pdf is referenced here in case anyone wonders where I found it.
Your link is interesting. Quite a lot could be lost due to the blog rather than transcript nature of it. I wondered if it would be a little biased as theverge is a site that typically favors Apple. The suggested arguments from Apple's attorneys are fuzzy through the entirety of it, but again it's not a transcript. It's just a summary that suggests they don't want to see damages scrutinized where the jury awarded more than what was requested. The Seagate thing is also mentioned.
Quote:
4:52:11 PM PST
Koh: "Let me ask a question. Mr. Hogan disclosed he worked for Seagate. Why didn't you ask him a question during voir dire?"
4:52:46 PM PST
Quinn says they would have followed up on the lawsuit if they'd known about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If I were to guess, and based partly on the reporting of today's proceeding by those in the courtroom, Judge Koh is going to severely cut the jury's damages award. She reportedly saw logic with Samsung's explanation of how the jury arrived at a flawed damage finding. The blow-by-blow at TheVerge gets into that pretty well.
http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-samsung-patent-trial-hearing/
Of course you would guess this, why am I not surprised?
I read through the comments and it looks like some damages could get reduced, but nowhere near to what Samsung wants ($1 billion down to $20 million). After they've reduced Koh will triple the damage for wilful infringement.
The only way a company could ever get away with using someone's IP and not being found to do so wilfuly is if they never knew of the other company's IP in the first place. For example, a company using IP that some obscure, small company already patented. In this case you could plead ignorance of the IP that belongs to the smaller company.
It's going to be virtually impossible for Samsung to say they didn't wilfully infringe considering Apple warned them twice and Google warned them once. Oh, and their internal report analyzing the iPhone. Hey wait, maybe Samsung can claim none of their designers ever heard of the iPhone before?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If I were to guess, and based partly on the reporting of today's proceeding by those in the courtroom, Judge Koh is going to severely cut the jury's damages award. She reportedly saw logic with Samsung's explanation of how the jury arrived at a flawed damage finding. The blow-by-blow at TheVerge gets into that pretty well.
http://live.theverge.com/live-apple-samsung-patent-trial-hearing/
Depends on which coverage you followed. If you followed the Verge coverage, you get the impression that Samsung scored some massive points, whereas if you followed coverage by Mercury News ( @hmintz ) you get a slightly different impression... although he did indicate there may be a reduction in the awarded amount at the end of today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Of course you would guess this, why am I not surprised?
I read through the comments and it looks like some damages could get reduced, but nowhere near to what Samsung wants ($1 billion down to $20 million). After they've reduced Koh will triple the damage for wilful infringement.
Apparently we don't disagree on that point all that much, if at all...
and on that I am surprised!
By the way, you've still got a post waiting for a respectful response if you're up for it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/154820/ftc-motorola-bid-for-apple-product-injunction-inappropriate#post_2242615
You can't go by what the judge says in these hearings. Unless she blatantly says that one party is wrong it doesn't mean what you think it does. If you ever follow the Supreme Court proceedings, you will see that judges often ask the strongest questions of, and are often apparently most skeptical of the side that they eventually rule for. They are attempting to find every chink in the side's case before making a ruling.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here for certain, but it's certain that it's possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Depends on which coverage you followed. If you followed the Verge coverage, you get the impression that Samsung scored some massive points, whereas if you followed coverage by Mercury News ( @hmintz ) you get a slightly different impression... although he did indicate there may be a reduction in the awarded amount at the end of today...
I just looked it up here. They're fairly similar to the point where if you want a better impression, you would require a transcript.
I got the impression Apple's lawyers were inclined to barely compromise with Samsung's attorney's when Apple's lead lawyer offered a jar of lube to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You can't go by what the judge says in these hearings. Unless she blatantly says that one party is wrong it doesn't mean what you think it does. If you ever follow the Supreme Court proceedings, you will see that judges often ask the strongest questions of, and are often apparently most skeptical of the side that they eventually rule for. They are attempting to find every chink in the side's case before making a ruling.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here for certain, but it's certain that it's possible.
Completely agree with you Mel. Predicting the court's direction based on the questions asked isn't something I'd take to Vegas. That's why it's simply my guess rather than a bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
That image makes it look like Samsung stopped making other types of phones. For fairness, their version looks like this:
Originally Posted by KDarling
That image makes it look like Samsung stopped making other types of phones. For fairness, their version looks like this:
Exactly!
Did you thought Apple would realistically portrait Samsung in the courtroom? .... Me neither.
Originally Posted by Nathillien
Did you thought Apple would realistically portrait Samsung in the courtroom? .... Me neither.
Of course not! Silly perjury. You're obviously not completely wrong.