Apple and Samsung ordered to narrow claims in upcoming lawsuit
A U.S. federal judge on Thursday ordered Apple and Samsung to pare down their respective cases in a patent suit slated to start in 2014, saying that both parties should know what assertions are strongest after battling in court for over a year.
According to an in-court report from Bloomberg, Judge Lucy Koh told Apple and Samsung counsel to "focus and streamline" their cases, limiting them to 25 patent claims and 25 products.
?We?ll keep narrowing and narrowing,? Judge Koh said. ?You?ve already been litigating this thing for a year; you must know something about what?s your best case.?
The lawsuit, which began as a February 2012 Apple complaint against the Samsung-built Galaxy Nexus, has grown to encompass a variety of alleged infringing devices, including the flagship iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III handsets. In a filing last week, Apple added Samsung's Galaxy Note line to its case, while the Korean company asserted three patents against "all generations" of the iPhone and iPad.
In mid-February, Judge Koh announced that she was considering putting a hold on the case until an appeals court handed down a ruling pertaining to the Apple v. Samsung court trial. The appeal was lodged by Apple following the company's unsuccessful bid to ban certain Samsung handsets after winning a landmark $1.05 billion verdict in August. Apple is pushing for the lawsuit to move forward, and notes there is no overlap with jury trial, an important consideration if the case is to proceed. Samsung, however, disagrees, claiming that overlap is substantial enough to put a hold on the second suit.
Both parties have until March 7 to submit official statements regarding the matter before Judge Koh makes a decision either way.
If the Galaxy Nexus case is not suspended, proceedings are scheduled to kick off in March 2014.
According to an in-court report from Bloomberg, Judge Lucy Koh told Apple and Samsung counsel to "focus and streamline" their cases, limiting them to 25 patent claims and 25 products.
?We?ll keep narrowing and narrowing,? Judge Koh said. ?You?ve already been litigating this thing for a year; you must know something about what?s your best case.?
The lawsuit, which began as a February 2012 Apple complaint against the Samsung-built Galaxy Nexus, has grown to encompass a variety of alleged infringing devices, including the flagship iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III handsets. In a filing last week, Apple added Samsung's Galaxy Note line to its case, while the Korean company asserted three patents against "all generations" of the iPhone and iPad.
In mid-February, Judge Koh announced that she was considering putting a hold on the case until an appeals court handed down a ruling pertaining to the Apple v. Samsung court trial. The appeal was lodged by Apple following the company's unsuccessful bid to ban certain Samsung handsets after winning a landmark $1.05 billion verdict in August. Apple is pushing for the lawsuit to move forward, and notes there is no overlap with jury trial, an important consideration if the case is to proceed. Samsung, however, disagrees, claiming that overlap is substantial enough to put a hold on the second suit.
Both parties have until March 7 to submit official statements regarding the matter before Judge Koh makes a decision either way.
If the Galaxy Nexus case is not suspended, proceedings are scheduled to kick off in March 2014.
Comments
Apple has already won a billion dollar suit - while Samsung keeps losing most of its suits. Clearly, Apple's case is stronger - so artificially limiting them to the same number of issues could work against justice.
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple has already won a billion dollar suit…
"But it's not over yet!" they cry. And here comes KD…
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If she pushes it too far, it opens it up for appeal.
Apple has already won a billion dollar suit - while Samsung keeps losing most of its suits. Clearly, Apple's case is stronger - so artificially limiting them to the same number of issues could work against justice.
I can see why she wants to limit patents. A jury would find it difficult if they had to decide a case with a large number of tehnical issues, so limiting makes for a more streamlined trial. Although this might help Samsung (since they have fewer patents), what about the next case Apple files (and I'm sure it's coming)? Samsung would "run out" of patents if they had additional cases where Apple would still have more to draw upon.
Jobs said they had over 200 patents on the iPhone when it launched. Eventually Samsungs tank is going to be empty and then Apple will have a huge advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"And here comes KD…
My only comment right now is that it doesn't sound very narrow.
They're only using about eight patents each. So that's about three claims per patent. Only takes one claim to prove infringement.
Btw, for those who are interested, many of the documents are available here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2012cv00630/251113/
But by arbitrarily limiting what Apple can claim, she is denying them justice.
The way the system is SUPPOSED to work is that the plaintiff has the right to make their case. If their case is too long and complicated for the jury and the jury falls asleep, that's their problem.
Originally Posted by jragosta
But by arbitrarily limiting what Apple can claim, she is denying them justice.
The way the system is SUPPOSED to work is that the plaintiff has the right to make their case. If their case is too long and complicated for the jury and the jury falls asleep, that's their problem.
Agreed. While there's a reasonable expectation for the plaintiff to have their claims in order, they shouldn't at all be limited in the number and scope thereof.
But this isn't the first time Apple has been told to "trim it down" in this way, much less overall (at the end of Apple v. Samsung, she told them they must be crazy if they thought they could call the number of witnesses they wanted in the time that was left). So why is that? What's the legal explanation behind these calls to "trim it down"?
Sweet crispy Jesus.... Is there a way we can filter Appleinsider via keywords, specifically "lawsuit"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I can see why she wants to limit patents. A jury would find it difficult if they had to decide a case with a large number of tehnical issues, so limiting makes for a more streamlined trial. Although this might help Samsung (since they have fewer patents), what about the next case Apple files (and I'm sure it's coming)? Samsung would "run out" of patents if they had additional cases where Apple would still have more to draw upon.
Right reason (making it easier for the jury), but it has nothing to do with the number of patents.
She's not limiting patents. Each side is still presenting eight patents.
She's limiting patent CLAIMS to a total of 25 (i.e. several per patent). It should really only take one claim to prove infringement, so she doesn't want the jury's time wasted explaining claims that aren't even relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But by arbitrarily limiting what Apple can claim, she is denying them justice.
That's what a lot of people thought when she prevented Samsung from presenting prior art at the last trial.
In a perfect world, each side would get as much time as they need, and be able to present all the evidence they wish.
In this case, though, the limit seems fair to both sides, since she's giving them more claims to work with than they should need.
Next time I commit a crime, make sure I commit more than twenty-five of them to avoid full prosecution...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
She's limiting patent CLAIMS to a total of 25 (i.e. several per patent). It should really only take one claim to prove infringement, so she doesn't want the jury's time wasted explaining claims that aren't even relevant.
But, by arbitrarily limiting the claims to 25 each side, she's first of all creating the impression, valid or not, that the claims by each side against the other are roughly equal, at least numerically. It also limits the number of patents that can be included in the case. She's also, in effect, arbitrarily limiting the possible damages. And it limits the juries ability to grasp the scope of infringement, which might impact a decision on whether it was willful or not, further limiting damages. And, of course, it can't be determined whether the claims are irrelevant if they can't be included in the case.
Quote:
That's what a lot of people thought when she prevented Samsung from presenting prior art at the last trial.
That "evidence" was not arbitrarily excluded.
But, this sort of thing, the false equivalency, is the stock in trade for you, GG, and the rest of the Google/Android zealots who come to these forums. I've remarked on this before, but the thing that bothers me most about you people is your complete lack of integrity, your habitual misrepresentations of fact. I don't think we've ever had a pro-Android poster on these forums who was actually honest most of the time, and not trying to spin, mislead, and distort the facts. Sad really, although, of course, some of you are paid for it, so it's not surprising.
I suspect that more patents will be invalidated on appeal....