Judge Koh overrules Samsung objection to patent video depicting Apple products
U.S. Judge Lucy H. Koh has overruled objections raised by Samsung regarding an instructional video providing jurors an introduction to the patent system.
AppleInsider exclusively reported on Saturday that Samsung had raised objections to the "how patents work" video, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.
Apple had proposed to use the latest version of "The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors," a video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system.
At the beginning of the first Apple vs. Samsung case, jurors were shown a similar video. However, over the past year the the FJC developed an updated version, replacing the dated-looking earlier edition that depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below).
The new video (below) appears on the US Courts YouTube channel, where it is described as being "carefully crafted, in consultation with judges and members of the bar, to present a balanced view of the patent process," noting that "individual judges will want to review it carefully and consult with counsel before deciding whether to use it in a particular case."
Samsung has filed an objection to showing the new version of video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."
Today, Judge Koh issued a ruling noting that "Samsung's objection to Apple's proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders."
AppleInsider exclusively reported on Saturday that Samsung had raised objections to the "how patents work" video, claiming it would be "highly prejudicial" to expose jurors to the idea that Apple invented original products worthy of being patented.
Apple had proposed to use the latest version of "The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors," a video created by the Federal Judicial Center to provide jurors with an introduction to the patent system.
At the beginning of the first Apple vs. Samsung case, jurors were shown a similar video. However, over the past year the the FJC developed an updated version, replacing the dated-looking earlier edition that depicted actors wearing lots of plaid (below).
The new video (below) appears on the US Courts YouTube channel, where it is described as being "carefully crafted, in consultation with judges and members of the bar, to present a balanced view of the patent process," noting that "individual judges will want to review it carefully and consult with counsel before deciding whether to use it in a particular case."
Samsung has filed an objection to showing the new version of video, stating that "the FJC video includes several scenes in which Apple products are depicted and used."
Today, Judge Koh issued a ruling noting that "Samsung's objection to Apple's proposed version of the Federal Judicial Center instructional video (ECF No. 1534) is overruled. The parties shall bring the November 2013 version of the video, 'The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,' and shall include the handout referenced in the video in the jury binders."
Comments
Shameful company. I absolutely, steadfastly refuse to directly give them any of my business.
Apple moving to another supplier for its components can't come soon enough.
Hopefully to be stated by Judge Koh
I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better. It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.
Awesome
I couldn't agree more.
It's the plaid's fault.
I see that jury shot and think I'm watching, ``Kentucky Fried Movie.''
Best shower scene ever.
I was going to make a Sanford & Son joke, actually.
Dyno-mite!
Watchoo lookin' at Willis!
Apple should propose that Samsung be sent for psychological testing. That turd of a company is past despair and lewd irrelevance. Maybe its a language deficiency (in whatever language it uses to justify the space and time it takes up in every parcel of life it squanders from, to and between its prattle to court). Maybe its council needs special council assistance; I know for a fact that the deficient of mind and reason have court appointed attendants to assist in keeping feet and other appendages out of mouths. A special court bopper paddle is used in Canada but I am sure a heftier device is use state side.
It is only my gentle care and concern for Samsung that urges me to their assistance in their desperate hours of need, 24-seven.
I looked at both old and new, and liked the old one better. It said a bit less, but I think the jurors are more likely to understand it.
And possibly (unlikely) if Samsung had made that argument, they may have won.
But ...
Schweeeeet!!!!
The judge is going in dry!!!!
Honestly, this decision worries me a little. The trial doesn't require the video, and including the video (if appellate judges disagree with Koh that it may prejudice the jury) may provide Samsung with grounds for appeal if they lose. Better not to show it. There are other ways to introduce the jurors to patent issues.