Apple, Samsung dispute tentative juror verdict form in California patent trial
Apple and Samsung continue to be at loggerheads over seemingly every action in their second California patent trial, the latest issue being a tentative juror verdict form issued by presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Wednesday.
After Judge Koh published the verdict form, parts of which were taken from forms both parties presented weeks ago, Apple and Samsung on Thursday filed statements arguing against the proposed document.
As noted by Macworld, Apple claims the verdict form is too complex as it stands, while Samsung asserts the opposite. Judge Koh's version consists of 15 questions pertaining to alleged infringed devices and patents from each side. Overall, jurors will need to address nearly 250 decisions and calculations.
The tentative verdict form is around the same length as Apple's proposed form, but is drastically shorter than Samsung's behemoth 50-question filing. The two companies submitted their respective verdict form versions in late February.
For the most part, Apple counsel is in agreement with Judge Koh's verdict form, but mentions two points of contention that may require modification. The first is Samsung's proposed question (labeled question 10(a) in the tentative verdict form) that asks jurors to fill out a chart with 60 boxes pertaining to "three separate questions using three different parameters (three time periods, five patents and ten products)."
According to Apple, Judge Koh rejected a similarly complex verdict form in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial as it benefits neither party while increasing the likelihood of an inconsistent verdict.
In addition, Apple wishes to clarify certain subparts to questions regarding its '959 patent for universal search and '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock." The company notes that not all accused infringing devices are applicable to its claims as Samsung temporarily removed accused functionality from certain software versions. Without offering proper detail as to the timing of these operating system modifications, the jury may wrongfully find for or against infringement for a certain device.
Samsung also notes the discrepancy in its statement, saying, "Apple is not accusing all operating software versions and subversions" of infringement on its patents-in-suit.
Further, the Korean company requests more detail concerning damages theories that it says will allow for a "more transparent understanding of the jury's damages award, if any."
Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages on lost sales and royalties for alleged patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. For its part, Samsung argues Apple's patents are only worth $38.4 million when applied to 37 million accused infringing devices.
Both parties are expected to wrap up the testimony phase of their respective cases on Friday and present closing arguments on Monday. Jury deliberations could begin as soon as Monday afternoon or Tuesday.
After Judge Koh published the verdict form, parts of which were taken from forms both parties presented weeks ago, Apple and Samsung on Thursday filed statements arguing against the proposed document.
As noted by Macworld, Apple claims the verdict form is too complex as it stands, while Samsung asserts the opposite. Judge Koh's version consists of 15 questions pertaining to alleged infringed devices and patents from each side. Overall, jurors will need to address nearly 250 decisions and calculations.
The tentative verdict form is around the same length as Apple's proposed form, but is drastically shorter than Samsung's behemoth 50-question filing. The two companies submitted their respective verdict form versions in late February.
For the most part, Apple counsel is in agreement with Judge Koh's verdict form, but mentions two points of contention that may require modification. The first is Samsung's proposed question (labeled question 10(a) in the tentative verdict form) that asks jurors to fill out a chart with 60 boxes pertaining to "three separate questions using three different parameters (three time periods, five patents and ten products)."
According to Apple, Judge Koh rejected a similarly complex verdict form in the first Apple v. Samsung jury trial as it benefits neither party while increasing the likelihood of an inconsistent verdict.
In addition, Apple wishes to clarify certain subparts to questions regarding its '959 patent for universal search and '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock." The company notes that not all accused infringing devices are applicable to its claims as Samsung temporarily removed accused functionality from certain software versions. Without offering proper detail as to the timing of these operating system modifications, the jury may wrongfully find for or against infringement for a certain device.
Samsung also notes the discrepancy in its statement, saying, "Apple is not accusing all operating software versions and subversions" of infringement on its patents-in-suit.
Further, the Korean company requests more detail concerning damages theories that it says will allow for a "more transparent understanding of the jury's damages award, if any."
Apple is seeking $2.19 billion in damages on lost sales and royalties for alleged patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. For its part, Samsung argues Apple's patents are only worth $38.4 million when applied to 37 million accused infringing devices.
Both parties are expected to wrap up the testimony phase of their respective cases on Friday and present closing arguments on Monday. Jury deliberations could begin as soon as Monday afternoon or Tuesday.
Comments
Perhaps the form should focus on what Samsung didn't copy.
The press is so very wrong about why Apple is suing!
Apple is requesting Samsung to do one thing and is being polite with the request... Please stop copying.
For some inexplicable reason Samsung refuses to agree.
And, for another inexplicable reason Judge Lucy Koh refuses to allow a sales band on Samsung's infringing products.
Any future Apple breakthrough technology is in jeopardy of being slavishly, unapologetically copied by Samsung if Samsung is not forced to stop.
The verdict form has to be complicated. Just look at the hundreds of models Samsung has cloned from the iPhone!
Samsung has something like 10,000 versions of Android, customised for various models, carriers and networks.
Next up the 2013-2014 infringements.
no point making a blank form..hehe
Quite simply, it was very rewarding for Samsung to copy the iPhone in every way possible.
Perhaps the form should focus on what Samsung didn't copy.
no point making a blank form..hehe
Is it safe to use a jury in complex IP case like this? Surely they're less likely to return the correct verdict than a judge.
I don't have a good feeling for Apple this time. The press wasn't so favourable to Apple around this trial. Hope the court looks at things differently and surprises me.
The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.
Have some faith in Justice.
Apple could just franchise its designs to Samsung et al and stop making the stuff themselves - except that the quality would rapidly deteriorate and the tender loving care would be conspicuously absent.
The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.
Have some faith in Justice.
You're joking right? Your own government doesn't even follow the rule of law.
Kind of like the super awesome ebooks trial!
Justice departed long ago in the US.
Ask Apple if it could do things differently would it chose a jury in its eBook case.
The press doesn't decide the results of trials, fortunately.
Have some faith in Justice.
Unfortunately, press is ALL over the world and jurors are real people who read their craps and take notes ...
And, if there was justice, there would no company named samsung!
If Samsung had taken care NOT to rip off iPhone/iPad so much, I think they could have benefited from making the components for Apple.
My Scamsung refrigerator has little or no resemblance to an iPad, I can vouch for that. That just about covers it I think
I agree but the trial by press doesn't occur all over the world, not sure but I think it is predominantly a US thing.
Sadly, I suspect it is more to do with the money that can be made by the media, and hence their vigorous and no doubt heavily lobbied support for 'trail by the press' err, sorry I mean, openness and fairness (cough) ... If America enacted sub justice law as practiced in the UK and its past colonies (the US obviously a big exception) it might go a long way to correcting this although I understand the legitimate non press related counter arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice
How *do* you manage to survive in such an unjust First World society? A story like this has never been told....
all these patent disputes only hurt consumers