decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Judge Koh Denies Apple Request to File Motion for Reconsideration so Samsung Goes 1st; Parties Agree to Delay Enforcement ~pj
Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:41 PM EDT

More activity in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, in the aftermath of the trial verdict. Thanks to the jury's unusually weird verdict, this aftermath could be very interesting indeed. I think it wouldn't be too much to say we may even be in uncharted waters, and the more the foreman explains, the deeper we go into the dark unknown.

Meanwhile, do you remember Apple's request that its motions to get permanent injunctions against a group of Samsung products be heard on the same day as Samsung's motion to lift the preliminary injunction that the judge, the Hon. Lucy Koh, placed on the Galaxy 10.1 pending a verdict? Samsung got an expedited schedule that set a hearing in September, while Apple's injunction motions couldn't be heard until December, and it wanted to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing it wasn't fair. Its request has been denied [PDF].

So Samsung goes first, in September, because it's about one product (the Galaxy Tab 10.1) and only one patent the jury ruled Samsung didn't infringe (that's Apple's D'889 -- the infamous design patent about those rounded corners etc.), whereas Apple's request is complex, involving trying to block from the US at least 8 Samsung products (and whatever else Apple decides to throw in there). Apple and Samsung have also agreed, and the judge has signed off on it, that there will be no enforcement of the jury verdict until certain post-verdict motions are decided. And there's more to come on certain Apple claims that the judge, not the jury, has to decide.

Judge Koh asks the parties to brief her on the following issues on Samsung's motion to dissolve, starting with this: isn't a preliminary injunction automatically dissolved if a jury finds you not infringing after all, or does the fact that it's being appealed impact that? She writes:

In briefing Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction, the parties shall address, in particular, the following issues: (1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction order (“PI Order”) automatically dissolves upon entry of final judgment, see U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010); (2) whether the fact that the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays any such dissolution; and (3) whether this Court has jurisdiction to rule on Samsung’s dissolution motion while the PI Order is on appeal, see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 59 (1982) (per curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 734-35 (9th Cir. 1982).
Apple also has been trying to block Samsung from including certain materials excluded from trial from Samsung's appeal, but Samsung points out [PDF] that the question on appeal is whether the exclusions were proper in the first place, so it would be weird to leave them out. I don't know what Apple was thinking on that one.

Apple also asks for [PDF] a schedule on the various issues that the jury didn't decide, "Apple’s claims of waiver, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition," which the judge must decide. Apple would like them to be scheduled so that they can also be heard in December along with its injunction issues. Finally the parties have agreed [PDF] to a schedule, which the judge has signed off on, whereby there will be no attempt by Apple to get any money from Samsung until all post-verdict motions are finally decided, with the only exceptions being motions for bills of cost or attorneys' fees:

Any attempt to execute or enforce the judgment, award, or verdict entered in favor of Apple and against Samsung (Dkt. Nos. 1931, 1933) shall be stayed until 14 days after the Court enters judgment resolving all post-trial motions filed pursuant to Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60 (but excluding any bill of costs or motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 54); and on the basis of this stipulation Samsung hereby withdraws without prejudice its Motion for Stay of August 24, 2012 Judgment (Dkt. No. 1941).
Here's Rule 50, "Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling", Rule 52, "Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings", Rule 59, "New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment", and Rule 60, "Relief from a Judgment or Order".

The filings:

1953 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2012
Opposition/Response to Motion
Docket Text: RESPONSE to ( [1941] MOTION for Stay of [1933] August 24, 2012 Damages Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ.P.62(b) ) Pending Resolution Of Post-Trial Motions filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1954 - Filed & Entered: 09/03/2012
Terminated: 09/06/2012
Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR ENFORCING JUDGMENT AND CERTAIN POST-VERDICT FILINGS filed by Apple Inc.. (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/3/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1955 - Filed & Entered: 09/04/2012
Reply to Opposition/Response
Docket Text: REPLY Brief (re [1911] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Proffer of Witness Testimony and Exhibits ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/4/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1956 - Filed & Entered: 09/04/2012
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury Claims filed by Apple Inc.. Responses due by 9/18/2012. Replies due by 9/25/2012. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 9/4/2012)

1957 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Stipulation
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting [1954] Stipulation Re: Schedule for Enforcing Judgment and Certain Post-Verdict Filings.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)

1958 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying [1950] Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)


  


Judge Koh Denies Apple Request to File Motion for Reconsideration so Samsung Goes 1st; Parties Agree to Delay Enforcement ~pj | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT
Please post corrections here.
A summary in the posts title may be helpful.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:32 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh asks the parties to brief her
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:22 PM EDT
(1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction order (“PI Order”)
automatically dissolves...
(2) whether the fact that the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays ...
(3) whether this Court has jurisdiction to rule on Samsung’s ... motion...

Why are those not points of law on which the Judge can rule without
briefing from the parties? [you can tell I'm so not a lawyer]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can you appeal against a juror?
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:28 PM EDT
Since the major wrong committed was the jury foreman taking
it upon himself to defend Apples patents, can it be appealed
that he was not impartial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Koh Denies Apple Request to File Motion for Reconsideration so Samsung Goes 1st; Parties Agree to Delay Enforcement ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 02:08 AM EDT
I'm starting to think that this court is not a result of a horrible patent
system, it is a result of a bad jury system. The patent system itself played
only minimal role, the jury basically ignored it.

It seems to me that biggest unfair point is the difficulty to appeal against
jury because "jury deliberations are supposed to be held in the highest
regard". Why is jury supposed to be infallible while judges are not?

Juries decide more on emotions and less on facts and rationality. They decide on
sympathies, fears and likes. Juries on average assign ridiculously high awards
which are routinely cut down - because they are ridiculous. Just about the only
they do better is that they have less chance of being corrupt.

It would be all OK, if the system did not assumed that jury can not make
mistakes. If there would be routine review facts vs juries decisions. But the
system treats jury as someone divine who almost never makes mistakes. That is
not a case.

Judges are fallible and so are juries. We should accept that as a fact. Appeals
against jury decisions should be easier then appeals against judges decisions.
They do not understand what they are doing.

Rant over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Apple was thinking
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:31 AM EDT
Apple also has been trying to block Samsung from including certain materials excluded from trial from Samsung's appeal, but Samsung points out [PDF] that the question on appeal is whether the exclusions were proper in the first place, so it would be weird to leave them out. I don't know what Apple was thinking on that one.
If I remember correctly, the reason to exclude them was timeliness. The decision whether to retry because of exclusion would then be independent from the actual content of the materials, so bringing the content to attention of the appeals court is a distraction.

The appeals court just has to decide whether Samsung had a proper chance of getting justice, not whether they actual got justice. If Samsung blew their chance by their own fault, that's no skin off the court's nose.

If, on the other hand, the materials were excluded not because of the timing but because of their purported lack of relevance, of course they need to be revisited on appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Braun LE1 speakers vs. Apple display
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
Here's a URL actually showing these speakers.

Braun LE 1 speakers, shown together with a chair

Looks like these speakers are just a tiny tiny little bigger than any Apple monitor. I'd say a good three feet high and four to five feet wide. That's one thing. Next, all similarity with the Apple monitor disappears completely if you rotate the monitor by just 20 degrees. While the Braun LE1 speaker are held by some massive steel frame (which in the photo looks like some thin wire frame), the foot of the Apple monitor only looks similar when you take a photo exactly from the side.

So please, if you want to come up with evidence that Apple is copying, or is even inspired, by Braun, come up with something real.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Braun T1000 radio vs. Mac Pro
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Here is a photo of the Braun T1000 portable radio, which has an amazing similarity with a Mac Pro:

Braun T1000 radio

Yes, looks exactly the same.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Braun's iPod design
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT
Here's a photo of the first iPod, designed by Braun in 1958:

Braun T3 pocket radio

Again, an amazing similarity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My wild IANAL guess ...
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
Samsung will bring up a number of different items.

If even just one of them is accepted by the appellate
court, and it has any effect on the evidence that the
jury based their decision on, then since the jury was
not given the evidence they should have had, this will
be grounds for a new jury trial.

I would call this the "GIGO" defense.

Samsung will bring up multiple decisions that did NOT
go their way. They will bring up excluded evidence,
such as the F700 which couldn't possibly be a copy since
it was done either before or so close after the Apple
product. Samsung will bring up their at least having
tried to save emails, while Apple who is bringing suit
didn't even save emails from everyone, or from the time
that Apple sued.

And Samsung will also point out the private axe that
the jury foreman has been sharpening strictly on behalf
of Apple. The one that only cuts Apples way, and none
other.

All the appellate court needs is one reason for a do-over.
Then we will get the chance to hear the fan-boys wailing
and gnashing of teeth. Might even get to see some
rending of clothes. Given just half a chance at a
fair trial, I have little doubt that Samsung can win.

I hope to get the chance to see Hogan get to eat his
words due to a different outcome which is fair to
Samsung and applied fairly to both parties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple will likely pay Samsung $2.6 million on Sep 20
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 03:14 PM EDT
I suspect this is what will happen on Sep 20:

1. Injunction on Galaxy 10.1 will be lifted
2. Apple will have to pay up the $2.6 million it posted as a bond for this

And hopefully some of the jury's judgement is struck down in the Dec hearing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

what are Mac Users ... ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT
I find installing software on linux can be a pain - I always seem to run into rpm dependencies, perhaps because the software I'm trying to install isn't from major vendors.

I don't know what Linux you are using, I have been using Ubuntu since 2008 and I have no issues with installs. Synaptic is excellent and you find Ubuntu packages all over for just about anything. If you need to run a windows program you don't even need a VM because you can just run it under Wine or Playonlinux and you can also use the proprietary crossover software. Ubuntu is extremely reliable, it never crashes, and there are very frequent security updates (3-4 times per month). For Apple fanboys the new Unity Gui will even make Ubuntu look like a Mac ... for those who need it.

Compared to Windows machines, I like the mac because of hardware reliability & capability, OS reliability, program consistency, and yes, everything generally seems to "just work", and work well.

... who do you think you are fooling with that kind of statement? This silly claim is typical for Apple users, apparently they need to somehow try to justify paying 3x the normal price for a likely inferior product to themselves.

Apple uses the same components inside, the same ones that everybody else is using. How else do you think you could run Windows under a VM on an Apple box, if they were not using the exact same parts inside?

Apple had massiv failures of Graphics-Chips, just like everybody else did who was building those chips into their boxes (like Dell). Apple had to use 3rd party Graphics-Chips because they can't develop and manufacture them themselves.

On their newer Models (2011-2012) Apple are using Intel integrated Graphics, which is sort of ok, but of course you do not get the kind of performance out of them as you would with a dedicated graphics processor (discrete), so they are much much slower compared to the Windows based high- performance Gamers-Notebooks. How "capable" do you think that is? (for at least double the price by the way)

The new Macbooks you cannot repair because of the way they are built, you even have to send them in just to get the battery pack changed, how "capable" and user friendly is that?

U.S. government has taken Apple off their supplier list, because they no longer meet EPA (EPEAT) standards. Real high-tech environmental friendly products those Apples eh?

From personal experience with a Macbook, I can say DVD-drive defective and defective power supply. Disproportionately high reliability is that?

~SD

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.05 seconds