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 Unseals More Documents in Apple v. Samsung ~pj
Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT

Judge Lucy Koh continues to make Apple and Samsung unseal documents. And Samsung's outside law firm, Quinn Emanuel, has added another attorney from the LA office, Brett Dylan Proctor, who, I gather, is the fix-it guy who cleans up things that aren't going so perfectly. Here's his bio.

In this collection of 82 documents, one of Apple's exhibits stands out, a graphic [PDF] it prepared to show the jury what was different between Samsung's prior art, the DiamondTouch, and Apple's patents. Remember the jury foreman told the world that they decided Samsung's prior art, this very prior art, wasn't on point because iOS wouldn't run on the DiamondTouch or vice versa? Now look at the graphic. Nothing like that was listed by Apple regarding either the '381 or the '915 patents.

Just one more piece to show that the jury ran off the rails on this self-help version of how to evaluate prior art.

Interestingly, one of our questions is answered in this filing [PDF], on page 5, where Samsung says it provided Apple with source code for the DiamondTouch. So that explains how the jury had it avalable, I would assume.

Friends, I have the flu, and Mark's laptop is broken, so could you please post in your comments what you find in all the exhibits, if you find one of interest, so readers who stop by will have a map to find things? I just really can't think today for more than a few minutes at a time. Thanks, guys.

The filings:

1969 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Brett Dylan Proctor (Proctor, Brett) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1970 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,, Samsung's Proffer of Witness Testimony and Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1911) (Attachments: # ( 1) Notice of Manual Filing, # (2) Declaration of Diane Hutnyan in Support of Samsung's Proffer, # (3) Exhibit 1 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (4) Exhibit 3 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (5) Exhibit 4 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (6) Exhibit 5 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (7) Exhibit 6 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (8) Exhibit 7 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (9) Exhibit 8 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (10) Exhibit 11 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (11) Exhibit 12 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (12) Exhibit 13 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (13) Exhibit 15 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (14) Exhibit 16 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (15) Exhibit 17 to the Hutnyan Declaration, # (16) Declaration of Brett Arnold in Support of Samsung's Proffer, # (17) Exhibit B to the Arnold Declaration, # (18) Exhibit D to the Arnold Declaration, # (19) Exhibit E to the Arnold Declaration, # (20) Exhibit F to the Arnold Declaration, # (21) Exhibit G to the Arnold Declaration, # (22) Exhibit H to the Arnold Declaration, # (23) Exhibit I to the Arnold Declaration, # (24) Exhibit J to the Arnold Declaration, # (25) Exhibit K to the Arnold Declaration, # (26) Exhibit P to the Arnold Declaration, # (27) Exhibit U, V to the Arnold Declaration, # (28) Exhibit W to the Arnold Declaration, # (29) Exhibit X to the Arnold Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1971 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,,, Exhibits to Samsung's Notice of Filing of Excluded Closing Demonstratives (Dkt. No. 1919) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 3, # (3) Exhibit 4, # (4) Exhibit 5, # (5) Exhibit 6)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1972 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,, Exhibits to Samsung's Corrected Notice of Filing of Excluded Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1918) (Attachments: # (1) Corrected Exhibit 62, # (2) Corrected Exhibit 69, # (3) Corrected Exhibit 86, # (4) Corrected Exhibit 88)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1973 Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Apple Inc. Apple's Notice of Filing of Excluded Exhibits and Demonstratives (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 19, # (2) Exhibit 21, # (3) Exhibit 61, # (4) Exhibit 85, # (5) Exhibit 96, # (6) Exhibit 113, # (7) Exhibit 151, # (8) Exhibit 152, # (9) Exhibit 157, # (10) Exhibit 175, # (11) Exhibit 179, # (12) Exhibit 188, # (13) Exhibit 197, # (14) Exhibit 198, # (15) Exhibit 219, # (16) Exhibit 2040, # (17) Exhibit 2226, # (18) Exhibit 2321, # (19) Exhibit Closing Slide 37, # (20) Exhibit Closing Slide 45, # (21) Exhibit PDX14.4, # (22) Exhibit PDX14A.47, # (23) Exhibit PDX14A.48, # (24) Exhibit PDX14A.49, # (25) Exhibit PDX14A.50, # (26) Exhibit PDX14A.51, # (27) Exhibit PDX14A.52, # (28) Exhibit PDX20, # (29) Exhibit PDX21, # (30) Exhibit PDX22, # (31) Exhibit PDX28.17, # (32) Exhibit PDX28.25, # (33) Exhibit PDX28.27)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1974 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,,,,,,,, Exhibit 9 to Samsung's Objections and Responses Regarding Exhibits and Deposition Designations Disclosed on August 14, 2012 (Dkt. No. 1760) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1975 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Samsung's Objections and Responses Regarding (1) Exhibits To Be Used with Richard Howarth, Andries Van Dam, Stephen Gray, Vincent O'Brien, and David Teece and (2) Designated Deposition Testimony of Shin Nishibori and Brian Agnetta and Exhibits P and R (Dkt. No. 1735) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit P, # (2) Exhibit R)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1976 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [1966] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,,,,,,,, Supplemental Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Proffer of Witness Testimony and Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1921) (Attachments: # (1) Notice of Manual Filing)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1977 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Apple Inc. Manual Filing Notification of Excluded Exhibits and Demonstratives (PX41, PX49, PX50, PX64, PX66A, 66B, PX114, PX126, PX178, PDX23, PDX24, and Underlying Evid. for PX12, PX13, PX14) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1978 - Filed & Entered: 09/18/2012
Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Docket Text: ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART APPLE'S AND SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part [602] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [637] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying [642] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying [643] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [707] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [715] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [736] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying [737] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying [754] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [758] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [759] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)


  


Judge Koh Unseals More Documents in Apple v. Samsung ~pj | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM EDT


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 08:25 PM EDT


---

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hugs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT

Hope you are feeling better soon PJ.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
maybe the jury got confused thought the prior art was about
the table?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unofficial case document summary thread, since PJ is ill
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT
PJ, drink, rest, take chicken soup!
MW, Give this an author or re-organize, depending on mood.

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | # ]

1973Ex15
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 10:30 PM EDT

Apple is arguing that Samsung made their FRAND disclosure late. The sixth point is interesting . . .

22 A Yeah, if we ignore the -- the general
23 declaration, then one could perhaps come to that
24 conclusion.
So Apple is arguing that you must disclose all FRAND patents before the standard is adopted rather than saying some of this standard may be our IP. According to the FTC a general disclosure is what is required before the standard is set.
However, this type of abuse of the hold-up power can be effectively prevented – without compromising confidentiality - by requiring firms involved in developing the standard to make a general ex ante FRAND commitment, i.e. in the early stage of standardization. With such a general commitment the essential patent holder would commit to be bound to (F)RAND in respect of any and all their patents and patent applications they generate that may become essential to the standard.
So basically Apple wants to change the law and standard practice in the tech sector to suit them. Also, how can they argue FRAND as a non-jury issue when the jury specifically ruled against them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
    • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:42 AM EDT
  • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
    • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
      • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
        • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
          • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
            • 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT
  • Qualcomm or Broadcomm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:28 PM EDT
1973Ex17
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT
WARNING: this exhibit describes patent claims in detail

This Exhibit is very interesting. I won't quote it too much since it describes patent claims in detail. After reading this exhibit I would be inclined to believe Apple's Utility patents are invalid or covered by prior art.

'859 patent:
36. In contrast, in my opinion, Apple’s construction is overly broad. Under Apple’s construction, claim 14 encompasses any type of interaction with the on-screen data by the user using two fingers. This goes well beyond what is actually disclosed in the ‘859 specification and is not consistent with the way a person of ordinary skill would have understood the claims after reading the ‘859 specification.
'915 patent:

Convincing arguments that the claims would include devices besides capacitive touch screens. Therefore the Diamond Touch would seem to clearly be prior art. Also several claims seem to be for algorithms, instructions or means without ever defining what those algorithms, instructions or means are. Therefore it would not be clear to someone of ordinary skill in the art. IANAL, but it seems like this makes the patent invalid.

'381:
169. In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in 2007 would not have been able to identify the . . . in the specification of the ‘381 Patent because the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure for performing this function. Each time the ‘381 Patent refers to this limitation, the patent discusses the functions of the limitation but does not identify or describe the components needed to perform those functions.

There are similar quotations for other claims

Question for the lawyers: if someone of ordinary skill in the art can't tell what exactly is being patented from reading the claims what happens? Does this mean nothing substantial is being asserted? Does this mean the patent is too broad? How can you patent something without actually disclosing the invention?

[ Reply to This | # ]

1972Ex2
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:29 PM EDT
Samsung points out a bunch of differences between Design patent '305 and TouchWiz interfaces.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1972Ex3 vs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT
Warning: Contains some patent claim language.

Samsung's case for the Diamond Touch being prior art. Apple's case that it is not prior art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emergency alert: the Federal Circuit seals again what Koh has unsealed.
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT
see this on Patently'O.
In an emergency appeal, the Federal Circuit has temporarily reversed Judge Koh's decision and ordered that the exhibits remain sealed until the conclusion of the appeal relating to unsealing of the records. It is an odd appeal in that both parties want the court to seal the documents. Our adversarial appellate system does not work that well when the parties agree with each other but disagree with the judge. At the district court, Reuters News Service intervened to ask the court to unseal the records. However, Reuters has announced that it will not participate in the appeal. The First Amendment Coalition attempted to intervene in the appeal, but that attempt has been denied by the Federal Circuit. Thus, it appears that no one will be arguing the other side.
Is this applicable to the documents posted here? If so I believe they should be removed for the time being.

[ 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