decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Apple Can't Add Jelly Bean to Apple v. Samsung 2 Trial, only Galaxy Nexus ~pj
Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:11 AM EST

The Magistrate Judge in Apple v. Samsung 2, the litigation still in the early pre-trial phase in California District Court, has ruled [PDF] on the parties' motions to add products to the case.

Samsung's motion to add iPhone 5 was granted. Apple's motion [PDF] was partly granted and partly denied. It can add the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, the Samsung S III, and the Galaxy Nexus, which runs Android Jelly Bean. Apple cannot add Android Jelly Bean itself. That's a huge block of what I'd call a sneaky move on Apple's part, one that did not get past this judge.

It's not unusual for parties to be allowed to add newer products to a case, as long as they don't bring in new claims or theories of infringement and so long as they act fast and there's no prejudice to the other side.

Apple had asked to be allowed to add Android Jelly Bean to the list of infringing products, which Samsung opposed [PDF]. However, the magistrate judge, Hon. Paul Grewall, noticed that this would be an open-ended claim that could sweep all kinds of products into the case, including ones not related to Samsung and over which it has no control since it doesn't develop Jelly Bean, and he has denied that part of the motion except for allowing Apple to add one specific product, the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which happens to use Jelly Bean:

Lastly for this category, Apple proposes to add the Jelly Bean operating system to its claims. The Jelly Bean operating system is the new version of the Google Android system that is used on all Samsung mobile devices, including those named by Apple in this suit. The Jelly Bean operating system was first released in July 2012.

As the moving party, Apple bears the burden of showing that it “acted with diligence in promptly moving to amend when new evidence is revealed.” Apple fails to do so. Apple merely alleges in one paragraph of its October 5 motion that the Jelly Bean was released in July 2012, and inclusion of the system “will not increase the number of claims asserted or introduce any new infringement theories.”

This is insufficient to show diligence for making a substantial change to the infringement contentions.

Turning to the question of prejudice, it is problematic that Apple makes no reference in its initial briefing to the infringement theories or patent claims it wishes to charge against Jelly Bean. Samsung would be prejudiced by the lack of specificity in Apple’s proposed amendment because it will not have notice to the claims it must defend against. Moreover, as Samsung correctly noted, such an amendment would be overbroad and may sweep any number of Samsung devices using the Jelly Bean operating system into this suit. The Jelly Bean operating system is used on numerous Samsung devices. Samsung also does not have any design control over the content of Jelly Bean as it is a Google Android product that Samsung itself did not develop. The court will not permit a sweeping amendment that might apply to devices other than those properly tied to Samsung. The court will allow this proposed amendment, but only as to the Jelly Bean product Apple has specified: the Galaxy Nexus.

So that attempted trick has failed. Courts do seem to be waking up to the Apple maneuvers, wouldn't you say? Some in the media are reporting that Jelly Bean was added to the case, but it was not except to this limited extent, that the Galaxy Nexus product was added to the case, and it uses Android Jelly Bean. But Google develops Jelly Bean, not Samsung. So Jelly Bean itself was *not* added to the case.

This judge also seems to have caught on to Apple's legal extremism to some extent, also, telling Apple:

Given the early stage of this litigation and the reasoning of this order, the court notes that Apple should think twice before opposing similar amendments reflecting other newly-released products — e.g. the iPad 4 and iPad mini — that Samsung may propose in the near future.
I'll translate that legalese for you. He's saying, Be reasonable. He expects Samsung to be adding more products soon.

Judge Grewall will be participating in the Santa Clara Law's conference on what to do about software patents, which will be live streamed, today. Details here.


Apple Can't Add Jelly Bean to Apple v. Samsung 2 Trial, only Galaxy Nexus ~pj | 112 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Question on Patent News
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:35 AM EST
Well I guess you all remember how it got started:
Google Senior VP & Chief Legal Officer mentions two patent pools there:
Novell/CPTN (DoJ forced them to license out their IP) and Nortel/Rockstar. The
latter got no repute from DoJ and no Apple seems to be silently misusing it:
Any reason why DoJ cared only about one pool and not the other?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting, it seems my interpretation of the Verge article was wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:44 AM EST
Apple will be able to name several products it's been anxious to accuse — including the Galaxy Note 10.1, all versions of Android 4.1 Jelly Bean that were distributed on the Galaxy Nexus, and the Galaxy S III.

Either that, or the Verge article was wrong. I read it to mean that the software itself was now accused - allbeit in the forms used on the Galaxy Nexus device alone. My understanding was that this would then be potentially extendible to other Android 4.1 products by other manufacturers as the features are not "colorably different".

Seems like that was wrong. Even so, I'm guessing a hypothetical injunction against the Galaxy Nexus on the basis of Android 4.1 features would set some precedent for future cases against other devices / manufacturers - though each case would have to be tried separately. It would also have massive FUD value.

Google still need to defend this vigorously.

(not a lawyer) Stevos.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Kilz on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:50 AM EST
Please list the mistake in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:51 AM EST
For all posts that are not on topic. Please make all links

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Kilz on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:53 AM EST
Please mention the news stories name in the title of the top
post. A link to the story is helpful for when it falls off
the Home page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Kilz on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:55 AM EST
Please leave all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for
PJ. Please post them as html in Plain Old Text mode for easy

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm surprised Samsung hasn't added the iPad mini yet
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:57 AM EST
Its been out for awhile. Perhaps it will be added soon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

BusinessWeek and its variable coverage
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST

BusinessWeek often has problems in covering Legal and Technical news.
Their reporting ranges from good to terrible, with most of it being at the
terrible end of the spectrum.

I always check their reporting now. It's the only way to be safe.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Can't Add Jelly Bean to Apple v. Samsung 2 Trial, only Galaxy Nexus ~pj
Authored by: vadim on Sunday, November 18 2012 @ 04:22 AM EST
PJ It seems that you're mistaken here. Apple CAN add Jelly Bean to the lawsuit.

"Apple’s similarly-situated motion to amend to add the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, the U.S. version of the Samsung Galaxy S III, the Jelly Bean operating system in connection with the Galaxy Nexus, the nonsubstantive clarifying changes, 51 the claims charts previously listed in the Claim Summary Table, and the pen stylus claims against additional products is GRANTED"

[ 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 )