I assume we are talking about the issue of not allowing
Samsung to produce
evidence that their design of the F700
preceded Apple's public introduction of
the iPhone, and/or
not allowing Samsung to use the materials provided by Apple
in discovery that show they based the iPhone design in part
on "Sony-style"
design.
I believe these were rulings that originated with the magistrate judge
for this case, Judge Paul
Grewal.
The reasoning was that Samsung had not disclosed these
"defense"
contentions in a timely way. These rulings by the
magistrate judge was
confirmed by the trial judge, Judge
Lucy Koh.
Apple perhaps came very close
to "opening the door" to
introducing at least some of this evidence in their
opening
statement, by displaying a graphic that suggested Samsung
had copied
design features of the iPhone in the F700.
However the F700 was removed from
Apple's list of allegedly
infringing products earlier in the proceedings, and
opening
arguments are not evidence.
So for now Samsung is saddled with the
restriction.
Although it is a ruling that can be raised on appeal, the
standard for getting relief at that point would be very high
(IANAL). This
sort of ruling is termed "non-dispositive"
because it does not dispose of any
claims before the court,
one way or another. The ruling is therefore largely
in the
discretion of the trial judge, unless contrary to law or
"clearly in
error".
---
Hate the math. Don't hate the mathematician! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
