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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Magistrate judge < Trial judge < Appeals court | 311 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Magistrate judge < Trial judge < Appeals court
Authored by: hardmath on Monday, August 06 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT

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 | # ]

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 )