|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
One juror explained how they took the advice on the foreman
on how to determine if something is prior art and then went
over each prior art example allowed in the courtroom and
found each of them not completely under the patent and thus
not prior art.
They may have been simply wrong, or they may have been
forced by the exclusion of key evidence such as a much
talked about Sony phone.
That juror also explained how they gained speed from the
fact that many questions were related. Thus for each patent
they accepted, they then simply looked at each phone/tablet
to see if it looked like that and then checked or unchecked
the boxes.
It also seems they started deliberating before final
arguments, which may be a legally significant violation of
procedure.
Much more important is that this juror admitted they decided
overall guilt long before Samsung even began presenting its
case, which I sure hope is a very clear ground for a
mistrial.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
To invalidate Apple's patents via a ruling on a 50b motion means that the
jury could not have come to its verdict if it had correctly understood the law
and
the facts as placed in evidence. It would mean the Judge would have to
explain
why the prior art presented as evidence invalidates the patent. This,
of course, is
all doable, but please note, if the jury takes a shortcut to an
arguably correct
decision, then a 50b overturning is not appropriate. I
think folks have
too much faith in the idea that a jury would invalidate a
patent. Do we ever see
that
happening? Wouldn't a jury have to be saying that
they know better than the US
Patent Office? I mean, they might. I sometimes
think I do, but I think most
patents are invalidated by reconsideration at the
US Patent Office or via better
interpretations of the law by the Supreme and
Appeals courts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
