|
|
|
| Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
Considering the amount of time each side had to present the case to the jury,
how could any jury hope to be informed sufficiently to properly reach a verdict
on 700 different items?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
If you are referring to the '516 and '941 patents then the
reason why it would be non-infringing is that they had been exhausted since
Intel already licensed these patents from
Samsung. That means as Intel's customer Apple does not
infringe since it is a licensed product and therefore does not
have to pay any damages.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
But I wouldn't rely on that in this specific case.
Think back to SCOg
vs IBM and imagine IBM presenting their defense something like this:
D1) IBM
doesn't infringe the patent because the patent is invalid due to prior art
XYZ.
D2) Even if the patent was valid - and IBM believes for the
reasons stated previously it is not - then IBM is innocent of infringement due
to the principle of Exhaustion.
From what we saw of Judge Kimball's rulings
and his thoroughness, if he found the evidence proved the two points previously,
he'd likely author a ruling outlining the two points:
R1: Due to the
evidence of prior art, the patent is invalid.
R2: If the patent had
been valid - and it is not as outlined previously - the evidence shows Patent
exhaustion played a role in the form that Company X licensed said patent, then
sold it's product 123 to IBM which IBM then used. The same product 123 whose
scope encompases the total claim of the plaintiff.
So in that context, yes,
it would make sense.
Caveat: such thoroughness in both forming ones
defenses and the Judge forming the rulings is - in my humble non-legal opinion -
the best way to go. In the case of the defendant, it avoids the risks of
relying on a single defense to protect oneself. In the case of the Judge, it
avoids the risks associated with ruling on D1, ignoring D2 because "it's
rendered moot", having an Appeal board overrule D1 and sending the case back for
evaluation under D2 anyway.
Again: I certainly don't speak as though the
above should be considered how the Jury arrived at their conclusions in the
current case of Apple vs Samsung.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
I don't understand this either:
Surely Apple *must* infringe the patents or not be standards compliant?
Whether or not they should need to pay for them is a different issue.
jrw
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
