|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:44 PM EDT |
From the live blog:
5:19:39 PM PDT
Samsung's attorneys are now arguing that the jury's finding
of patent exhaustion isn't valid because one of the
prerequisites for patent exhaustion is that Apple's devices
had infringed in the first place.
5:22:42 PM PDT
Apple is saying there are no inconsistencies here, but per
the jury instructions Koh doesn't seem to agree.
5:22:58 PM PDT
Either way, Samsung is just looking to argue anything it can
at this point.
5:23:37 PM PDT
Apple argues that based on the nuance of the language in the
instructions this is a non-issue and both decisions can
stand. Koh admits that she "is swayed" by Apple's argument.
[end quote]
I would have to see the transcript, but "infringement" and
"exhaustion" were separate questions. It wouldn't really
make sense to have a separate exhaustion question if it was
covered in the infringement question.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|