|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
To prevail on the defense of patent exhaustion, Apple must
prove that the following is more likely
true than not:
First, that Intel was authorized to sell the baseband chips
under the terms of the license
agreement between Samsung and Intel;
Second, that the sales were made in the United States. The
location of the sale depends on
many factors, and you may find that the sale occurred in
several places. A sale occurs
wherever the “essential activities” of the sale take place.
The essential activities include,
for example, negotiating the contract and performing
obligations under the contract; and
Third, that, if the accused products infringe, it is because
the baseband chips substantially
embody the ’516 and/or ’941 patents. The baseband chips
embody the relevant patent if
they include all the inventive aspects of the patented
device.
I stand corrected. Since the jury found Apple did not
infringe , they could not have possibly come to the
conclusion that these patents were exhausted if they would
have followed the jury instructions. However that being
said, the finding of exhaustion should probably still stand,
if anything it is another indicator that the jury did not
follow instructions, but instead simply filled out the
verdict form based on the questionable "expert" testimony by
the foreman. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
