|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
But did they follow the instructions? I think
not, in that they ordered a kind of punitive
level of damages, which the instructions said
twice they were not supposed to do.
So maybe they could have read them over
instead of just hearing them. That is what
normally happens.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
AFAIR, these statements are broadly supported by statements
from the jury post trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 03:48 AM EDT |
jury instructions are read to them in court by the judge prior to
deliberations
even beginning.
There's the rub. What were
read to them and what did they have in front of them when they made their
decisions but:
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 35
...
...You
should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the
patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
[Jury instructions
No. 35, Page 49, line 7] and
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO.
53
...
...You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to
compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.
[ibid
No 53, Page 71, line 5], and yet the foreman is quoted as
saying:
In an interview on Saturday, jury foreman Velvin Hogan, 67,
said ... "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not
unreasonable."
[Reuters report]
He is clearly stating that the damages were
decided not just "to compensate the patent holder" but also "to punish an
infringer" - clearly in
contempt of the
Judge's instruction which was not given once, but TWICE in court (in different
parts of the instructions when referencing damages to ensure it was realised
that it was appropriate for all sections relating to damages) AND written before
them during their deliberations.
So it is more damning that the instructions
are read in court when they are then not followed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
