decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Not sure about that ... | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not sure about that ...
Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 01:15 AM EDT
Parent post supposes 'if the jury verdict is tossed
out, only the guilty portions get a chance to happen again.
Innocent verdicts can't be "done over" or set aside.'

For criminal cases, there is this thing called 'double jeopardy',
where someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

I don't think there is any such limitation in civil cases.
And if some party doesn't like the result, they can always appeal.
Appeals are not always granted. Parties can appeal all the way
up to the Supreme Court, which grants certiorari to only a small
fraction of all the cases brought to it.

My guess is that a simple answer to your question will not be
correct, and a correct answer will not be simple. In many cases
a definite ... "it depends" ... may be the best you can get.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It all depends on on the appeal
Authored by: TennSeven on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
You are probably thinking about the "double jeopardy" concept
in criminal trials, but there is no analog in a civil trial.
So, for instance, if Samsung asked for an entirely new trial
in its appeal (very unlikely) and that was granted (even more
unlikely), every verdict would be up for grabs again. What is
more likely is that, while Samsung is appealing aspects of the
other decisions, Apple could make its own appeal on the
decisions that did not go its way and, if the court agreed
with Apple's arguments, these decisions could be overturned or
remanded back to the lower court to go over again.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I will make a prediction
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 02:37 AM EDT
I predict Samsung will seek to have the portions of the verdict tossed on the
parts they don't like and seek a JMOL or a new trial.

Apple will appeal the verdict on the portions they don't like and seek a JMOL or
a new trial.

The Appeals court will grant both requests, kicking the whole thing back to the
circuit. Rinse and repeat.

Judge Koh will recuse herself and Posner will toss the whole thing out, except
for a few small pieces and Samsung will lose in a small way, for being a little
too matchy matchy. Apple, will be the real loser here, because everyone will now
think of Samsung when they need to make a new purchase, and Apple sales will
diminish further.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )