|
Authored by: stegu on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Please explain your point. I fail to
follow your train of thought here.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT |
In Apple vs Samsung case, the jurist were speaking of that
particular Question on the Jury Form, in putting it aside.
Of course you'd assume they went back to it naturally.
So what she's really explaining is that the Foreman had
apparently used his own Prior Patent experience in
convincing fellow jurists that SAMSUNG's Prior Art Evidence
invalidated it, because (however convoluted this reasoning
is) it couldn't run on Apple's system and vice versa.
Meaning; You're totally off point on this!!! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Setting aside knowledge gained in another patent case
isn't the same thing as setting aside prior art.
The question is: did they reach a decision based
on the evidence at trial alone? If they based it
on what the foreman explained about the USPTO
validation process, it is a no no.
Whatever he learned from that process has little
to do with the courtroom. But even if it had
relevance, he wasn't supposed to introduce new
evidence at all, and if he did, being human, the
others were not supposed to reach a verdict based
on it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 08 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
They were deadlocked. So he suggested they
leave it and move on for a bit. But they
went back to it first thing in the morning.
There is nothing wrong with that, actually,
but the problem is he showed up with his
aha moment in the morning and proceeded
to run off the rails, in my view.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|