|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
From Samsung's response:Samsung has its own equitable issues it may
raise, and pursuant to its understanding of the Court’s Order, had intended to
include them as warranted in its consolidated post-trial motion to be filed on
September 21.
So, it is ready to include equitable issues
including, 'among others, the indefiniteness of the “substantially centered”
limitation in the ‘163 patent as well as indefiniteness of the asserted design
patents'.
It sounds as though Google are preparing to include the
kitchen sink, the bath tub and the lawnmower as well as pointing out the
failures to comply with the jury instructions and the effect of the jury
responses in the jury verdict form.
It does not sound as though Samsung
are intending to miss any issue in their Rule 50(b) motion or to miss out on any
other opportunity opened by Apple.
Forget the next Bond film or the
Apple iPhone 5. This is the event to look forward to.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Wait for it! - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 07:52 AM EDT
- Darn! - Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Wait for it! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:38 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
I believe that when the judge made the ruling
<blockquote>“The Court will entertain only one post-judgment motion for
relief per side, not including Apple’s motion for permanent injunction and
willfulness enhancement.” </blockquote>
that each side was to include all of their post-judgement requests in that one
motion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
It was Apple's motion, Samsung just opposed it. True, the
opposition also includes an alternative request for relief,
but that's inevitable. If Samsung's lawyers had sat on
their hands hoping the judge would remember his order about
only one post-trial motion without Samsung reminding her,
then Samsung's lawyers would have committed malpractice.
Samsung took the position "this one isn't allowed so it
doesn't count", which was the tactically correct thing to do
given that the judge doesn't seem very friendly to them. If
they'd been feeling more confident, they might have tried
arguing that Apple just used up its one motion. In fact,
they still might argue that later, when Apple files its
"real" motion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
| It seems to me to be restrictive in the extreme. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
