|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
I don't think you are right. What Apple are claiming is that the unitary award
figure is unchallengeable as a matter of law. They are saying that the only
thing that can be changed, as a matter of law, is the attribution of the whole
award to individual products.
However, the jury instructions and the jury verdict form determined the legal
basis on which damages could be awarded for each product. That differed
according to whether it was trade dress, design patent, utility patent and
wilfulness.
So Apple are wrong. If the unitary damages can be shown to be not in accordance
with the law as given to the jury by the judge then that unitary value can be
set aside as a matter of law. The judge has already instructed the jury to go
back over the jury verdict form because their first attempt was inconsistent
with the law presented to them in the jury instructions (they awarded damages
for patents that they found were not infringed).
Other folk have reproduced the due process for the court when this happens.
IIRC, the judge is entitled to review the workings made available on the verdict
form and revise all the figures as a matter of law if the data makes that
possible.
If the judge finds that it is not possible to determine, for example, the
correct damages attributable for trade dress infringement on an accused device
by accused device basis, then Samsung have a strong case for a do-over.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- A matter of law - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
Parent (with subject starting "i. . . . " is SPAM.
It looks like someone is trying to sell contact lists (based on what Google
Translate does with the Russian text).
Prime candidate for deletion, in my not-the-website-owner opinion. =)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
But this contention is easy to disprove. Not once but twice the jury (on the
instruction of the court) amended the total to match the totals for the
infringing phones. The first time when it was pointed out that damages were
awarded for non-infringing phones, so the total for each phone must be dependent
on the verdict of infringement. The second time purely to fix the math, so it
is clearly a total, not a target.
-Jeremy[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
