Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Judge Koh Dissolves Preliminary Injunction on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1; Apple May Owe Samsung ~pj | 112 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Judge Koh Dissolves Preliminary Injunction on Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1; Apple May Owe Samsung ~pj

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:47 AM EDT

Sigh. Judge Koh can't win with this crowd, can she?

If she hadn't dissolved the injunction, there's be howling
for blood on this forum that she's clearly in Apple's pocket
and blatantly unfair to Samsung.

Now that she dissolved the injunction, you also want to slam
her because her grounds were based on the jury verdict, so
now she's "upholding" the (almost certainly tainted) jury
verdict?

As she pointed out, she's still going to hear the post-trial
motions, and that they might include a finding that there IS
infringement of this patent (i.e. nothing from the jury
verdict is set in stone just yet).

The standard for preliminary (pre-final-verdict) injunctions
is "strong likelihood to prevail at trial." The judge found
initially it was highly likely Apple would win on this.
Given a jury (even a bad jury) held otherwise, she's re-
evaluating that decision.

[ 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 )