|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
Yes she may ignore the extraneous information for this particular judgement, but
the information is now in the record of the case, and if I understand correctly
it was submitted as a surprise to Samsung.
As a purely innocent question (because I don't know the answer) - Would Samsung
be somehow disadvantaged by having the information in the record even if Judge
Koh claims to ignore it? Could the content be used against them at appeal? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Looking at what Samsung said:In violation of that Order, Apple
submitted more than 40 pages of declarations containing additional argument and
evidence, much of which was either not referenced in the brief at all, or only
discussed in a single sentence of the brief.
Looking at what the
judge said:As the motion to strike is essentially an “evidentiary or
procedural objection” to the permanent injunction motion, it must be contained
within the opposition brief and subject to the opposition brief’s page
limitations... Because Samsung filed the motion to strike separately from the
opposition, Samsung’s motion to strike is DENIED
Her
order:The page limits set forth herein will be strictly enforced.
Any argument that is not explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits
will be disregarded. Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration
purposes solely and shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s
page limits...
So, the Samsung motion is denied, but the order she
gave is still in force. Perhaps in this three dimensional game of chess, on one
level, Samsung are drawing the world's attention to the rule that she set to
give her added encouragement to abide by the rule.
Someone reported
that the actual brief was no more than the permitted 30 pages. Now it's up to
the judge to look at just those 30 pages and, for Any argument which
was either not referenced in the brief at all, or only discussed in a single
sentence of the brief and was thereby not explicitly articulated within
the briefing page limits to be disregarded. She must ensure that
Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and
shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page
limits.
Samsung put a motion to strike parts of the declarations
that were, I assume in their opinion, in support of argument not explicitly
articulated within the 30 pages of the brief.
The judge would have to
legally come to the opinion that the lines failed to meet her order in order to
strike them. Her procedural decision means that she does not have to rule on
that, but can still limit herself to a review of the arguments properly put
within the 30 pages of the motion and decide at that time if the Samsung lines
were 'out of order' or merely corroboration.
But, hey, I can't play
chess, either.
blockquote ---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
