|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT |
.
Samsung can appeal this or any issue if they objected to the given instruction,
or proposed a proper one and were turned down. An issue can be preserved if the
party raises it on appeal and the court deems it "plain error." This
is extremely rare and difficult, but since the judge grokked it in December and
the verdict was a billion, a party has a "extreme and rare" argument.
Time was a problem.
Apple can say it was moot. Like much of the case, Velvin would have skipped it
anyway.
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
In December 2011, the district court issued a ruling denying Apple’s motion to
preliminarily enjoin the U.S. sales of several Samsung products, based upon such
products’ alleged infringement of three design patents and one utility patent,
owned by Apple. In this ruling, the district court included claim construction
and infringement analysis and:
(a) recognized that “certain aspects of the design patent that are dictated by
function” may limit the scope of such patent;
(b) listed elements contained in Apple’s design patents that are “dictated by
function;”
(c) explained that it should “consider only the remaining aspects of the design
in the infringement and anticipation analysis of the design patent”
(d) identified functional features in Apple’s design patents; and
(e) performed an infringement analysis of these design patents “in light of” its
claim construction.
If it was a ruling then, how long do the proceedings have to continue for it to
stop being a ruling? In the alternative, does a ruling continue to be a ruling
until quashed by the same, or another court?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|