decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Thanks | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thanks
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
Am I correct to interpret that as saying that the rulings about the injunction
are not necessarily rulings that also apply and may be raised during the trial?

The jury were not given jury instructions covering the 'functional' issue when
considering design patents. Is there also a requirement on the two parties to
first raise the issue during the trial or must the judge always raise the issues
in the jury instructions?

If Samsung/Apple failed to point out the functional nature of the overall design
patents and why that is important, would that mean that the court would not be
in error in failing to instruct the jury on that part of the law? I know Samsung
used invalidity as a defence, but do they have to explicitly argue this detail
to get it considered in the jury instructions?

These may seem to be silly questions, but I keep remembering instances when
parties in a legal action should have raised an issue during a trial, during
claim construction or at some another point of due process, otherwise they lose
the opportunity to have it considered.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Thanks - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT
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 )