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
That completely undermines the article, doesn't it? | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thank you for finding that
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT

I was wondering if Samsung had missed something. Thanks very much for
finding that filing.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Seconded
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
It seems to resolve the question of Samsung preserving the issue for appeal.

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

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That completely undermines the article, doesn't it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT
Thanks for finding that, but at first glance it looks like it blows Redano's article completely out of the water by directly contradicting at least one of the assumptions that Redano made. This is at the heart of the article:
By failing to expressly identify non-ornamental (functional) features of Apples design patents and instruct the jury that such features were not to be considered in its infringement analysis, the district court materially, and perhaps fatally, prejudiced Samsungs non-infringement defenses.
All of the conclusions in the article are based upon two assumptions:
  • The court failed to identify the functional features, and
  • The court failed to instruct the jury properly.
Yet the brief shows that Samsung, near the end of the trial, said that the court had already done at least some of what the first assumptions said the court didn't do and had promised to do what the second assumption said that the court didn't do. Here it is (my emphasis):
The Court has previously stated that it would address any functional limitations to the scope of the design patents-in-suit at the close of evidence (Dkt No. 1425 at 2) and has already found that certain features are functional for De677, De087, and De889 (Dkt No. 449 at 15).
As I read that, Samsung is merely objecting that the instructions will be given verbally instead of in writing as part of the jury instructions. Giving the instructions verbally is still giving them! The article doesn't seem to consider that possibility. There would be a problem if the written instructions contradicts the verbal instruction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Samsung complained that "there is no instruction that functional features be factored out," but didn't say that there was anything that said the opposite. Granted, it might have been a better idea to include the proper instructions in the written instructions, but I think that is just left to the judge's discretion, so it wouldn't seem to be something that Samsung could appeal, as long as it's in the transcripts.

Having said that, there may be something fishy about choosing to not put the proper instruction in writing, but it really comes down to what is in the transcripts. Still, it looks like Redano never considered the possibility of a verbal instruction and it seems as if he was wrong about the court not identifying any functional elements, so his conclusions don't seem to be supported by valid premises.

[ 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 )