|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
I wrote the parent comment. The comment just before it says:An
important point that I think is missed is that both parties participate in
creating the jury instructions. If you look at the docket, you can see tons of
filings from both parties relating to the jury instructions.
Given
that, had it been visible, I might have written my comment as a reply to the
other one. I wasn't ignoring the other comment. I hadn't refreshed the page in a
while, so it hadn't appeared yet.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
I don't think all of the back and forth is public they may well have objected
and been over ruled.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
"What was Samsung doing, then?"
Samsung was
on top of it in
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO TENTATIVE FINAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
(pdf)...
Samsung also objects that there is no
instruction
that functional features be factored out for
infringement. 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 and has
already found that certain features are functional for
D‘677, D‘087, and
D‘889. Because the Court will decide this
as a matter of law, it can consider
the evidence and
arguments already presented at the preliminary injunction
stage, claim construction, and trial.
All the alternative designs proposed
by Apple have a
rectangular display screen covering a large portion of the
front face, with a transparent cover over the display. The
smartphones also
all have speakers above the display. Apple
has thus failed to show any
alternative lacking these
features, so Samsung requests that the Court instruct
the
jury they are functional. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
Because Apple
objected to it, that's why...
7. Apple Objects to
Tentative Final Jury
Instruction No. 48
Apple objects to the fourth
paragraph of Tentative Proposed
Jury Instruction No. 48, which reads: Trade
dress concerns
the overall visual impression created in the consumer’s mind
when viewing the non-functional aspects of the product and
not from the
utilitarian or useful aspects of the product.
In considering the impact of
these non-functional aspects,
which are often a complex combination of many
features, you
must consider the appearance of features together, rather
than
separately.
This instruction is contrary to law because, in defining
trade dress, it suggests that the jury should extract out
functional aspects
of a product and consider only an accused
product’s nonfunctional aspects.
This is inconsistent with
Ninth Circuit precedent, under which a trade dress
may
include functional and non-functional aspects. Even where a
trade dress
includes elements that are functional, the jury
should evaluate Apple’s trade
dress claims by considering
the overall visual impression created by the trade
dress in
its entirety. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|