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
Why that claim interpretation was abandoned in the Final Jury Instructions ... | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Previous comment hadn't appeared yet
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 | # ]

Where was Samsung?
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 | # ]

Where was Samsung?
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 | # ]

Why that claim interpretation was abandoned in the Final Jury Instructions ...
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 | # ]

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 )