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
Not reading the terminal disclaimer right | 219 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Not reading the terminal disclaimer right
Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST
While the '677 design patent appears as part of Apple's initial Complaint, I was
unable to find any reference to the '087 design patent ...

Until I opened the 1425.pdf "ORDER REGARDING DESIGN PATENT CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION" in which Judge Koh determined that the '677 included 'solid
black surface shading, which according to MPEP '[is] used to represent the color
black' ...

So now we know - it's all there in black and white (or should that be not
necessarily black) - otherwise the two design patents could be identical, IF you
are color-blind or not color-prejudiced.

I am not sure (yet) when the issue of the two design patents being essentially
the same arose. Since Samsung is raising it in their JMOL then I assume that it
became an issue during the trial if it wasn't part of Samsung's argument
concerning the 'claim construction' mentioned above.

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not reading the terminal disclaimer right
Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:22 PM EST
The '087 and '677 patents are named as infringed in Apple's trial brief: "Samsung's products infringe Apple's D'677 and D'087 iPhone design patents; D'889 tablet design patent; and D'305 iPhone GUI design patent."

Samsung's trial brief [PDF] doesn't raise the issue of duplication. I don't know what happened at the trial on this, because we started covering this case only after it was well under way and we relied on the media for daily reports.

[ 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 )