From page 29 of the linked PDF, in the section FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION No.
18/SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS, the sixth paragraph (line numbers 15-19) begins
thus:
For each party's patent infringement claims against the
other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the infringer has
infringed the claims of the patent holder's patents and whether those patents
are valid. If you decide that any claim of either party's patents has been
infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money
damages to be awarded...
(I bolded the two key phrases that this
jury seems to have ignored.)
The orders state repeatedly in this section
that "invalidity is a defense to infringement." Subsequent sections elaborate on
ways in which utility or design patents might be shown to be invalid
(inadequately described, obviousness, anticipation/prior art, various statutory
bars, "lack of ornamentality" for design patents, etc.).
Anyone who still
wants to claim that this jury was not charged with determining the validity of
the Apple patents is now welcome to try to prove to me that these are not the
instructions Judge Koh issued them. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
