Ah, maybe I was reading too fast. It seems they weren't explicitly told not to
use those numbers, but their use of them was not in accord with
their general
instructions or commonsense.
See Order above IV.A 3rd para at
top of p.9, In this case, it is apparent that the jury awarded 40%
of Apple’s expert Terry
Musika’s calculation of Samsung’s profits for a wide
range of products, and in some cases, added the same expert’s calculation for
Apple’s lost profits.
Moreover, it is clear that for several products, the jury
awarded exactly half of the reasonable royalty award proposed by Mr. Musika. As
in First Alliance
Mortgage, these numbers are “to the dollar;” it is thus quite
apparent how the jury arrived at them. Indeed, Apple does not dispute this
inference in its
opposition, relying instead on the purported impermissibility
of acknowledging what is apparent.
IV.B top of
p.12
Though the jury in the present case did not make an explicit
finding as to what percentage of Apple’s requested amount it deemed
appropriate
for each product, it is apparent from the amount of the award, which is “to the
dollar” an exact and consistent percentage of Mr. Musika’s
amount. See First
Alliance Mortgage, 471 F.3d 977. Thus, this multiplier is analogous to a jury’s
finding of an appropriate royalty rate.
IV.C.4 bottom
p.18
The damages numbers Mr. Musika presented to the jury were based
on the August 4, 2010 notice date for all patents. See PX25A at 4, 5.
Thus, the
jury’s awards for patent infringement, which are based on Mr. Musika’s numbers
using the early notice dates, may have contained some
amount of excess
compensation covering the period before Samsung had notice of the relevant IP,
depending on the combination of IP infringed. The
following chart indicates the
correct notice dates, available remedies, and infringing products for each form
of IP:
IV.C.4 2nd para p.21
However, for other
products, the jury awarded an impermissible form of damages for some
period of time, because Samsung had notice
only of utility patents for some
period, but an award of infringer’s profits was made covering the entire period
from August 4, 2010 to June 15, 2012.
For these products, the Court cannot
remedy the problem by simply subtracting the extra sales.
It looks
like a genteel way of saying this jury stuffed up somewhat, and yes the judge
has seen it, and notes it in this order, hoping the appeal doesn't
come down
too heavy on her.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
