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
Judge Koh Reduces Apple Damages Award; Orders New Trial on Damages re Certain Products in Apple v. Samsung ~pj Updated | 246 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Koh Reduces Apple Damages Award; Orders New Trial on Damages re Certain Products in Apple v. Samsung ~pj Updated
Authored by: webster on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 08:37 PM EST
.

It means she wants either or both parties to appeal it ASAP
rather than after any retrial.

It explicitly gives them permission to appeal if it is not
otherwise appellable. Interlocutory appeals have more
exclusive rules. Some require the court's permission. They
may call that certiorari --"to be made more certain" from
the Latin.

It probably also means she will wait for all the other
appeals before she spends any more time on this. Don't be
surprised if the Court of Appeals doesn't take it, or sends
it back for the rest of the damages. If Samsung had won
something, she could pull a 'Posner' and cancel the rest
out.

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Appelate review of the case at the CAFC
Authored by: macliam on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:15 AM EST

It would seem that there are two sorts of appeal. One is an appeal against the specific order (e.g., arguing that Judge Koh exceeded what was permissible under the law in making the order. There is also the main appeal against the determinations on patent validity and infringement. Presumably Judge Koh will not waste time on damages for patent infringement until the CAFC has ruled on validity and infringement.

My expectation, for what it is worth, on how the CAFC will treat the appeal on the substantive issues, in accordance with what seems to be their usual practice (IANAL, etc.). They will probably go back to the Markman hearing, and consider carefully the judge's rulings on the meanings of the words in the claims (presumably reviewing the briefs of the parties to the dispute). Then they will construe the claims themselves. (CAFC opinions routinely state that "claim construction is reviewed de novo and without deference") They will form a judgement as to whether their construction of the claims is in accordance with that of the trial judge. A lot of CAFC opinions are filled with lengthy technical stuff in which the CAFC judges explain in minute detail the construction of the individual words of the claim and the basic science and engineering principles that lead them to overrule the trial judge. A number of the CAFC judges have degrees (at Bachelor, Master, or PhD level) in scientific and technical fields, so, particularly with hardware claims, will discuss in exhaustive detail the circuitry etc. One only needs to read a few CAFC opinions of this sort to realise why the drafting of patent applications is the preserve of the patent lawyer, not the inventor.

If the CAFC come to the conclusion that the trial judge's claim construction is not substantially in accord with theirs, for reasons that might significantly affect the outcome of the of the case, then they might well vacate and remand for a new jury trial on infringement, with the CAFC's claim construction in place of that of the trial judge.

If they are satisfied with the trial judge's claim construction, they will probably turn their attention to the the ruling on JMOL on the jury verdict, according to the standard of review of the relevant circuit. For the 9th circuit, this seems to be set out as follows in Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp (2010-1355, 2011-1089):

This court reviews JMOL determinations after a jury verdict and new trial rulings as well under the same standard applied by the trial court. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed.Cir.2009). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviews a motion for JMOL as a matter of law. Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir.2002). "JMOL is appropriate when 'a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.' " Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)). A district court in the Ninth Circuit "may grant a new trial only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence." Id. The resolution of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.

Thus it would seem that they will decide "whether they think that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence", and, if their assessment differs from that of the trial judge, whether the trial judge "abused her discretion" in denying JMOL.

I am sure that Judge Koh will want all of the above firmly settled before she has to revisit the issue of the damages.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Translation
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 12:41 PM EST
"Every time someone connected to this case opens their mouth, more problems
appear. So both of you appeal, flap your jaws til all the dirty laundry is
aired, and by the time it gets back to me there won't be anything left."

Judge Koh is wising up.

[ 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 )