Because the Court has identified an
impermissible legal theory on
which the jury based its award
... Is there evidence from the
judgments
that
this was the case in their other theories about ignoring
of
prior
art and theories about design patents "... not doing the job
of the
patent office" (in the case of the iPad to the
benefit of Samsung! -
'unregistered trade dress' and all
that, see
links below).Of
course, there
is plenty of evidence from some of the jury
(unnecessarily but thankfully!)
speaking after the fact, eg
Hogan: Jury foreman in
Apple-Samsung patent case answers
back and, Ilagan:
Exclusive:
Apple-Samsung juror speaks out | Apple - CNET
News
From these words such "impermissible legal theories" can
be
inferred or deduced. However, is there not something in
the judgment, in
considering and in conjunction with the,
now admitted, awards miscalculations
that would lead Judge Koh to consider a retrial? Perhaps
as an aside this is
the area where a jury verdict (if not
trial) is so much less satisfying than
that of a judge who
has to
provide public considered and reasoned
opinions as to
which arguments were more powerful in their deliberations.
The
example below, in which Apple were unsuccessful against
HTC and claims in their
"bounce back" "slide to unlock" etc.
patents were invalidated, not infringed,
or invalid for
subject matter, etc.. HTC Europe Co Ltd
v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1789 (Pat) (04 July
2012)
Perhaps a similar template for juries which will
demonstrate that
they have considered ALL the relevant
questions and arguments is required? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|