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
the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory | 246 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 11:48 AM EST
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 | # ]

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 )