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
Why? | 81 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why?
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 11:24 PM EDT
Well, normally what you write would be accurate,
but I don't think it is here. Apple is asking
that Samsung pay for what it did, but if you
look at the next article, you'll see that claim
19 of Apple's '381 patent has been ruled invalid
in a final action at the USPTO after reexamination.
That is the bounce back patent, which Apple described
at trial as one of its crown jewels, and over 20
Samsung products were found to have infringed
Apple's claim 19. Apple was aware the USPTO was
in fact looking at this patent, and there was
a denial of the patent even more broadly at
the preliminary level. So their desire to beat the
clock might just have a PR aspect, I suspect. And
Samsung wanting to wait is also understandable in
that it was expecting such an outcome and naturally
would like the damages to be less, which they
likely now will be.

So it's very complex, not the usual situation. Why
wouldn't Samsung want to wait until all these loose
ends are tied off? They'd have to be crazy not
to want that. There are other patents being reexamined
still, by the way. And there is not yet a final
ruling in the case.

See what I mean?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT
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 )