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
Samsung DOES want a retrial ... | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Seventh Amendment
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT
What they're saying is, you can't just retry the damages,
you have to retry the whole trial if you want to retry it at
all.

Koh and Apple basically want to go forward with the idea
that the jury got everything but the damages right, but
Samsung say's 'no no no, that is not the law, you can not
just have a trial for damages, you have to have a trial for
both guilt and damages, and the 7th amendment says so'.

I think they may have a pretty good shot at that, non-lawyer
that I am. It's rather unfair to have a bunch of people
brought in, told Samsung is Guilty, and then say 'how much
do you punish them'. It's horribly prejudicial.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Seventh Amendment
Authored by: ArtimusClyde on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
I believe they are arguing that a retrial on damages alone violates it, because they believe factual errors were used in determining those damages. I may be wrong though.

The Justices v. Murray
So much of the 5th section of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1863, entitled "An act relating to habeas corpus and regulating proceedings in certain cases," as provides for the removal of a judgment in a state court, and in which the cause was tried by a jury, to the circuit court of the United States for a retrial on the facts and law is not in pursuance of the Constitution, and is void.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Samsung DOES want a retrial ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Parent asks ...
"Samsung doesn't want a retrial for damage?
why is it arguing about the Seventh Amendment?"

But Samsung DOES want a retrial.
They just don't want it to be limited to damages only.
Samsung writes ...
-------
The Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause prohibits
a second jury from revisiting the findings of the first:
a jury can be instructed to apply an earlier verdict,
but where the first jury’s findings are not clearly stated,
and the second jury would have to either guess at what
the first jury found or reexamine the same factual issues
to do its job (potentially reaching inconsistent conclusions),
a broadened retrial is required.
--------
and
-------
In Gasoline Products, the Supreme Court reversed a
lower court order limiting a new trial to damages and
remanded for a new trial on liability as well because
“the question of damages on the counterclaim is so interwoven
with that of liability that the former cannot be submitted
to the jury independently of the latter without confusion
and uncertainty which would amount to a denial of a fair trial.”
-------

[ 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 )