|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Maybe you should build your own blog? Then you could just
link to it if you wish to. Long, long comments
do annoy some people here, and it would be thoughtful
to either break them up into shorter comments or
set up your own blog.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Posting - Authored by: macliam on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 08:40 PM EDT
- Posting - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 11:02 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: macliam on Sunday, April 14 2013 @ 05:40 AM EDT |
The Groklaw article here
reproduces Judge William H. Alsup's Patent Infringement Instructions in the case
Oracle v. Google. I note that the relevant instructions (nos. 8 to 17)
are far simpler than those that Judge Lucy Koh issued in Apple v. Samsung
regarding the determination of whether utility patents are infringed.
In
particular some of Judge Koh's instructions seem to contain slabs of undigested
case law relevant to patent law in general, but maybe not particularly relevant
to the patents asserted in Apple v. Samsung. It leaves me wondering if
that material was relevant to the case before her, or did she simply provide in
those instructions chunks of boilerplate designed for inclusion in patent cases,
written for previous cases before her, or that are in standard use in her
district. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: macliam on Sunday, April 14 2013 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
I had another Aha moment today. I was wondering why would Judge Koh
include a jury instruction (instruction 27) on infringement of utility patents
under the “doctrine of equivalents”. Then I recollected the claim
of Samsung's '460 patent.
I won't go into details, to avoid unnecessary ‘pollution’, but the
method involves “the use of scroll keys”. My understanding is that
Apple's iPhones and iPads don't have mechanical keyboards, and
therefore presumably don't have scroll keys. Therefore it is presumably hard to
argue ‘literal infringement’ of the '460 patent under the terms of
Judge Koh's jury instruction 26 by the use of a device without a keyboard!
Therefore, to establish infringement, one would argue that the appropriate
gestures on the touch screen were interchangeable with the use of the scroll
keys in the method claimed in the '460 patent, and thus the device would
infringe under the “doctrine of equivalents’.
Searching for
some supporting evidence, I found the following sentence on page 29 of SAMSUNG NOTICE
OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL AND/OR
REMITTITUR
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50 AND 59 (on
Groklaw):
Second, Apple argued that swiping between
photos and ‘ use of scroll keys’ are not equivalent, RT 3297:1-3;
3301:3-4, yet Apple's own user guides equate swiping and use of scroll keys on
Apple's devices and this argument only applies to some but not all accused
products. RT 2399:9-2400:l6; DX 533.119.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
