Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

"reexamination decision trumps anything..." | 393 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

"reexamination decision trumps anything..."

Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:54 PM EDT

The court examines as in this case intrinsic evidence in a Markman hearing and
determines claim construction. The necessary limitation agreed to by Apple in
the patent prosecution for holding the claim valid during reexamination
represents new intrinsic evidence, and Samsung cites it as so.

The claim language hasn't been changed while it's scope has. The question is
whether or not Samsung's products infringe(d) the claim as constructed in light
of new intrinsic evidence.

It potentially speaks to character that Apple didn't see fit to notify the court
and parties to the narrowed scope of Claim 19. Either Samsung is grasping at
straws or Apple may have fallen short - "Where a lawyer knows of legal
authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the position of
his client, he should inform the tribunal of its existence unless his adversary
has done so; but, having made such disclosure, he may challenge its soundness in
whole or in part."

[ 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 )