|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
And without having what Apple actually argued as the scope in Trial - we
could all be imagining the current state of things. It is a certainty we are
all stating opinion - and not fact because we don't have the Markman or Trial
records to rely on.
As for your assertion on what's
easier:
If that were so, would they be trying to invalidate Apple's
patent instead of taking the far easier path of showing that they are not
infringing?
I disagree on both* your assertions:
1) that one
shouldn't raise multiple defenses if one has them
and
2) that taking a
patent infringement claim to trial is "easier" then getting a USPTO
re-examin
All the publicly available information shows a USPTO patent
re-exam is both cheaper and faster then going to trial. And you certainly don't
risk getting a Jury Foreman who convinces his fellow Jurors that it isn't their
job to invalidate patents.
* both assertions are - of course - my
conclusion on what you are insinuating based on your question. I could be wrong
on this. For example, you could have simply overlooked
A: time and cost
differences between raising a re-exam with the USPTO vs Trial
and
B:
you are not allowed to raise a defense during your appeal which you coul have or
should have known prior to trial and should have raised then
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
So then... you are a lawyer working for Apple on this case?
The protocol here is that if you are involved in a case under discussion, you
should disclose it.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and have no vested interest in this case.
(myNym, not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Actually, no. I don't know if you have read the
update. If not, do that first.
My understanding is that Samsung is indeed saying
that Apple told the USPTO something very different
from what it told the jury about this claim.
If so, then it's quite logical for Samsung to
ask for a new trial on this claim, in that what
the jury was told and what they found infringement
about is no longer, from what Samsung is saying,
what Apple is saying its patent is about. Samsung
does say that Apple has narrowed its claim to the
point that it no longer covers what Samsung's
products do. And they say that there was no
testimony or evidence otherwise. See the Declaration
I partly quoted from.
Now Apple will likely argue otherwise, which is
why I wrote that at this point, it's not really
possible to know for sure what will happen. But
for sure Samsung is saying that the claim was
narrowed, its construction.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: myNym on Friday, July 12 2013 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Samsung does have a different implementation.
Samsung's code runs on Android.
Apple's code runs on IOS.
They are different implementations.
(Apparently, you don't know what the word "implementation"
means when it comes to software.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
