|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
You may well be right. I've been wondering about this. I see it a little
differently but I admit that I'm not comfortable with my interpretation. What I
think Samsung is arguing is that Apple didn't talk about edge effects in the
previous trial so if the patent had been limited to edge effects and nothing
else changed then Apple would have lost that trial. For example Samsung
says:
[...] if evidence from the reexamination had been available
by the time of trial, it would have resulted in a new claim construction and
Samsung would have defeated Apple's claim of infringement. If Apple’s position
from reexamination is taken into account, [...]
I know they say
elsewhere that:
[many Samsung devices] cannot possibly infringe
Claim 19 of the '381 patent.
but I see no explanation for this
other than the context of the previous trial where Apple never talked about edge
effects. Maybe I'm splitting hairs but I don't see where they say their devices
can't possibly infringe if there is a new trial. If it is true that their
devices can't possibly infringe even if there is a new trial then why is a trial
needed? Wouldn't some sort of summary judgment be more judicially
efficient?
I'm pretty sure those Samsung devices are rubber-banding at the
edge of documents which IMO means Apple has a fighting chance in a new trial and
therefore summary judgment is not appropriate. I'd be glad to be wrong here
but this was the only way I could piece everything together and make it fit in
my mind.
Anyway, my overall point in the previous post was that since
rubber-banding is an end-result and thus an idea (even when limited to
rubber-banding at edges), it does not warrant patent protection and much damage
is being caused by all the many patents on ideas that are being approved by the
PTO and spewing into courtrooms around the country.
---
In a time
of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cpeterson on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
Claims 14 and 17-19 of the '381 patent were the only
survivors of the ex
parte reexamination. Claim 19, in
particular, was only confirmed after the
Patent Owner and
the Patent Office, upon reviewing the prior art in
Lira, came to the conclusion and agreement that
the
effect of the instruction might match, but the
cause was
different, and was therefore patentable.
However, if the claim
construction is now presented
such the particular stop conditions implemented
in the
instruction code is dispositive, does Apple get to re-open
discovery
and ask for Samsung's implementing code? Do they
get to call new witnesses to
explore the intent of the
programmers? Do they get to amend their infringement
claims
to point particularly at infringing stop condition
instructions? Do
they get to re-do the jury instructions to
ask for new standards for
infringement?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
