|
|
|
| Authored by: NigelWhitley on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 08:18 AM EDT |
Your argument seems to be that Samsung should have known that the claim
construction Apple used in court was not the same as the construction Apple
would later present to the USPTO. Likewise that when comparing their product
with claim 19, Samsung should have used the interpretation which Apple later
used with the PTO and not the one Apple had asserted in court.
Clearly it would be best for Samsung to have done these things as soon as Apple
asserted the "correct" claim construction. Oh, hold on, that's what
this motion is about. Samsung's position (IMHO,IANAL) is that Apple asserted a
different claim construction in court than it has now provided to the USPTO.
Samsung also argue that the evidence Apple provided in court to demonstrate
infringement of claim 19 is consistent with the "original" (natural)
interpretation but is insufficient for the newly disclosed interpretation (which
Apple say is the correct one) even though that evidence was specifically
provided by Apple in support of the claim as it then interpreted it.
It is self-evident now that Samsung lawyer's failed to understand how Apple
interpreted their patent application. Even more disturbingly, it seems Apple's
lawyers did too. It's a good thing the jury did a better job than these highly
paid legal brains or they might have reached an incorrect decision...
-----------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Don't be obtuse - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 09:50 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
