Lack of citation = don't have one.
What you are assuming is what Apple
actually attempted to enforce during the Trial.
Given that both Judges
and the USPTO* have acknowledged there are those Patent Attorney's who widen the
scope of the claims for enforcement Apple could have done this as
well.
Without the Markman hearing and Trial transcripts - we can't know
for sure. As a result, it's reasonable to voice opinions - but not reasonable
to assert we must be right and another opinion must be wrong.
* For
example, a recent ruling at the USPTO with regards SAP vs Versata at the USPTO
stated:
For example, Versata contends that stare decisis requires
the Board to apply the district court’s claim construction. Pat. Opp., 65. We
disagree as appeals from this proceeding are exclusively to the Federal Circuit
rather than to district courts.
This was in the context of whether
or not PTAB should apply a broad interpretation when considering whether or not
to grant a patent and the District Court interpreting the patent more narrowly
in order to avoid invalidating the patent. My non-legal understanding of
course.
This is not the clearest example recently of the clear point I
made with regards the Lawyers arguing the narrowest interpretation in order to
get the patent granted and then argue the broadest interpretation when enforcing
the patent. But it's a start. There's another I recall recently which I have
not found yet that clearly states the PTAB would adopt the broad interpretation
the Patent Plaintiff argued in Court and invalidated the patent according to
that broader definition. I'll try and find it in order to provide the much
clearer citation.
This - of course - is not evidence that Apple argued a
broader interpretation. This is merely raising the possibility that
there may be valid grounds for Samsung to have raised the point.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
