Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Apple versus Samsung judge opens door to possible new trial

Apple versus Samsung judge opens door to possible new trial
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 04:40 PM
Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California in San Francisco has entered an order on the recent battery of Apple and Samsung motions brought in regards to the first contentious smartphone patent trial. While there aren't any clear decisions on any legal matters, Judge Koh has left open the door for a full retrial on the 14 accused products that need, at the very least, a new damages declaration.

The judge has denied Apple's motion to have a case management conference on April 3, which comes as no surprise given the late date of Wednesday's filing. Apple may, however, be granted leave to further support its motion for a case management conference with an additional filing.

Apple was granted permission to file motion for reconsideration of a previous vacation of two products -- the Galaxy S II and Infuse 4G -- which, between the pair, hold damages of $85 million that Apple believes the court put on the list of products requiring a damages retrial erroneously.

A case management conference has been set for April 29, with a deadline of April 22 for a statement discussing arguments to be made at the hearing, which will not exceed 10 pages, also by judicial order. In the 10 pages, both parties must propose a schedule for discovery for any retrial that may be scheduled for the damages determination.

Both parties have some work to do before the case management statement. On April 9, apple must file a six-page (maximum length) response to Samsung's contention that a new trial on damages is prejudicial to Samsung in violation of the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution. Samsung must file a response to Apple's contention from March that the court order of vacating damages and a new trial is not viable, after which, Apple may file a four-page max reply.

Also due on April 9, both Apple and Samsung must each file a statement in regards to where the United States Patent Trade Office (USPTO) examinations of each other's patents will conclude, and what effects the re-examinations will have on any trial or appeal, including the recent "invalidation" of Apple's "rubber-banding" patent by the USPTO. Following that, both parties may respond to the other's statement by April 16, in a counter-argument not exceeding two pages.

$451 million in vacated damages is associated with 14 Samsung products out of the original jury award of $1.05 billion in favor of Apple. The new damages trial has been ordered because Koh feels she cannot make any adjustments to the jury damages award herself, given the complexity and lack of clarity on which patents were found to be held in violation. The products involved include the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy S II AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.

As the awards stand, Apple is still owed $599 million, which will accumulate interest at a rate of 0.16 percent until paid in full. Additionally, supplemental damages from the period between the original verdict in August and the final judgement yet to be determined will be based on actual sales figures of the infringing devices, meaning Samsung may end up paying even more than the $1.05 billion originally awarded by the jury for blatantly copying Apple's software and design patents on the iPhone and iPad.

The new trial is not necessarily prejudicial against Apple or beneficial for Samsung, and is intended to clarify the nature of the infringement and which patents are held in violation for a more granular determination of what is properly owed: however, this refinement of the jury's more general award is widely seen as being beneficial to Samsung. Damages for the infringement, however, could be higher or lower, and will be determined by a new jury.

13-04-02 Apple v. Samsung Case Management Order by Florian_Muelle_439

( Last edited by NewsPoster; Apr 4, 2013 at 02:46 AM. )
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 05:39 PM
I thought she was sick and tired of all of this during the last trial? Has anyone investigated here bank accounts for deposits from Samsung?
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 07:13 PM
When the judge awarded 1 billion to Apple she was fair, now she's on Samsung's payroll?
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 07:28 PM

I never thought she was fair .... this was especially true during the motions leading up to the trial. She shot down every motion and request by Apple, and usually let most of Samsung's requests through. She also didn't allow the tripling of damages for willful copying, even though practically every witness agreed that it was wilful. I thought from day one that she was rotten ... and I still think she's rotten. $1B for all the copying that Samsung did, was peanuts .... it should have been at least $10B.

Samsung has a history of bribery and extortion, especially in their home country of Korea. I would not be the least surprised that in a few years, we'll find out that Lucy Koh was on the take.
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2013, 08:14 PM
Not necessarily just, but I suppose every one is entitled to an opinion.

Nevertheless it's interesting to see graphs of Samsung's Galaxy III sales numbers plotted against a time graph; there are peaks coinciding with mayor announcements of the trial's proceedings, and right after the lunch of the iPhone 5.

Some analysts see the lawsuit as the best publicity Samsung might have had that year, even better than the Galaxy Notes the dancers were holding at the Olympic games inauguration; and the billion dollar fine, as money well spent publicity wise.

The large peak right after the iPhone''s unveiling has been interpreted as buyers rushing to get the GSIII after holding on to see what the latest offering from Apple like and finding it lacking compared to Samsung's model.

Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2013, 02:53 AM
Originally Posted by Arne_Saknussemm View Post
When the judge awarded 1 billion to Apple she was fair, now she's on Samsung's payroll?
Dear Witless Wonder:

The judge did not award Apple so much as a single penny -- at least, not yet. A jury did.

Maybe you could, you know, pay some modicum of attention to the stories you comment on? Have a fact or two handy?
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2