MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Tech News (http://forums.macnn.com/tech-news/)
-   -   Jury selection commences for Apple-Samsung damages retrial (http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-news/505825/jury-selection-commences-apple-samsung-damages/)

 
NewsPoster Nov 12, 2013 06:02 PM
Jury selection commences for Apple-Samsung damages retrial
The jury selection process has begun for the retrial covering portions of the damages from last year's <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/298241==http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/08/24/willful.infringement.finding.could.triple.damages/" rel='nofollow'>$1.05 billion verdict</a> in the Apple-Samsung patent infringement case. Judge Lucy Koh, who <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/298242==http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/04/30/will.be.restricted.to.13.samsung.devices/" rel='nofollow'>initially vacated</a> $450 million of the damages from Apple's landmark victory, is presiding over the proceedings once more. In the new case, the jury will decide a new dollar figure to cover the damages of Samsung's infringement for those products which fall under the purview of Koh's vacated $450 million. <br />
<br />
In a rare sign of accord, attorneys for Apple and Samsung agreed that the jury pool should be limited from an initial crowd of 300. <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/298237==https://twitter.com/SFjlove" rel='nofollow'>According to</a> <em>The Recorder</em> reporter Julia Love, the field has been winnowed down to about 90 potential jurors, and the court is still "standing room only." <br />
<br />
Judge Koh, mindful of the potential length of the hearings, has attempted to limit follow-up questions in the selection process, noting that she would like to "select this jury before [she retires]." During the process, lawyers for Samsung have argued that some jurors that have been discussing the case should be dismissed. Attorneys for Apple countered that such a decision would be improper, as it would favor Samsung. <br />
<br />
At issue in the case is whether the initial jury -- in handing down the $1.05 billion verdict -- incorrectly calculated the damages due Apple from Samsung's infringement of some Apple patents. In March of this year, Koh ruled that the figures reached for infringement by Samsung's Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform would necessitate a new trial. Patent law expert Florian Mueller opined at the time that the jury had "set only one damages figure per product, but half a dozen intellectual property rights were found infringed, resulting in a lack of clarity."<br />
<br />
Samsung is still required to pay the remaining $600 million in damages that was not vacated by Koh's earlier ruling. This follow-on trial is not limited to the vacated damages, and could even exceed what the previous jury awarded.<br />
<br />
Koh will reportedly instruct the jurors in the trial that their "sole job" is to determine the amount of damages that Samsung must pay for the infringing products. Litigation experts have <a href="http://macnn.com/rd/298238==http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/apple-may-try-to-beat-record-1-billion-samsung-verdict.html" rel='nofollow'>told</a> <em>Bloomberg</em> that there is little chance that Samsung will get off lightly in the retrial. The question in the case, they say, is "whether [the damage awards] will be big or huge."
 
lochias Nov 12, 2013 06:36 PM
Unfortunately, the article misstates the heart of what is happening in this trial:
"At issue in the case is whether the initial jury -- in handing down the $1.05 billion verdict -- incorrectly ruled some Samsung products to be infringing on Apple patents."

The jury is not given any say in whether the products do or do not infringe.
They are given as previously established FACT that Samsung has infringed with each of eleven products.
The jury's job is to attach a dollar sign to each one of them, determining the amount of the damages that Samsung must pay.
 
Charles Martin Nov 12, 2013 08:50 PM
You're correct. The writer meant to say "incorrectly ruled on the amounts owed for Samsung's infringment." I'll have that changed. Thanks for catching that.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2