|
Authored by: newbury on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
There is more to this than just the sanctions issue. An article at
appleinsider.com refers to prior orders regarding disallowing evidence of prior
art by way of tablets seen in Arthur Clarke's 2001 (ok Kubrick's vision
thereof).
"Also during the preliminary injunction stage, Samsung argued the 1994
Fidler Tablets and the Compaq TC1000 rendered Apple's D504,889 patent for a
tablet computer obvious but failed to note the prior art references would later
support non-infringement claims. For the same reasons as the "Space
Odyssey" denial, the Fidler and Compaq exhibits won't make their way to
court."
However there is an appeal circuit split on the question of whether a party
*must* file a Rule 50 motion for reconsideration to preserve previously unargued
*legal* arguments for appeal. The majority of the circuits (iirc) have held that
this is not necessary, as *legal* arguments are *always* subject to review by
the appeal court (provided they are based on evidence before the (trial) court).
IIRC, the other courts have agreed that the legal arguments are subject to
review, but that the Rules require that the legal argument be made first before
the trial court. (I assume because the trial court may have to make findings of
fact to support/reject the legal argument). We saw this in Oracle/Google.
Apple whined that this was a 'sandbag' and that they were
"unprepared". Oh puh-lease. A weekend at most should be sufficient.
But Koh has rejected allowing Samsung to even make the legal argument.... $FAIL
on her part.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 03 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
It's not just you. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|