|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
I was wondering if Samsung had missed something. Thanks very much for
finding that filing.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
It seems to resolve the question of Samsung preserving the issue for appeal.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Thanks for finding that, but at first glance it looks like it blows Redano's
article completely out of the water by directly contradicting at least one of
the assumptions that Redano made. This is at the heart of the
article:
By failing to expressly identify non-ornamental
(functional) features of Apples design patents and instruct the jury that such
features were not to be considered in its infringement analysis, the district
court materially, and perhaps fatally, prejudiced Samsungs non-infringement
defenses.
All of the conclusions in the article are based upon two
assumptions:
- The court failed to identify the functional features, and
- The court failed to instruct the jury properly.
Yet the
brief shows that Samsung, near the end of the trial, said that the court had
already done at least some of what the first assumptions said the court
didn't do and had promised to do what the second assumption said that the court
didn't do. Here it is (my emphasis):The Court has previously stated
that it would address any functional limitations to the scope of the
design patents-in-suit at the close of evidence (Dkt No. 1425 at 2) and
has already found that certain features are functional for De677,
De087, and De889 (Dkt No. 449 at 15). As I read that, Samsung is
merely objecting that the instructions will be given verbally instead of in
writing as part of the jury instructions. Giving the instructions verbally is
still giving them! The article doesn't seem to consider that possibility. There
would be a problem if the written instructions contradicts the verbal
instruction, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Samsung complained that
"there is no instruction that functional features be factored out," but didn't
say that there was anything that said the opposite. Granted, it might have been
a better idea to include the proper instructions in the written instructions,
but I think that is just left to the judge's discretion, so it wouldn't seem to
be something that Samsung could appeal, as long as it's in the
transcripts.
Having said that, there may be something fishy about
choosing to not put the proper instruction in writing, but it really comes down
to what is in the transcripts. Still, it looks like Redano never considered the
possibility of a verbal instruction and it seems as if he was wrong about the
court not identifying any functional elements, so his conclusions don't seem to
be supported by valid premises.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|