decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
To preserve the issue ... | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
To preserve the issue ...
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 10:39 PM EDT
.

Samsung can appeal this or any issue if they objected to the given instruction,
or proposed a proper one and were turned down. An issue can be preserved if the
party raises it on appeal and the court deems it "plain error." This
is extremely rare and difficult, but since the judge grokked it in December and
the verdict was a billion, a party has a "extreme and rare" argument.
Time was a problem.

Apple can say it was moot. Like much of the case, Velvin would have skipped it
anyway.

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Is it all about... timing?
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 10:42 AM EDT
In December 2011, the district court issued a ruling denying Apple’s motion to
preliminarily enjoin the U.S. sales of several Samsung products, based upon such
products’ alleged infringement of three design patents and one utility patent,
owned by Apple. In this ruling, the district court included claim construction
and infringement analysis and:

(a) recognized that “certain aspects of the design patent that are dictated by
function” may limit the scope of such patent;

(b) listed elements contained in Apple’s design patents that are “dictated by
function;”

(c) explained that it should “consider only the remaining aspects of the design
in the infringement and anticipation analysis of the design patent”

(d) identified functional features in Apple’s design patents; and

(e) performed an infringement analysis of these design patents “in light of” its
claim construction.

If it was a ruling then, how long do the proceedings have to continue for it to
stop being a ruling? In the alternative, does a ruling continue to be a ruling
until quashed by the same, or another court?

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )