Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit in the US

[Anduril]

And the appeal by Samsung over the Galaxy Nexus has lifted that ban. December will be interesting.

Sent from my HTC One X using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk 2

[FlameOn]

USPTO has invalidated the Apple bounce-back patent based on prior art.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/23/f...ding/#comments

[Azure]

Makes you wonder why they didn't bother to check prior art when they originally granted the patent. Either way, good news.

[Hemi-Cuda]

key patent being invalidated, juror foreman being incompetent, rules for judgement not being followed. it has to be all but a certainty that Apple's win against Samsung will be tossed out at this point, which will probably end up as a win for Samsung in the long run. nice to see someone finally taking a look at these ridiculous patents

[Azure]

Samsung is putting its hopes in the alleged concealment of information by the foreman of the jury that awarded the record $1 billion judgment in Apple’s favor. The Koreans’ legal team says that Velvin Hogan has purposely hid the fact that he was sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung is one of the major shareholders of Seagate, so its lawyers argue that Hogan might hold a prejudice against the Korean manufacturer.

During voir dire, the stage of a trial when the members of the jury are selected, Hogan was asked about any litigations he was involved in, but failed to disclose two trials. Samsung’s team argues that it would have opposed Hogan’s selection if it had been aware of his dispute with Seagate.

But Hogan went on to become the jury foreman, and according to his own testimony, he had a decisive role in the judgment.

Judge Lucy Koh announced that she will allow Samsung to make its argument about Hogan in December. Legal experts say that it’s unlikely that Judge Koh would throw out the verdict without some solid evidence of wrongdoing on Velvin Hogan’s part. We’ll know more starting December 6, when Koh is expected to decide on the final amount of damages that Samsung will have to pay to Apple.

http://www.androidauthority.com/sams...stions-130042/

[Robbob]

So would this information coupled with the fact that he went against instructions on the prior art not prove there was some wrong doing on his behalf. Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

[FlameOn]

Last month Samsung had demanded that Apple reveal when they found out about head Juror's involvement in cases that would create a direct conflict of interest in the Apple vs Samsung trial. Apple is now feigning ignorance about head juror misconduct after previously laying blame on Samsung for not investigating the matter more thoughly themselves.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...foreman-s-suit

More about the specific arguments.

Samsung has argued that it has a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate and that Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been permitted to explore. The company has also said Hogan’s public statements after the verdict suggest he failed to answer the court’s questions truthfully to “secure a seat on the jury.”

[Regulator75]

The infamous "Steve Jobs" patent deemed invalid by US Patent Office.

http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/apple-2...patent-office/

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to ban infringing Samsung devices. She also denied Samsung's request for a new trial based on jury misconduct.

http://www.news1130.com/2012/12/18/j...ent-dispute-4/

[chemgear]

I didn't really follow the ins and outs during the trail but I found these interesting. Rather backhanded but I'd imagine she is out of patience with both sides.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3...esult-in-a-new

Judge Koh wrote that the discovery problem was the fault of Samsung's legal team. Hogan admitted he worked for Seagate during the jury selection process, she wrote, providing Samsung with ample opportunity to discover the litigation if the company's team had "acted with reasonable diligence."

As for Samsung's charges that Hogan's post-trial interviews revealed he had unfairly swayed the jury, Koh pointed out that said interviews are barred when considering an evidentiary hearing unless they proved Hogan had introduced "outside knowledge specific to the facts of this case" during the jury's deliberations. Samsung itself never made such a claim in its arguments and briefings to the court. Koh also called the company's legal team out for praising the jury, only to now blame misconduct for ruining its chances. "Samsung cannot credibly claim that the jury's conduct was simultaneously worthy of such great praise and so biased as to warrant a new trial," Koh wrote.

[FlameOn]

All of Apple's pinch to zoom patent claims have been rejected by the USPTO
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...nder-fire/?r=1

[Regulator75]

^^^ Christmas came early!