Apple v. Samsung Preparing for Dec. 6th Hearing

Apple v. Samsung Preparing for Dec. 6th Hearing

catching up with the Apple v. Samsung post-verdict motions means going
through an appallingly long and complicated list of new filings.
This must be what it feels like to be a marriage counselor. The
parties come in, all upset with each other, fervently and loudly
enumerating in detail each others' sins up to the heavens, asking you
to say *they* are right, and you sit there not knowing what some of
what they are saying is even talking about. Even when you do, where do
you start with those two?

I have no hope of explaining all of it in one article, so I'll just
highlight three items, and I'll show you the docket with all the PDFs,
and little by little, I'll try to explain the things that matter most.

For now, suffice it to say that the parties are building up to the
December 6th hearing, and it's hot and heavy going, fighting over
every little -- and every big -- thing. The big thing is whether or
not the judge has the authority to overrule the jury's verdict. On
subsidiary issues, Apple doesn't want Samsung to be able to show [PDF]
the court production models of newly available design-around versions
of the Galaxy S II (T Mobile) (SGH-T989) and a production model of the
Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (SPH- D710), newly produced uninfringing
products, because, Apple claims [PDF], "the record is closed." I mean.
Too closed for something that significant? Apple is asking for an
injunction, after all, and it claims the new models do still infringe,
and evidence of new noninfringing products in the hands of the court
is too late? For what? Justice?

The big issue is whether or not the judge can toss out the jury's
verdict, the damages part in particular. Apple wants some of Samsung's
exhibits excised on the basis that they're "blah blah, too late, not
relevant, blah blah", to summarize with my lip a bit curled. Very
circuitous reasoning. I'll show you that in actual detail. But they
really don't want them in the case because one of them is the judgment
dated November 9, 2012 issued by the England and Wales Court of
Appeal, ruling that Samsung didn't copy Apple's design patent. How
much logic is there to give Apple a lot of damages for a design patent
the UK court just ruled was not infringed? And there is a new ruling
in another case that Apple wants the court to take notice of, because,
I gather, they think it held that jury verdicts are to be treated
reverently, but I think they may not have read it all the way through,
as it seems to support Samsung's position in one very significant
particular,

read more at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121113135359584