Apple-Samsung closing arguments are pushed back due to decision in Court of Appeals
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 95 page ruling in a separate case between Apple and Motorola. The latter case does have implications for the Apple-Samsung trial since it covers Apple's '647 patent covering "quick links" or "data detectors. That is one of five patents that Apple claims that Samsung infringed on. The Appeals Court reversed the original ruling and reinstated Motorola's claim, which was previously dismissed when Judge Richard Posner said that neither Apple nor Motorola could prove that they were damaged by the actions of the other company.
The issue with the '647 patent that will require the additional testimony, is the definition of what an analyzer server is. The patent revolves around "quick links," which requires the use of the analyzer server. The sitting jury in the current Apple-Samsung case has not been given a definition of what such a server is. Judge Posner had defined it as "a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client." Apple had originally disagreed with that definition, but the federal appeals court has now sided with the judge. Motorola and Apple are now free to sue each other again over this patent.
Each side on Monday, will call an expert witness to define what an analyzer server is. The two experts are Carnegie Mellon professor Todd Mowry and University of North Carolina professor Kevin Jeffay. This could push back closing arguments until Tuesday.
Apple is seeking more than $2 billion from Samsung for allegedly infringing on five patents. Samsung has filed a cross-claim, accusing Apple of infringing on a pair of Samsung patents, and is seeking approximately $6 million.
1. JMartin22 (Posts: 1716; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
This is likely an unwanted revelation for Apple. Now Samsung gets to make it's closing argument that builds upon their further narrative, that Apple's patents and their price tag is unwarranted and (now) seemingly less credible.
2. Sauce (unregistered)
Can this bologna just end already? This sh*t is ridiculous.
This is almost worse than that Trayvon Martin case.
6. JMartin22 (Posts: 1716; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
I agree with that sentiment on the TM case. It was hijacked by political race baiters and exploited for views and money.
13. PBXtech (Posts: 1032; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
Only thing this trial needs at this point is a dozen cop cars chasing a white bronco.
Flipping circus of the judicial system.
3. mayur007 (Posts: 531; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
i think apple has free time...
rather than innovating they chose this option ...;.
the que is why they innovate(they are not know for innovation)..
they will buy from another company n will say they innovated ..
they steal as well...
14. deewinc (Posts: 210; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
Apple forks out $100M for engaging in anti-trust behaviour. They are the leading stealer of other company's bright mights too
4. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3686; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)
Those massive profits generated are all probably wasted on this lawsuit arguments.
7. techperson211 (Posts: 1027; Member since: 27 Feb 2014)
Hopefully if Sammy won this case . Ifruit would call it a day. Or just file another patent B.S. case.
8. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
Next thing we know the jury/judge is on apples side
9. willard12 (Posts: 1345; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Apple has so many law suits its cases are starting to run in to each other.
10. AfterShock (Posts: 3698; Member since: 02 Nov 2012)
Let any fine, be paid in rolls of nickels.
11. LikeMyself (Posts: 400; Member since: 23 Sep 2013)
Keep fighting! LG in my country is so underestimated that the retailers sell it almost with price mentioned in LG site. In contrast, an S5 or an iPhone cost $1050. A Galaxy Tab 3 10.1 costs $700!!!
12. express77 (unregistered)
15. deewinc (Posts: 210; Member since: 21 Feb 2013)
Very soon Apple is going to sue itself out of total confusion.
19. express77 (unregistered)