Apple-Samsung closing arguments are pushed back due to decision in Court of Appeals

Apple-Samsung closing arguments are pushed back due to decision in Court of Appeals
Had everything gone as scheduled in the Apple-Samsung patent trial II, "the thriller with the manilla folders," both sides would have wrapped up their closing statements on Monday, and turned the case over to the jury for deliberations. But as it turns out, a ruling in another courtroom has implications for the Apple-Samsung trial, which forced Judge Lucy Koh to add extra hours of testimony before the jury gets the case.

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.

source: CAFC

FEATURED VIDEO

19 Comments

1. JMartin22

Posts: 2370; Member since: Apr 30, 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.

17. Ashoaib

Posts: 3282; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

I hope history will turn around

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: 2370; Member since: Apr 30, 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: Oct 21, 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: 593; Member since: Apr 10, 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: 455; Member since: Feb 21, 2013

Apple forks out $100M for engaging in anti-trust behaviour. They are the leading stealer of other company's bright mights too http://blog.gsmarena.com/google-apple-tech-companies-make-324m-anti-trust-settlement/

16. mayur007

Posts: 593; Member since: Apr 10, 2012

true..

4. StraightEdgeNexus

Posts: 3689; Member since: Feb 14, 2014

Those massive profits generated are all probably wasted on this lawsuit arguments.

5. _Bone_

Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 2012

Google at work heh heh heh

7. techperson211

Posts: 1280; Member since: Feb 27, 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 unregistered

Apple has so many law suits its cases are starting to run in to each other.

10. AfterShock

Posts: 4146; Member since: Nov 02, 2012

Let any fine, be paid in rolls of nickels.

11. LikeMyself

Posts: 631; Member since: Sep 23, 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

Another crapsuit.

15. deewinc

Posts: 455; Member since: Feb 21, 2013

Very soon Apple is going to sue itself out of total confusion.

18. Ashoaib

Posts: 3282; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

Lolz... that will be really nice

19. express77 unregistered

That's innovation.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.