Judge Koh rules against three Samsung motions

Judge Koh rules against three Samsung motions
Earlier on Thursday we told you that Judge Lucy Koh had banned Samsung from showing the jury any devices from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sure, she might have helped the jury more had she banned Ishtar from the court, but there isn't an iPad like device in that movie as there is in Stanley Kubrick's classic. Besides making the ruling on the film, the judge also shot down three motions from the Korean manufacturer.

Two of those motions were from Samsung asking for relief from previous rulings made by Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal in the run up to this trial. the third motion asked for clarification of Judge Koh's ruling against summary judgment filings. This last ruling had led to the court drawing up a document showing what evidence is allowed and what evidence is excluded.

Before the current trial started, Magistrate Judge Grewal joined the "I'm peeved at Samsung" club because the company failed to deliver source code on time to the judge. The source code was for a workaround that would prevent Samsung from infringing on a patent. The Magistrate Judge also excluded practically all of Samsung's expert testimony because the evidence presented was not previously disclosed which it was required to be under law. Koh ruled against Samsung in both situations saying that Judge Grewal wasn't "clearly erroneous" in making his decisions. These rulings by Judge Koh are becoming the basis for a possible appeal by Samsung. Just because a trial is lost doesn't mean it can be appealed. Errors made by the presiding judge are what determines if an appeal is warranted.

So where does the movie fit in? In challenging the preliminary injunctions against the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 and the Samsung GALAXY Nexus, Samsung referenced clips from 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Tomorrow People but whether it was an intentional omission or a mistake, Samsung never explained what the clips had to do with proving that Apple's patents were invalid or that Samsung did not infringe upon them. Using fictional characters as prior art has been successfully applied but only when the actions and ideas in the fiction match up to the action at the heart of the case. In other words, showing an iPad like device in 2001: A Space Odyssey make show prior art, but that is not what the court wants to see. If in the movie, this iPad-like device was the subject of a patent battle with the same issues as this case, perhaps Judge Koh would have allowed it.

source: electronista

FEATURED VIDEO

53 Comments

1. turk_az

Posts: 75; Member since: May 11, 2012

she is really pissing me off

26. Mxyzptlk unregistered

She is doing what is right.

38. anywherehome

Posts: 971; Member since: Dec 13, 2011

just in the right of the Money, so I agree with you and because she needs money from Apple, logically she must be a bad judge when she is not able to earn money in a right way

2. Orbitman

Posts: 110; Member since: Oct 09, 2011

geez! samsung can't seem to catch a break in this one. things are not looking up for good ol sammy =/

25. Mxyzptlk unregistered

They shouldn't have copied Apple so many times. They wouldn't even be in this debacle had they just been more original. Cue the many thumb downs.

37. Aeires unregistered

Keep telling yourself that. Apple will go after anyone they see as a threat, regardless of who they are or what designs they use.

3. Ubi2447

Posts: 131; Member since: Feb 14, 2012

Sorta feels rigged. I mean I know it's not but she really seems to be almost bias.

12. RORYREVOLUTION

Posts: 3131; Member since: Jan 12, 2010

There's no doubt in my mind she is. I'm not going to resort to childish name calling or any stupid racist remark but I will tell you she is completely full of herself and I have no doubt in my mind she is under the table with Apple. There is no way this is a fair trial and it almost seems a pointless one. But of course, for "legal" purposes, she has to give Samsung a trial, just deny every request/remark that they make tho. As I said before, if the competition gets banned, I know you apple fanboys love for 4GS2,3,4 devices that are all the same with a nice big fat contract price on them. But of course, you guys think you're so rich and cool so you'll have no problem with throwing away your money as long as you get your new idevice.

23. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

can you please explain how she is going against the rules and laws of the US judicial system?

52. cheetah2k

Posts: 2271; Member since: Jan 16, 2011

Anyone with even half a brain can see there is "clear bias" going on here. Judge Koh should be dejected for this, as well as Judge Grewal for throwing forth his personal emotions to the trial being "peeved at Samsung" for the non-release of source code. How about being peeved at Apple for contempt of the court displaying images of a Galaxy Tab the same size as an iPad... Fair is fair right? Late source code or lying to the court - I dont know about you guys but I know whats worse.

19. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

As I have posted in numerous threads, this is staged for an appeal. There are plenty of examples of judicial error which will form the basis for an appeal by Sammy. They just need to keep putting their objections and the judge overruling their objections in the record. It is unfortunate, but sh*t happens. That is why there is a court of appeal. Koh has been over-ruled before in this case (sales ban on G-Nexus), and it is looking like she will be over-ruled again.

27. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

She'll be overruled based on what? You have no idea what you're talking about.

31. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Her sales ban on the G-Nexus has been stayed through the duration of the trial. You are living a state of denial, so it is not possible to have a rational, objective conversation with you.

7. B3BLW29

Posts: 238; Member since: Mar 02, 2012

Judge Lucy Koh is either intelligent than rest of the world or she hates good old sammy..

8. nicholassss

Posts: 368; Member since: May 10, 2012

-_____- come on.

9. ampney50

Posts: 6; Member since: Aug 03, 2012

Some one's getting a new iphone

15. frydaexiii

Posts: 1476; Member since: Dec 01, 2011

I'm starting to think it went something like this. Apple : Let us win and you'll be the first in the world to use the new iPhone. Koh : *Fangasm* DOWN WITH SAMSUNG, ALL HAIL APPLE!

11. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

oi......

14. frydaexiii

Posts: 1476; Member since: Dec 01, 2011

Wow, this is just incredible, it's like she's not even trying to act like she's a fair judge anymore. Samsung : "We got proof that we designed a phone that looks like the iPhone before the iPhone." Nope. "Apple used Sony's design in the first place." Nope. "They can't sue over a F****KING RECTANGLE!!!!" Yes, they can. Apple : "Mommy, the used a rectangle shape for their phone and it's stealing all our customers!" OH NO THEY DIDN'T*Shakes Head* Samsung is guilty, I don't care what proof they have or what proof Apple doesn't have, they just are!

21. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

honestly its like you dont even know what is happening with this trial… apple has the patents for this design-- those patents are debatable but that isnt what this trial is about… this trial is only whether samsung infringed on those patents… therefor space odyssey has absolutely no relevance also if samsung is not going to follow the rules of the United States judicial system, then their evidence will be thrown out as so…

33. phitch

Posts: 214; Member since: Mar 06, 2012

But Patents only work if there is no prior art. Samsung has the right to prove prior art exists, that is what they are attempting to do. Not allowing the existence of prior art to be shown at a trial is a huge problem. "I have a patent on something that existed before I patented it. So you copied me, just don't show anyone that I copied my design in the first place."

51. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 2011

the problem is this trial has nothing to do with whether the patents are valid or not-- that is a whole separate trial… the only thing this trial is deciding is whether or not samsung inflicted said patents, legit or not

16. SonyFTW2020

Posts: 311; Member since: May 03, 2012

Apple is hurting themselves remember that...

28. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

Apple is winning

39. Rocksteady unregistered

winning in court, maybe. Gaining public hatred, sure.

50. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

People love Apple, Internet trolls are the only ones complaining.

53. Rocksteady unregistered

Can't you discuss matters in a more adult fashion?! sheeps are all over the place.

17. paulyyd

Posts: 340; Member since: Jan 08, 2011

Lol you guys mad again?

20. issa8

Posts: 54; Member since: Jul 26, 2011

Wow...

29. taco50

Posts: 5506; Member since: Oct 08, 2009

Samsung is getting a nice butt kicking by Apple. Apple tried to reason with them and asked them to stop. Samsung blew them off so now here we are. I'm hoping Samsung faces some very heavy financial losses due to this trial.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

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.