Judge Koh once again bars Samsung from using excluded ‘Sony’ theory

“Judge Koh shows no signs of bowing to public pressure from Samsung. She stands firmly behind her own and Magistrate Judge Grewal’s decisions to exclude certain claims and materials, while trying to conceal her annoyance at Samsung’s repeated attempts to justify the use of certain arguments and documents with new legal theories,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “While it’s understandable that Samsung’s lawyers wish to preserve the record for an appeal, Samsung keeps banging its head against a brick wall with motions that are creative in terms of presenting a diversity of legal theories but very repetitive as far as the relevant facts are concerned.”

Mueller reports, “After confirming that Samsung won’t be allowed to use such ‘evidence’ as pictures from the 2001: A Space Odyssey movie and the Tomorrow People TV series, Judge Koh also ruled on an Apple motion necessitated by Samsung’s use of arguments and references to evidence concerning a ‘Sony style’ design project at Apple in its trial brief. Apple didn’t ask for a new ruling: it merely brought a motion to enforce a previous order by Judge Grewal.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: A 2006 Sony Walkman inspired by Apple’s iPod that was predated by a 2005 Apple prototype that looks just like a current-gen iPhone is irrelevant.

Related articles:
Apple to Samsung: Do not reveal iPad, iPhone sales data – August 3, 2012
Apple v. Samsung: Meet Apple’s next 7 witnesses – August 3, 2012
Judge Koh on Samsung’s quest to use ’2001: A Space Odyssey’ as ‘evidence’ against Apple: Nope – August 2, 2012
Apple asks Judge Koh to rule in its favor after Samsung’s excluded evidence leak – August 2, 2012
Apple says it will seek sanctions over Samsung’s press release of excluded evidence – August 2, 2012
The 125-year-old U.S. patent law that could cost Samsung $2 billion for slavishly copying Apple’s designs – August 1, 2012
Samsung defends decision to share excluded evidence with media – August 1, 2012
Apple says jury should learn that Samsung destroyed evidence – August 1, 2012
Samsung, after ‘begging’ to get Sony into Apple patent trial, flouts judge and releases ‘excluded evidence’ anyway – July 31, 2012
Apple v. Samsung Live Blog: Trial opens with one juror gone, Samsung begging – July 31, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple aims for total war, salted earth in Samsung patent infringement fight – July 31, 2012
Apple-Samsung jury picked to decide U.S. patent trial; Google engineer fails to make final cut – July 30, 2012


  1. Samsung would be better off just changing the design of there phones. Really, how difficult could it be to make a distinctive Samsung design and getting down to cost, a lot cheaper.

    1. They already have. This is about their previous models which were almost exact replicas of the iPhone.

      I have no problem with the look of the SGS3. It looks nothing like an iPhone and it’s butt ugly. The problem I have in the present day is with Android.

  2. OK…. Enough with the theatrics! This is going nowhere, the Judge is probably using an iPhone or iPad and regardless of what she says the IPhone 10 will be coming out by the time all of the appeals have been filed and heard.

    This is Advertising for both companies and nothing else. Both these companies have deep pockets and will spare no expense to defend their point of view and I suggest right up to the Supreme Court in need be.

    The real culprits here is the US Patent Laws.

    Good artist’s copy and great artist’s steal. Steve Jobs

    1. I really wish that statement would stop being said out of context. It’s like saying. “I really beat the crap out of my wife!.” referring to me beating her at checkers.

    2. Pat, the difference between artists being inspired by art (and I can assure you all great artists are, vs hacks or copycats is: Great artists (like apple) don’t just copy successful products bit for bit (like google and samsunng did) Apple was inspired by the mouse (originally thought up at MIT but was merely a lab toy) and by the research done at PARC (building on the MIT research) but again the entire Xerox system was little more than a lab toy. Graphical user interfaces were’s considered “useful” and were just considered useless window dressing (pun intended)
      The same goes for the tablet, the iPad was not the first tablet, apple was just the first company to figure out how to make it work.

      You can see the same philosophy in purchased companies, Companies like MS and adobe buy successful companies that are beginning to threaten their status quo (and either integrate or squash them)
      Apple buys small emerging companies (that are typically less then successful) and develops (or co-develops) the ideas.
      That was what Steve was referring to in that quote being inspired by others work, not becoming a hack and simply copying someone’s art wholesale.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.