Judge Lucy Koh grants Samsung a major breakthrough in Apple v. Samsung trial

“Late on Sunday, Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge presiding over the Apple v. Samsung trial in San Jose, surprisingly overruled Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal and entered an order that is a major breakthrough for Samsung,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “This reversal significantly increases the Korean company’s chances of getting a verdict it can live with.”

“Instead of providing an adverse inference instruction only against Samsung, the court will tell the jury the same thing about both companies,” Mueller reports. “As a result, the jury will not consider Samsung less trustworthy than Apple, which would have been the case if Judge Grewal’s decisions to give such an instruction only against Samsung but not against Apple had been upheld.”

Mueller writes, “It appears that Judge Koh was too concerned about appearing to apply double standards to the two parties. However, I continue to believe that the facts in Samsung’s case — given that the Korean company already faced problems in U.S. litigation due to its automatic deletion of emails seven years ago — were far more serious than the ones in Apple’s case. Judge Koh certainly missed an opportunity to show strength and treat companies differently if the facts warrant it, even if the parties’ conduct may appear comparable at the highest level of abstraction. If the outcome of the trial is unfavorable to Apple, Apple may very well prevail on this question on appeal and get a retrial with a different instruction.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Judge Lucy Koh asks Apple’s attorneys if they’re ‘smoking crack’ – August 16, 2012
Judge urges Apple and Samsung to settle ahead of verdict – August 15, 2012
Apple’s biggest enemy in smartphone wars: Molasses-like legal systems – June 13, 2012


      1. No, it’s assholes that play the race card every chance they get that makes the issue of race into an eye-rolling trivial topic, stealing legitimacy from genuine occurrences of discrimination.

        1. Actually, you didn’t state a fact. Koh was born in the United States and attended Harvard, so she is an American, not Korean, though perhaps her parents are from Korean… but that’s an assumption, not a fact. Similarly, your “… prolly has family back there” statement is also an assumption. You’re implying that her loyalties are Korean, rather than American, yet show no evidence of such.

          So, sorry, you did NOT state a FACT.

          1. “Korean” is an ethnicity, as well as a nationality.

            I have no wager in this fight (in fact I don’t even know what she looks like, for all I know she’s a Martian), just pointing out your obvious error.

            1. Of course you’re correct, however, I was hoping that Lordthree was making an assertion of national loyalty rather than one of ethnicity. Guess I was wrong.

  1. Isn’t this like HR running a background check on someone, finding out they lied about prior employment, but not mentioning it to your hiring manager — putting all applicants on equal footing.

    Her name should be Lucy “utt ohh”.

  2. I think Lucy Koh is trying to force Apple to settle before it goes to the jury. She asked Apple and Samsung to discuss a settlement one more time and that is happening today.

    1. That’s not unusual for civil cases, especially complex cases like this one. Remember, the parties can agree to any terms they like when settling, but the judge and jury can only award money and possibly an injunction. The judge can’t force a licensing agreement, for example, on the parties.

      Usually settlements work best for all parties involved because you can put things in which you can’t really address at trial, e.g., Apple could get Samsung to give it 1,000,000 display units and agree not to sell Android tablets in Australia. A judge can’t impose those type of agreements.

  3. Hey Lucy, here is how you would put the question on equal footing with simple semantics that still preserve the meaning:

    “Which company would you see as more trustworthy – the company that deletes its evidence every 2 weeks or the company that archives all its evidence?

  4. “That’s how asian family structures are with nationality and culture.”
    Opinions like that are what got Japanese Americans placed into internment camps durin ww2

      1. The West Coast Japs were interned because of code breaking exposing that many, many Jap agents were mixed in the Jap-American population. Only during the past decade have the records of this been declassified.

        Dan Kurt

  5. No what the motives, there is just some really bad judging going on in this case. Yeah – a settlement would be neat. It ain’t going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen. I think Judge Koh is doing everything she can to make sure this trial gets appealed and that she makes enough mistakes to make the Appeals court have to render the actual judgment. With all of the fu¢kups that have occurred already, this case is destined for determination outside of this courtroom. No matter what the jury decides, it will be irrelevant. The Appeals court will either if the judgment (unlikely) or find there were too many errors and remand for a new trial – not in front of Judge Koh. The way she is acting she should have recused herself when initially assigned the case.

Reader Feedback

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