A lawyer’s take on Apple v. Samsung (with video)

The media has been closely watching the Apple vs. Samsung case and so have the lawyers.

This morning’s Apple and Samsung patent trial proceedings began with 84 “jury instructions,” which tell the jurors how to apply the law while they deliberate and the day is planned to end with closing arguments from both Apple’s and Samsung’s lawyers.

Intellectual property attorney Bill Panagos of Butzel Long in Detroit joins The Wall Street Journal‘s “Digits” show to discuss what the legal community has their eye on.

12 Comments

  1. Lawyers love to avoid expressing unambiguous opinions about anything; so when a lawyer says on national tv that Apple is likely to win the case, he must be fairly certain that Apple will win. If they don’t, there ain’t no justice.

    1. Everyone thought Obamacare’s individual mandate would be struck down too, but it passed. I’m not making a political comment either way (notice I didn’t say whether I agree with the ruling or not). Just pointing out that courts have a way of not caring what some folks think.

    1. Yes, a ban could be imposed during the appeals process. However, it is likely the courts would require Apple to post a huge bond in order for the ban to remain in effect. Then if the Appeals Court overturns the ban Apple would have to pay some fraction (10%?, 90%?, 100%?) of that bonded money to Samsung to make up for lost profits, etc. during the ban.

      However, it is much more likely that any ban, if imposed in the first place, would be set aside until the appeals run their course.

  2. If looking only at the concept of “First In”, I can’t see how any jury would not find Apple has the upper hand. If looking at the concept of “Look and Feel”, Apple has the upper hand. If looking at the concept of “Time to Market”, Apple has it. I hope we don’t get another Microsoft or OJ here.

  3. With the number of patents involved in the trial, I will not even attempt to comment upon all of them. The basic ones are so obvious that, IMO, the court, on its own initiative, should have invalidated them as “improvidently awarded”. I hope the jury has the good sense to make reach such a conclusion.

Leave a Reply to breeze Cancel reply

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