Judge Lucy Koh allows second U.S. Apple v. Samsung case to proceed, but parties must narrow their claims

“At close of business on Friday, Judge Lucy Koh, the federal judge presiding over two Apple v. Samsung lawsuits in the Northern District of California entered a case management order relating to the second case, which started in February 2012,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.

“I saw media reports according to which she had said at a recent hearing that she wants the case to be narrowed substantially or would otherwise order a formal stay or just simply delay resolution,” Mueller reports. “Formally this was a warning to both parties, but this is of concern only to Apple, which wants to enforce its intellectual property rights as quickly as possible, while Samsung’s counterclaims are little more than an effort to slow down the process and create the appearance of mutual infringement.”

Mueller reports, “This situation is familiar. In the build-up to the August 2012 trial Judge Koh also insisted on a substantial narrowing of claims, and Samsung tried to reinforce and capitalize on this pressure on Apple. In light of the enormous effort that last year’s huge trial required the court and the parties to make, there is now even more narrowing pressure.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Apple objects to Judge Lucy Koh’s proposed delay of second Samsung patent infringement lawsuit – March 8, 2013
Judge Lucy Koh slashes jury award in Apple v. Samsung case from $1.03 billion to $599 million – March 1, 2013
Judge Lucy Koh orders Apple and Samsung to narrow claims – February 22, 2013
Apple appeals Judge Lucy Koh’s refusal to bar Samsung’s patent infringing smartphones from U.S. market – December 20, 2012
Judge denies Apple request for permanent ban on Samsung phones in U.S. – December 17, 2012
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011

Samsung’s new ‘Wallet’ bears striking resemblance to Apple’s Passbook – February 27, 2013
Korea JoongAng Daily: Samsung must stop slavishly copying Apple – September 3, 2012
South Korea reassesses its great imitator, Samsung – September 2, 2012
Convicted patent infringer Samsung acuses Apple of trying to limit consumer choice – September 1, 2012
Is Samsung copying Apple’s patented earphones? It sure looks like it – September 8, 2012
Samsung mimics Apple product videos in Galaxy S III promo (with video) – August 24, 2012
Now slavish copycat Samsung attempts to knockoff Apple’s retail stores (with video) – August 23, 2012
Samsung: Shameless slavish copiers – August 13, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple: Google warned Samsung against slavishly copying our products – July 25, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008


    1. Even more important, Samsung seems to understand the weaknesses in our judicial system quite well, and its legal team is playing to those weaknesses brilliantly.

  1. All eyes are on Koh. Companies having the capability to protect their intellectual properties in a timely matter is more important that whatever money (if any) Samsung is promising her. Hopefully she won’t crap on the value of the patent.

    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Because federal judges are considered civil officers, they are subject to this rule.

    Article 3 mentions good behavior of judges, without defining it. this is taken to mean that the reasons for impeachment of a federal judge aren’t limited to criminal acts.

    The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives, with passage of articles of impeachment by a majority vote. The articles of impeachment state specific allegations of wrongdoing. The second step in the process is a trial in the U.S. Senate on the allegations. To convict someone who has been impeached, a two-thirds majority vote is required by the Senate. If convicted by the Senate, the accused is immediately removed from office.

    Here’s a more detailed “Impeach and remove US Supreme Court Justices” how-to:


Reader Feedback

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