Judge Lucy Koh undecided on next steps in Apple v. Samsung: Near-term second trial or stay?

“The post-trial, post-damages-ruling procedures in the first Apple v. Samsung litigation in the Northern District of California are sort of a quagmire,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “It’s clear that a second trial is needed, absent a settlement there could even be a third trial one day, one appeal is already before the Federal Circuit while another is certain to come (it’s just not clear when), and in the meantime uncertainty is growing over the validity of the asserted claim 19 of Apple’s rubber-banding patent. And on top of that, the parties disagree on pretty much everything. Both parties’ proposals are legitimate and have something to offer, unless Apple is right that Samsung’s envisioned appeal would be premature and cause nothing but delay, which is the most critical one of the questions the court has to analyze now.”

“At 11 PM local California time Judge Lucy Koh entered an order on various motions the parties had recently brought. It’s basically a scheduling order that doesn’t contain any definitive decisions. Instead, there will be some further briefing on various contested issues in the weeks ahead, and a case management conference has been scheduled for April 29. All options are on the table,” Mueller reports. “There could be a new damages trial (relating to 14 of the 28 accused products) in a matter of months; if it does take place, it could even be (as Samsung requests) a full retrial on those products involving a new decision on the merits (whether the asserted intellectual property rights are valid and were infringed); and alternatively, the court might enter a partial final judgment with respect to the other 14 products, let Samsung appeal it to the Federal Circuit and stay the proceedings in district court until that appeal is resolved, or possibly even until reexamination of certain patents-in-suit by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including any related appeals, is resolved.”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The unending saga continues, bereft-of-justice as it were.


    1. agreed – she messed up here – and should resign her position but first let Apple win this.

      America needs to protect its companies – its countries patents and inventions and innovation. Android is a sell out and offers countries to easily mimic Apple and compete far too easily. None of this should have happened. Apples iOS and iPhone should have been protected for 8 years before any other competitor could come to market so so closely.

      Forcing the competition to think different also… like a phone that is totally without a touch system… perhaps all voice beyond Siri… or innovate a watch or tv – rather than fallow Apple. Every smartphone out there has functionality exactly the pinch to zoom and swipe. Touch phones before Apple were so poor – the gestures in iPhone should never have been allowed… The software and hardware and how the user interacts with the device is and always shall be APPLE PROPERTY.


      all should be eliminated here and start over

  1. As I recal,l she requested this trial as patent litigation held a special interest for her.
    I think this is, in a way, new ground and anyone would be in serious difficulty. It’s a nest of snakes. Even though it is obvious who is at fault. (Samsung, of course) but legal arguments can often obscure the obvious.

    1. she has become a pawn in the game of legality?

      Googles Android is the case Apple needs to win.

      Samsung would not had much success if not for Googles’ OS.

      Android needs to be destroyed. Forcing other companies who use Android as the UI to rethink from the ground up.

      RIM and WINDOWS at least tried… yet even those have SWIPE and SQUEEZE and PINCH to zoom… beyond that having a touch screen on such a small device was not even thought of in the TERMS APPLE has brought to the world.

      The pen and keyboard were totally eliminated – again – other companies have followed BASICALLY because ANDROID copied.


  2. It is interesting that people (pundits) are demanding that Apple needs to innovate yet there apparently isn’t any protection for that innovation. Either Apple’s legal team(s) are totally worthless or the process simply does not protect innovators.

    It takes years to develop innovating products and months to copy (steal) them. That is the reason for the protection. If that protection is not provided, then what is the incentive to innovate at all?

    On the other hand, Apple appears to lose patent cases fairly routinely. How can that be? Is it a case of inept Apple lawyers or is there something else at work?

    Based on the situation this report suggests, Apple has lost! Even when they win — they lose. As time draws out, any settlement becomes worth less and less (even if they do receive compensation) yet Samsung has taken advantage of the speed to market years ago.

    1. All of the parties has their innovations in their own way, it can be whatever as long as it improves something from its predecessor or its has been made from scratch.
      Its a good thing that apple had these competitors, these past versions of iphones and ipads comes so boring, same with samsung, devices from versions become boring. If there will be no competition, they would not strive to improve what is current and push technologies limits. We as consumers benefits from the competition.

      As for patents, as consumers we shouldn’t mind these unless you’re a patent holder yourself, a stock holder for the company. Basically we wont be able to know what’s happening to the inside the patent system, what we only see is that, Apple and Samsung is being advertised for free through these litigation. 🙂

    1. That’s not even it. Justice should be equally served regardless. Lets just hope that the truth prevails.

      From what I believe, these companies have tax breaks, which basically do not give much to our economy, only the middle class and the poor provides much more. And I know that Apple is criticized because its manufacturing are not done here in the US but in China, whereas for samsung, the manufacturing is here in the US, ironic isnt it?

Reader Feedback

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