|
Appeals Court Rules Samsung Can Sell Galaxy Nexus During Appeal; District Ct. "Abused Its Discretion" ~ pj |
![](http://www.groklaw.net/images/speck.gif) |
Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT
|
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled, Bloomberg/Businessweek
reports, that Samsung can continue to sell the Galaxy Nexus while the appeal works it way through the courts.
This is in the other Apple v. Samsung case still before the Hon. Lucy Koh in California, Case No. 12-CV-0630 at the US District Court, #2012-1507 at the Federal Circuit. She also presided over the farce of a trial that ended up with a juror being accused of misconduct. This new ruling is a blow to Apple, but only in a PR sense, judging from the
order [PDF], which says that the district court "abused its discretion in entering an injunction" and that there is no showing that any harm could be traced to the alleged infringement:
This record does not permit the inference that the allegedly infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand. There is therefore no need for us to review the district court’s assessment of Apple’s allegations of irreparable harm.
Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. Thus, the district court abused its discretion in determining that the irreparable harm factor counsels in favor of entering an injunction.
So they "reverse and remand". But that's not the most interesting part. It's the next section, on "Likelihood of Success", that could really help Samsung. The appeals court tells the district court that its reliance on a certain case was "at best incorrect".
Here's how it reads:
II. Likelihood of Success
Having held that the district court’s irreparable harm determination was an abuse of discretion, we would ordinarily refrain from addressing other issues. Here, however, it is in the interest of judicial economy that we address a limited aspect of the district court’s likelihood of success analysis that may become important on remand— claim construction. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (addressing the district court’s claim construction in the interest of judicial economy); Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressing claim construction because the “issue may become important during the proceedings on remand” even though it did not form the basis of the district court’s decision).
The parties’ main dispute concerning the likelihood of success of Apple’s infringement claim turns on the meaning of a key limitation in claim 6, which recites “a plurality of modules . . . wherein . . . each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm.” Apple argued to the district court that this limitation is satisfied as long as the QSB contains at least two modules that employ different heuristic algorithms, even if there remain other heuristic modules whose heuristic algorithm is not unique. And, Apple argued that this limitation is in fact satisfied because the QSB contains three heuristic modules that are assigned a predetermined search area and employ different heuristic algorithms (each compared to the other two). Apple identified these three modules as (1) Google, which searches the Internet; (2) Browser, which searches the Internet browsing history; and (3) People, which searches the user’s contacts list.4 Samsung counter-argued that the key limitation of claim 6 requires that every heuristic module within the accused device use a unique heuristic algorithm. It also pointed out that the QSB contains other search modules besides the three that formed the basis of Apple’s infringement argument. Because Apple had only identified three of the QSB’s modules, and there is no indication that the heuristic algorithms employed by the remaining modules are also unique, Samsung argued that Apple could not establish a likelihood of success.
The district court concluded that Apple had the better argument. It determined—and indeed the parties seem to have agreed—that under this court’s case law, the term “plurality” means “at least two,” or “simply the state of being plural.” Apple, __ F. Supp. 2d at __, 2012 WL 2572037, at *8 (citing ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 346 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). It then reasoned: Claim 6 imposes a further limitation on the “plurality of heuristic modules,” requiring that “each heuristic module . . . employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm.” Thus, the claim language supports Apple’s argument that the “each” requirement modifies “plurality of heuristic modules.” Consistent with Federal Circuit prece- dent, “each” of “a plurality of heuristic modules” means “each of at least two modules,” not “each of every module.” See ResQNet, 346 F.3d at 1382 (construing “each of a plurality of fields” to mean “each of at least two fields,” not “every field”).
Apple, __ F.Supp.2d at__, 2012 WL 2572037, at *8. Turning next to Apple’s factual allegations, the district court rejected Apple’s contention that Google uses heuristics at all. Nonetheless, it determined that the QSB is still likely to infringe because it contains at least two modules (Browser and People) that use different heuristic algorithms.
We hold that the district court’s determination that “each” modifies “plurality of heuristic modules” is erroneous because it contravenes the plain terms of the claim. The word “each” appears not before “plurality of modules,” but inside the “wherein” clause and before the phrase “heuristic modules.” The district court drew support for its construction from ResQNet. Apple, __ F. Supp. 2d at __, 2012 WL 2572037, at *8. But ResQNet in fact counsels the opposite conclusion. That case involved two different claims, one of which recited “each field,” the other one “each of a plurality of fields.” ResQNet, 346 F.3d at 1377. We thought “[t]his difference is significant” and thus construed the two claims separately, holding that the first claim meant “all fields,” the latter “at least two, but not all.” Id. at 1382. Here, the district court eliminated the very distinction that we deemed material in ResQNet by plucking “each” from where it appears and planting it before the phrase “plurality of modules.” That was error, and Apple’s reliance on ResQNet based on the assertion that it “involv[ed] almost identical claim language” is—at best—incorrect. Appellee’s Br. 46.
Although Apple defends the district court’s finding that “each” modifies “plurality of modules,” it also seems to offer a competing construction. The argument is that claim 6 requires “a plurality” (just one) in which every module has a different heuristic algorithm (compared to the other modules within that plurality). Accordingly, as long as there is one such “one plurality”—i.e., at least two modules with different heuristic algorithms—the key limitation is satisfied. As to any remaining modules, Apple points out that claim 6 uses the open-ended term “comprising” in listing the limitations and concludes that the addition of other modules does not defeat a showing of infringement. In sum, since Browser and People are two modules with different heuristics, Apple contends that the disputed limitation is met, no matter what other modules and heuristic algorithms the QSB may include.
We disagree. Apple’s argument essentially urges us to hold that “plurality” refers not to all but a subset of modules. As we pointed out, however, the district court has construed “plurality” to mean “at least two,” without any indication that the term refers to a hand-picked selection of a larger set. Nor do the parties seem to disagree with that construction, at least at this stage. Accordingly, despite the use of “comprising,” claim 6 is not amenable to the addition of other modules that do not use different heuristic algorithms because such addition would impermissibly wipe out the express limitation that requires every module to have a unique heuristic algorithm.
In that light, the specification of the ’604 patent is also not helpful to Apple. The district court correctly noted that in one instance, the specification provides that modules are “associated” with heuristic algorithms, ’604 patent col.4 l.13, whereas in another it plainly states that “[t]he heuristics of each plug-in module is different.” Id. at col.5 ll.13-14. According to the district court, the difference in the choice of words shows that using different heuristic modules is only an option, not a limitation, in the claimed invention. We are not convinced that the distinction between “associated” and “different” is as strongly suggestive as the district court found and compels us to broaden the claim language beyond what its plain reading allows.
Finally, the prosecution history of the ’604 patent also counsels against the district court’s proposed construction. In three sentences, Apple distinguished its invention from a prior art reference, referred to as “Andreoli”:
[A]s described herein, Andreoli teaches that the processor can use the solution to a constraint satisfaction algorithm to formulate a search request and employ any appropriate combination of local and remote search operations. Andreoli does not describe, however, that each of the local and remote search operations employs a different heuristic algorithm to search an associated relevant area of search for information that corresponds to the search request, in accordance with amended claim 1 (emphasis added). That is, the algorithms described in Andreoli and referenced by the Office go to the formation of the search request and not to how the local and remote search operations employed by the processor perform a search of the repositories on the network.
J.A. 1403 (emphasis added and citation omitted). The second sentence in this passage strongly suggests that every module within the claimed apparatus must use a different heuristic algorithm. The district court found that the rest of the passage gives context to the second sentence in a way that favors Apple. Apple accordingly argues that one can glean from the first sentence that the patent prosecutor distinguished Andreoli because it used a “constraint satisfaction algorithm,” not heuristics. We disagree. If Apple intended to distinguish Andreoli based on its algorithm type, then why did it not stop after the first sentence? Apple in effect invites us to hold that merely because one could have theoretically distinguished Andreoli based on its search algorithm, the prosecutor did not actually limit the claim any further. Apple, however, has distinguished Andreoli not just because the apparatus uses heuristics, but also because it employs different heuristic algorithms in different search areas. Thus, the prosecution history similarly does not help Apple show that it is likely to succeed in its infringement claim.5
CONCLUSION
We hold that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
_______________
4 To avoid confusion, all instances of “Google” refer to the QSB’s search module. We refer to the company as “Google, Inc.”
5 Samsung also argues that People and Browser do not alone infringe claim 6 because the preamble of claim 6 requires that the apparatus search a network, and yet these two modules only perform local searches. On this record, we do not see error in the district court’s determination, however, that the preamble of claim 6 is non-limiting. Thus, we reject Samsung’s alternative argument.
I think I may safely opine that when the appeals court tells a district court judge that she has misunderstood a case and that her reliance on it is "at best incorrect," it's not good. "At best." Wow. Remember in the other Apple v. Samsung trial, John Quinn for Samsung asked this same judge when she once again ruled out use of certain evidence helpful to Samsung, "Why even have a trial? What's the point?" Do you start to get what he was saying? Are you sure Samsung has been getting a fair shake in that courtroom? Do you still believe Samsung has no hope on appeal, or are you starting to see the bigger picture?
Now think about Siri and Android. A lawyer friend points out something I didn't notice on my own, that this court has just held that Apple's patent
may require each search module to use a different heuristic algorithm. So
if Android's universal search
has modules that use the same algorithm, it would, one might conclude, be non-infringing. Stay tuned. This is really getting interesting.
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
With summary in the subject I believe is the norm
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
<smile/> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
That's a nice way to avoid the the 500 pound Gorilla of an issue that would be
implied by the word "prejudicial" since the original phrase avoids the
inferences associated with willfulness.
Clearly that's an issue for another court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
To show the lawyer that is just not as good as Daniel
Webster... 1/2 :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Please post off topic to this article, while remaining
on-topic to Groklaw in general. These starter threads
should only be posted by logged in members, as some
people block anonymous posts and would not see them
if they are started by anonymous posters.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Three Pillars of Nokia Strategy - Have All Failed. Why Nokia Must Fire CEO Elop Now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- Hacking The Future: Anonymity Matters - Authored by: artp on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:07 PM EDT
- Off Topic posts here please in this NON-anonymous thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 11:14 PM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- Ah - the good ol' days - true madness. Some places women are not allowed to drive (today) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: hans on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:58 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Typing Class - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Typeing classes - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:43 PM EDT
- Why the First Laptop [1982] Had Such a Hard Time Catching On (Hint: Sexism) - Authored by: ChrixOne on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Nonsense - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- FYI - since the start, Groklaw has a long history of supporting Anon posts (HERE is a reason). - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- A primer on sexism in the tech industry - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- Apple, Swiss Railway Ink Licensing Deal Over Clock Icon - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- Nathan Myhrvold's Cunning Plan to Prevent 3-D Printer Piracy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- How about this for stupidity? - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- Off Topic posts here please in this NON-anonymous thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Info wanted - IE hooks into the OS via undocumented APIs - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- World War 3? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:43 AM EDT
- Huawei Router Backdoors far from Secret - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:54 AM EDT
- Fascinating! - Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Fascinating! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Canada: Free Speach Still Free if You Believe in It - huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Follow-ups on the news-picks ....
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Panetta Warns of Dire Threat of Cyberattack - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- "As Such" in NZ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:40 PM EDT
- Linux Foundation to offer signed solution for UEFI Secure Boot conundrum - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- Expect Jail Time, Judge Tells Prospective Juror Who Googled Murder Defendant, Flouting Order - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- it depends - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:13 AM EDT
- good points - Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT
- Descendents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- Link to article - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM EDT
- News-pick discussions here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- Microsoft spends BIG on Win8 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Microsoft spends BIG on Win8 - Authored by: webster on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- 1,500,000,000 - 1,800,000,000 USD, OMG, LOL! - Authored by: albert on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- If window 8 is a bust (as it appears to be) - Authored by: jesse on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- The bigger the marketing blitz, the worse the product - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Retina marketing copyright violation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Microsoft patents ancient SQL technology - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 12:19 AM EDT
- There you go then - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- and... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 01:52 AM EDT
- Microsoft to add Google as defendant in Motorola patent fight - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 03:32 AM EDT
- Google Antitrust Suit Said to Be Urged by FTC Staffers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
As if Apple describes their mysterious "heuristic" in it.
I bet they don't,
because it seems to claim that the invention is using
heuristics, and how
many can be used and how they have to differ - or not.
That is such a high level concept that it is like trying to
patent the notion
of software in general. Imagine somebody owning the
concept of when
and where to apply heuristics. It is outrageous!
I was developing some software the other day, and in
two places I used
heuristics to accomplish something rather than a
calculation. In one
case, it was an optimization that took advantage of
how an algorithm is
actually used. In the other case it was to determine
what degree of
precision an equation required.
That was plain ordinary software engineering. There
was no flash of
brilliance, no stroke of genius, no "a ha" epiphany, and
certainly no
invention worthy of a patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
So much for a free ride on the Entire Market Value Rule.
That
does not mean, however, that every such component is “core” to the operation of
the machine, let alone that each component is the driver of consumer demand. To
establish a sufficiently strong causal nexus, Apple must show that consumers buy
the Galaxy Nexus because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the ’604
patent— not because it can search in general, and not even because it has
unified search.
You get the impression Apple takes easy wins in
lower courts as divine mandate and assumes their position is law.
Apple seems to
be off in their own little world view in applying the entire market value rule.
We seem to be
running out of things about the entire court case that were reasonable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
From the ruling:
We hold that the district court’s
determination that “each” modifies “plurality of heuristic modules” is erroneous
because it contravenes the plain terms of the claim. The word “each” appears not
before “plurality of modules,” but inside the “wherein” clause and before the
phrase “heuristic modules.”
Yes, Virginia, we are diagramming
sentences today.
The district court drew support for its
construction from ResQNet. [...] But ResQNet in fact counsels the opposite
conclusion.
The District Court cites ResQNet because Apple
cites it, of course. But did you read your homework
assignment?
That case involved two different claims, one of
which recited “each field,” the other one “each of a plurality of
fields.”
Not quite the same...
We thought
“[t]his difference is significant” and thus construed the two claims separately,
holding that the first claim meant “all fields,” the latter “at least two, but
not all.”
"We thought". Yeah, Judge Prost - who is
writing this ruling for the panel - was also on ResQNet. PJ was asking "What are
the odds?" about V. Hogan having been sued by the husband of a partner at Quinn
Emanuel... Well, "small world syndrome" has struck Apple
again.
Here, the district court eliminated the very
distinction that we deemed material
Yeah, that's my
emphasis. The way I construe the FC's sentence, it appears duly emphasiable to
me.
... in ResQNet by plucking “each” from where it appears and
planting it before the phrase “plurality of modules.” That was
error,
This finger of blame points at Judge
Koh...
... and Apple’s reliance on ResQNet based on the
assertion that it “involv[ed] almost identical claim language” is—at
best—incorrect.
while this one, along with the raised eyebrow,
is directed at Apple. Unfortunately, that'll probably be the limit of the
sanctions they will get - after Judge Koh's error, she would have a hard time
justifying throwing this stone at Apple.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JonCB on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
To be fair on Judge Koh, the ruling doesn't say that Judge Koh
was "-at best-incorrect", it is very specific that it is
Apple's reliance on that particular case (for that particular
purpose) that is incorrect.
No mention that perhaps Judge Koh should leave the "seems
legit" rubber stamp at home however. Sorry about that... my
cynicism escaped the leash for a bit but it's under control
now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
How can they claim a heuristic algorithm as part of their invention (let alone
two or three) ... Claim that this is an essential part of their invention ...
And then use something they dont even own in the first place?
Doesn't the license agreement from the search engines preclude this kind of
stealing? (Or am I the only one who thinks this is stealing?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
I don't understand the first sentence at all:The Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals has just ruled, Bloomberg/Businessweek reports, that Samsung
can continue to sell the Galaxy Nexus while the appeal works it way through the
courts. That is kind of what Bloomberg/Businessweek
said:Samsung (005930) Electronics Co., the world’s largest
mobile-phone maker, won its bid to continue selling its newest Galaxy Nexus
smartphone in the U.S. while it battles patent-infringement claims filed by
Apple Inc.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit yesterday
granted Samsung’s request to lift a lower court’s ban on sales. Samsung wants to
continue selling the phone while it challenges a federal judge’s June 29 ruling
that Apple was likely to win its suit claiming the Galaxy Nexus infringed four
patents and that sales were hurting Apple’s business in the meantime.
The first paragraph doesn't say where Samsung would fight, but the
second implies that the judge's June 29 ruling still exists. But wasn't that
what was just reversed and remanded? Reading the court of appeal's decision, I
don't see how an appeal, nor the June 29 ruling still exist. Doesn't the
decision mean that Samsung can just get on with the district court trial without
an injunction in place blocking sales of the Galaxy Nexus?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
what a non-sense, what module supports what heuristics? One implements a system
and has as many modules as needed and uses whatever heuristics as needed? WTF?
Can I patent using at least X modules with Y unique heuristics? I just invented
it, I promise![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
Most federal judges rely on their law clerks, who are lawyers, to do the bulk of
their research for them. Is it possible that one or more of Judge Koh's law
clerks is biased toward Apple in some way? After all, the law clerks are likely
to live in close proximity to the court, which is in close proximity to Apple's
HQ, so one or more of the clerks may know someone who works for Apple and be
injecting some bias into the research that they are doing on Judge Koh's behalf.
I am not saying that it is intentional, just that people's life experiences tend
to bias one's outlook, most of the time without their even being aware that they
are biased.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
I violate the patent just by the normal operation of my computer.
"Heuristic refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving,
learning, and discovery." wiki
Everyone, who is not brain dead, uses all kinds of heuristics.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- But, but.BUT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- But, but.BUT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Ooops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- Probably refers to heuristic algorithm - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 10:56 AM EDT |
Samsung welcomes this reversal by the Federal
Circuit as
yesterday’s decision confirms that the role of
patent law is to protect
innovation and not to unreasonably
stifle competition and restrict consumer
choice. We will
continue to take all appropriate measures to ensure the
availability of our innovative products.
Samsung's website. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
I must be failing to understand some basic principal of patents or
law:
Since neither Apple nor Samsung had anything to do with creating
the Google engine or people, and people are a natural occurrence and the user,
how can they see these as "heuristics" that apply in a patent. After all, it's
the customer (not the company) who chooses these items.
So how could
the court, USPTO, etc. treat these as being used in the
patent?
--- Larry N. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google? People? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
I would like to suggest a topic for an article. I have no idea how much time it
would take to research and write it, but perhaps if people comment, PJ would be
able to judge the amount of interest.
It involves the first Apple v Samsung trial. I think it's understood that
Samsung was crippled by not being able to argue that the design work that led to
the F700 began before the iPhone was released and also some information about
the iPhone design being influenced by "Sony-style." The magistrate
judge didn't allow that because Samsung supposedly didn't file stuff in time. It
seems that either the magistrate judge was very unfair to Samsung (and Judge Koh
didn't fix it) or Samsung's lawyers shot their feet off or some combination of
the two. So, which was it?
Back in July (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518) PJ
said, "Now, I haven't been following this case..." If she has time
now, I would like her to go back and look at what happened. Anyone else?
One possible counter argument (in addition to having too many other things to
do) is that the juror misconduct issue may make the problem moot. If Samsung
gets a new trial due to juror misconduct, it won't really affect anything in the
long run. Presumably Samsung could make the arguments in a new trial. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
This record does not permit the inference that the allegedly
infringing features of the Galaxy Nexus drive consumer demand. There is
therefore no need for us to review the district court’s assessment of Apple’s
allegations of irreparable harm. Regardless of the extent to which Apple may be
injured by the sales of the Galaxy Nexus, there is not a sufficient showing that
the harm flows from Samsung’s alleged infringement. Thus, the district court
abused its discretion in determining that the irreparable harm factor counsels
in favor of entering an injunction.
Well, it may not be the most
interesting bit for this litigation, but if it takes on, it means
bye-bye to the blackmail market of preliminary injunctions. That makes it much
less attractive to abuse the slowness of the court system for gaining temporary
advantages in a fast-moving market.
Companies would be forced to negotiate
rather than litigate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Apple's injunction against the Samsung Galaxy Nexus was implemented on June 29.
The injunction was then stayed on the 6th of July. Now the injunction has been
reversed.
Does this mean that the $95,637,141.60 that Apple put up as a bond to enforce
the injunction has to be given up to Samsung? If so, that makes the 8 day
injunction super expensive at $11,954,642.70 per day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
I think I may safely opine that when the appeals court tells a
district court judge that she has misunderstood a case and that her reliance on
it is "at best incorrect," it's not good. "At best." Wow.
I think
the appeals court here meant that Apple's reliance on the district
court's error was at best incorrect. This implies to me that they believe Apple
should have pointed out the error instead of taking advantage of it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- whose error? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
this site really needs a better commenting system or at least
an update to the current one. I love reading the articles, its
very good when im bored. The commenting system though is
rather difficult to read since i have to click individual
comments to read them. If i were to guess this is like it is
to save space..but to suggest a solution it would be to have a
+ on the main comment to show all the comments in reply to it. You'd get the
best of both worlds and we wouldn't have to
click 20 times to see comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT |
Dictionary meaning of heuristic - denoting a
rule of thumb for
solving a problem without the exhaustive
application of an
algorithm
How can a heuristic method be patented? Even if it is
patented, how can one violate this? Appears US patent system
is in shambles.
Apple is playing it big time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
Hello, sorry for being off-topic in the main thread, but how
do I write to the FTC about the Google probe - in favor of
Google of course.
Their contact form: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/contact.shtm
has too many options
Should I be writing just to their antitrust department?
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/bccontact.shtm
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
The title of the article is, in part, "Appeals Court Rules Samsung Can Sell
Galaxy Nexus During Appeal." The first sentence of the article is,
"The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled,
Bloomberg/Businessweek reports, that Samsung can continue to sell the Galaxy
Nexus while the appeal works it way through the courts." I wrote a
correction suggesting "appeal" be chanced to "case" and
wrote this inside, "That's what I think is correct. The appeal is
concluded, isn't it?" I got a one word answer back, "No." Huh?
OK, given that, I've tried to see how there can still be something in this case
being appealed, but I can't see how that can be so. The case management report
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/106457504/Samsung-filing) makes it sound as if the
only thing being appealed was the district court's preliminary injunction
against the Galaxy Nexus. The opinion of the Federal Circuit panel seemed to say
the same thing. A search for the case number at the Federal Circuit's website
doesn't turn up anything that indicates that there was more than the preliminary
injunction and some requests for a temporary stay (granted) and a stay pending
appeal (held in abeyance). Now that the preliminary injunction is reversed and
remanded any stays of it would become meaningless, so I don't see how there can
be anything left.
A search of the Federal Circuit's website for any other appeals
(http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/0/all/samsung) results in some
appeals related to the other case before Judge Koh (district court cast number
11-CV-1846), but none for this case. So how can there be an ongoing appeal in
this case? Apple could theoretically request an en banc hearing or appeal to the
Supreme Court, but until it happens, it hasn't happened.
What is there that's left now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|