Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20121113135359584
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:13:45+00:00

Document:
After a long week-end on my part, I see that catching up with the Apple v. Samsung post-verdict motions means going through an appallingly long and complicated list of new filings.
This must be what it feels like to be a marriage counselor. The parties come in, all upset with each other, fervently and loudly enumerating in detail each others' sins up to the heavens, asking you to say *they* are right, and you sit there not knowing what some of what they are saying is even talking about. Even when you do, where do you start with those two?
I have no hope of explaining all of it in one article, so I'll just highlight three items, and I'll show you the docket with all the PDFs, and little by little, I'll try to explain the things that matter most.
For now, suffice it to say that the parties are building up to the December 6th hearing, and it's hot and heavy going, fighting over every little -- and every big -- thing. The big thing is whether or not the judge has the authority to overrule the jury's verdict. On subsidiary issues, Apple doesn't want Samsung to be able to show [PDF] the court production models of newly available design-around versions of the Galaxy S II (T Mobile) (SGH-T989) and a production model of the Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch (SPH- D710), newly produced uninfringing products, because, Apple claims [PDF], "the record is closed." I mean. Too closed for something that significant? Apple is asking for an injunction, after all, and it claims the new models do still infringe, and evidence of new noninfringing products in the hands of the court is too late? For what? Justice?
The big issue is whether or not the judge can toss out the jury's verdict, the damages part in particular. Apple wants some of Samsung's exhibits excised on the basis that they're "blah blah, too late, not relevant, blah blah", to summarize with my lip a bit curled. Very circuitous reasoning. I'll show you that in actual detail. But they really don't want them in the case because one of them is the judgment dated November 9, 2012 issued by the England and Wales Court of Appeal, ruling that Samsung didn't copy Apple's design patent. How much logic is there to give Apple a lot of damages for a design patent the UK court just ruled was not infringed? And there is a new ruling in another case that Apple wants the court to take notice of, because, I gather, they think it held that jury verdicts are to be treated reverently, but I think they may not have read it all the way through, as it seems to support Samsung's position in one very significant particular, as I'll show you.
I know. So, so many. That's why I didn't get some of the less important ones. But as you see, Samsung has added [PDF] another lawyer to the team. It is important in that the new lawyer is Daryl M. Crone of Crone Hawxhurst, a new firm to this fight, not just another new lawyer from Quinn. The firm's logo says, "Smart... Creative... Relentless." And Mr. Crone's bio notes that "In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, Los Angeles Magazine recognized Daryl as a Southern California 'Rising Star'.” One of the firm's "representative clients" is Oracle. As we saw in the Oracle v. Google litigation, and in the SCO wars, Oracle's inclination is to street fight, one might put it, in a totally serious way, brass knuckles at the ready, so to speak, so I take it Samsung would like some more brainy muscles added to the team, to provide still more persuasive force. Not that they don't have plenty already. His specialty, I gather, is settlement. I couldn't help noticing that. Samsung has said publicly it has no interest in settling, and I believe them at this point. But I'm sure that would depend on the terms. And sometimes, as you may have observed, after a street fight, the two fighters stand up, brush each other off, and walk off as friends. That's if both fought hard and they respect each other. The same thing does happen in courtrooms. I'm not saying it will. Just that it can.
A. There's a variety of features that a tablet -- there's lots of features in a tablet that could be appealing to a customer.
Q. Could you give me some examples?
A. Screen size, camera, operating system. There's -- those are a couple examples.
Q. Do the internal documents that you refer to in the first sentence of paragraph 40 of your declaration show that consumers actually purchased the tablets because of the patented features?
Q. Do any documents that you -- Samsung documents that you reviewed in this case show that consumers actually purchased tablets because of the patented features?
A. No, not -- I'm not aware of any specific documents.
Q. You then go on, in paragraph 40, to say "For example, in April 2011 internal report, Samsung described one of its tablets products under development as, "Lacking Fun, Wow Effect," in part because, "movements lack bounce effect." Did I read that right?
Q. Does Apple own intellectual property over "fun"?
Q. Does Apple own intellectual property over "wow effect"?
Q. And I believe you testified before that Apple -- that you don't know whether the '381 Patent covers all bounce effects on a touchscreen; correct?
A. That was my testimony.
Apple objects to Exhibits 12 through 15 to the Estrich Declaration (Dkt. 2126-12 to 2126-15) on the ground that they are not and cannot be relevant to Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur.
The irrelevance of Estrich Declaration Exhibits 12 through 15 is further confirmed by Samsung’s failure to cite this new evidence in its JMOL Reply or substantive declarations, except for six lines of the hundred-page Robinson deposition transcript. Those six lines are irrelevant because they fail to support the point for which they are cited: Samsung’s argument that “Apple does not dispute the validity of Samsung’s explanation of how the jury reached its damages awards.” (See Dkt. 2131 at 12:17-19, citing Dkt. 2126-13 at 88:2-8.) Ms. Robinson stated that she found “no errors in the math” of Mr. Wagner’s discussion of the verdict, but testified that she	did not know how the jury reached its award and only knew the amounts on the verdict form. (Dkt. 2126-3 at 88:2-15.) She did not admit that Samsung had correctly explained how the jury reached its verdict, which would require speculation as to what the jury was thinking.
That didn't work, based on a technicality.
Not relevant, these exhibits? I think the judge might be intensely edified by reading the UK decision that Samsung did not copy Apple's design patent, but I'm just a paralegal. Samsung is, after all, saying in its JMOL motion that at a minimum it deserves judgment as a matter of law on that design patent that the UK court found didn't infringe the design patent. Anyway, it's my best guess she read it already, but there are legal reasons Samsung wants it in the record.
In the law, there's evidence and there's procedure, and the latter is what Apple is relying on by saying it's too late/not relevant to add these exhibits to the JMOL motion, and it's not relevant to the filings that are timely. Samsung does reference the Robinson motion in its JMOL Reply, but Apple cites Samsung's "failure to cite that evidence in the jury misconduct section of its JMOL Reply." That's splitting the hair might thin, but to tell you the truth some of the orders in this case have, in my view, done just that. So who knows?
On October 29, Judge Grewal granted Apple’s motion to compel depositions of four Samsung experts who had submitted entirely new opinions with Samsung’s Permanent Injunction Opposition, and also allowed Samsung to depose the three persons for whom Samsung has submitted deposition testimony as Estrich Declaration Exhibits 13, 14, and 15. (Dkt. 2105 at 4.) Judge Grewal emphasized, however, that allowing the depositions did “not change the page limits or the deadlines set by Judge Koh,” and that he could not grant Samsung leave to submit an additional opposition based on the post-trial deposition testimony. (Id.) Judge Grewal also emphasized that “the parties would be wise to heed Judge Koh’s warnings that supporting documentation should be employed as corroboration and not as an opportunity to circumvent the page limits.” (Id.) Samsung’s new evidence violates these directions.
11 Nothing in First Alliance suggests it is confined to cases where “instructional error and inadmissible evidence” led to an erroneous damages award.	Opp. 18.
12 Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009), does not reject scrutinizing a damages verdict; the court there affirmed only because the evidence supported the award.	Apple’s cases from other jurisdictions are likewise factually and legally distinguishable. See Krause v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 910 F.2d 674, 679-80 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirming award of $165,000 for employment termination where amount was supported by “ample evidence”); Midwest Underground Storage, Inc. v. Porter, 717 F.2d 493, 501-02 (10th Cir. 1983) (reverse engineering verdict before affirming award of $3,900,000); Chuy v. The Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d1265, 1279 n.19 (3dCir. 1979) (affirming award of $60,000 in punitive damages for mistreatment of injured player).
13 See also Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1183 (11th Cir. 2010) (remanding “where the court can identify an error that caused the jury to include in the verdict a quantifiable amount that should be stricken.”); United States v. Medshares Mgmt. Group, Inc., 400 F.3d 428, 458 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming remittitur of improper portion of award although “it was not entirely clear how [the jury] calculated the award of damages”); Kirsch v. Fleet St, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 165 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Where the court has identified a specific error . . . the court may set aside the resulting award even if its amount does not shock the conscience.”).
You shouldn't hand over billions, or really any figure, in other words, that is just pulled out of the air. This is a courtroom, after all, where there is supposed to be evidence underpinning everything. They didn't change that yet, did they?
The last dispute was about Samsung saying it was Apple who was not following the court's briefing order, and yet Apple got away with it, so we'll see what the judge decides about all this. He just attended the conference put on by Santa Clara Law on what to do about the software patents problem, and at least one participant mentioned Apple's bounce-back patent as being an example of the problem, and that patent is in the main tent regarding Ms. Robinson's deposition.
Plus, what is the point of the judge allowing new depositions if nothing new that comes up can be used? Why let them go through an empty exercise? The other side of that argument would be that there has to be an end to every dispute. It's why you go to court, to get finality, so at some point the curtain should go down.
Personally, I think the UK case *is* relevant to the JMOL motion, not to mention everything else, in that an entire section is titled "No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple’s Design Patents." And the Robinson deposition is relevant because her expert opinion seems to have been based on not much at all in any specific sense other than what other Apple experts told her without independent checking on her part, would undermine the value of that testimony, and if the jury or judge were to rely on it, or the Musika testimony she is vouching for now that he's not available, then what's irrelevant about it? Just because a lawyer says something is irrelevant, it doesn't make it so necessarily.
2. Apple Cites a New Decision.
This is an unusual case, which explains some of the intensity of the post-verdict lawyering, in that Samsung believes, as do I, that the jury verdict was farcical and not based on reality.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d)(2), Apple submits the following attached opinion published by the Federal Circuit on November 13, 2012 after the reply brief submitted in this case: Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Corevalve, Inc., No. 2011-1215, -1257, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012). The opinion is relevant to Apple’s outstanding motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 1982) and Samsung’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 (Dkt. No. 1990).	Among other things, it addresses the standard for review of a damages verdict, see slip op. at 16, and the circumstances under which a permanent injunction should issue following a jury verdict, see slip op. at 16-19.
The Court in eBay did not hold that there is a presumption against exclusivity on successful infringement litigation. The Court did not cancel 35 U.S.C. §154, which states that “Every patent shall contain . . . a grant . . . of the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” nor did the Court overrule Article I section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to “secur[e] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The Court held that equitable aspects should always be considered, stating: “We hold only that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 394. Statutory and historical as well as commercial considerations impinge on every equitable determination.
See what I mean? The highlights are my own. The public has reacted, a large segment at least, to the jury's verdict and found it both monstrous and based on mere guesswork, not based on anything discernible that makes any sense. Do the math for yourself and see if you can even parse out a sensible foundation, let alone make the totals link up to anything at all. Every time the foreman showed up in the media, comments expressed disgust and dismay, with commenters asking what has happened to the US legal system. If on top of the megabucks the jury already wishes to give Apple, in the words of the foreman to send a message, if the judge also adds on top of that triple damages, the public will be simply appalled.
I shouldn't speak for everyone, but *I'll* certainly be appalled at such double dipping. Talk about excessive . And Judge Richard Posner pointed out that Apple couldn't prove any specific damages, but even if there were some, they wouldn't be anything worth shaking a stick at, not substantial enough to warrant an injunction.
I mean, law is supposed to be related to justice, is it not?
Does Apple's HTC Patents Settlement Doom The Samsung Case?
A little piece of legal finagling that could have some very interesting results. Apple has, as we know, settled with HTC over patents. And reached a general patent cross licensing agreement. Yet Apple, in the Samsung cases, seems to be saying that there are certain patents that it would never license. For getting mere money for them would never be enough. It’s on that that the potential Samsung product bans rest. For judges, if money’s a good enough compensation, prefer not to ban products.
Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) asked a court to force Apple Inc. (AAPL) to turn over a copy of its settlement with HTC Corp. (2498), saying it’s “highly relevant” to Apple’s request for an order blocking sales of Samsung smartphones.
It’s “almost certain” that Apple’s settlement with HTC covers some of the patents at issue in its dispute with Samsung, according to a filing yesterday by the Suwon, South Korea-based company in federal court in San Jose, California. The agreement may undermine Apple’s claim that Samsung’s patent infringement can’t be resolved with license payments, according to the filing.
“Apple’s apparent willingness to license these patents supports Samsung’s argument that Apple cannot show irreparable harm because monetary damages are adequate,” Samsung said in the filing.
That *is* interesting, don't you agree?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §154