Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:49:52+00:00

Document:
On Monday, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California received a joint ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) statement from Apple and Samsung, which is not publicly accessible. Further to that statement, Judge Koh referred the parties to mediation before Magistrate Judge Spero, which was the common ground of the positions they stated on ADR earlier this month. As per the parties' suggestion, that settlement effort will have a November 15 deadline.
More than a year after Apple and Samsung dropped all lawsuits against each other in jurisdictions outside the U.S. (i.e., numerous neutral jurisdictions as well as Samsung's country, Korea), it's time they also put aside the U.S. part of their dispute. I've always said that Apple should get something, but the longer this dispute has taken, the clearer it has become that Apple's leverage is limited, and let's not forget that Apple at some point needs a license, on FRAND terms obviously, to Samsung's standard-essential patents. Apple's iPhone patents are not nearly as great as its products, and even though Apple also has far better lawyers than patents, Apple's litigation would have gone nowhere if not for certain peculiarities of the U.S. patent system such as jury trials, which are statistically biased in favor of domestic companies suing foreign rivals (see Xenophobia in American Courts).
There isn't really much to gain for Apple. At this stage, if Apple wanted to really make a strong statement about its iPhone-related intellectual property, it would have to sue major Chinese companies such as Huawei, ZTE, and Xiaomi. But as far as I know, while Apple is paying standard-essential patent royalties to Chinese patent holders, no Chinese company is paying Apple anything for building iPhone-like Android-based smartphones.
A settlement on undisclosed terms, no matter what speculation it might trigger, would be a face-saving exit strategy for both Apple and Samsung, especially since they've had a commercial relationship for a long time and could somehow mix the patent settlement with some new commercial agreement (a structure that I've seen in connection with a couple of Microsoft patent cases).
As I've already said this month, a settlement at this stage would make Apple look stronger than it could have expected at any time since the spring 2014 trial. While I could see reasons for Samsung and its allies (such as Google) to push for Supreme Court clarification of one or more key issues, there's no reason why Samsung couldn't or shouldn't simply do a deal with Apple that makes business sense.
My primary concern about the prospects for a settlement at this stage is that, in my observation, Apple has become self-righteous beyond imagination and potentially even a bit too emotional about this matter.
Any reasonable person in the civilized world has a simple definition for theft: you take something you don't rightfully own. And if you take money by collecting a damages award over half a dozen patents, even though the most valuable software patent of them is a zombie patent by now and a key design patent has also been deemed invalid (for lack of inventiveness) by the very patent office that once granted it, then you are not a thief in a legal sense because you merely take advantage of a broken patent system, but in moral terms, you still take what's not rightfully yours.
I've been thinking a lot in recent weeks about why Apple, a company normally much more concerned about its reputation, is doing this. In a recent court filing, I found what might be a clue in this regard. Apple's lawyers mentioned that after last year's trial (in the second California Apple v. Samsung case), Samsung's lead counsel, John B. Quinn of Quinn Emanuel, said in public that after years of litigation, Apple still hadn't collected a penny.
My unsolicited advice to Apple would be: don't compromise your moral standards just because of what Samsung's trial counsel told the press.
I've tried to put myself in the shoes of Apple's lawyers. Such major trials are an enormous logistical effort for everyone involved. The lawyers get little sleep, yet have to concentrate on each and every detail and fight very hard day and night. Apple's lawyers did that in 2012 and got a billion-dollar award. They did it again for a 2013 limited damages retrial. And then again in early 2014 for that trial in the second case, which ended with a major disappointment for them because even a jury picked from Apple's backyard only awarded a small fraction of what Apple had demanded. After all this effort, it hurts to have nothing to show yet, and then Mr. Quinn put his fingers into that wound. It must have hurt.
No matter what Apple's lawyers may or may not do now, Steve Jobs's "thermonuclear war" on Android will always be remembered as an abject failure. Mr. Jobs simply overestimated the strength of his company's patents, as did so many other people.
The question is now: how can Apple at least lose like a winner? By trying to win like a loser (on an ethically problematic basis), it only makes things worse.
Apple appears very self-righteous. Only because Apple has believed all along that Samsung owes huge payments, Apple's patents aren't any more valid. At last year's trial, Apple's lead counsel argued that Apple just couldn't (for logistical reasons) assert 50 patents against Samsung in one case, it picked only a few. But Apple obviously picked the ones that its lawyers thought were going to be the strongest ones, and in the aggregate of two California cases and an ITC complaint, Apple has already asserted dozens of patents against Samsung, though not all of them until the bitter end. Maybe some people at Apple believe that since certain inefficiencies of the law (such as limits on how many patents a U.S. judge will let you take to a jury trial) can also affect a right holder, they can now seek to capitalize on a loophole for the monetization of zombie patents.
In Europe, it appears that not even one of all the patent claims Apple asserted against Android will stand. Slide-to-unlock, for example, has been deemed invalid by 15 different judges in three countries. Apple should realize that its complete failure in neutral jurisdictions is a major credibility and legitimacy issue. Taking advantage of structural flaws of the U.S. patent system, and protectionist tendencies of juries and possibly even certain "fanboy" judges, is not the answer.
If not for the emotional self-righteousness Apple has recently displayed, I would be very optimistic about a settlement.
For the factual background of this Apple v. Samsung matter, I would like to refer you to my previous post on this one and just sum it up like this: two key Apple patents underlying the 2012 and 2013 jury verdict against Samsung have serious validity issues, one of them even at a rather advanced stage of proceeding, but the Federal Circuit had not held those patents invalid and Apple, on that basis, requested entry of partial final judgment.
"Samsung objects to the entry of partial final judgment and, were such judgment entered, would appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), arguing, among other things, that the judgment is not authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See, e.g., Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich [...]. Because Samsung's existing supersedeas bond [...] remains in effect, during Samsung’s appeal any partial final judgment would remain secured by the bond or any modified bond that the Court may approve, and execution of the judgment therefore would be automatically stayed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). If any partial final judgment were affirmed on appeal, Samsung would satisfy that judgment when it becomes executable and then move to release the bond."
It will be interesting to see how the Federal Circuit now addresses the issue that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has changed its mind and believes it shouldn't have granted Apple the '915 patent in the first place. The D'677 iPhone design patent is also deemed invalid on the current basis, at an earlier stage of proceeding.
It's disappointing that Apple is trying to collect money (partly) over patents it doesn't even rightfully hold based on the USPTO's current analysis. Over all these years Apple struggled to achieve a breakthrough in its patent spats with three major Android device makers (HTC, Motorola, Samsung), but recently U.S. courts, especially the Federal Circuit, have handed down some controversial decisions that may give Apple some leverage in forthcoming settlement talks. However, that leverage has its limits: it's not like Apple could prevent anyone from selling highly functional Android-based multitoch smartphones in the U.S., and it remains to be seen what comes out of those recent decisions in the months ahead. Apple is closer than ever to actually receiving a payment, but it's not there yet.
I've said repeatedly that this thing should finally be settled, but I have no idea whether those rulings make it more likely to work out (because a settlement at this stage would make Apple look stronger than it could have expected at any time since the spring 2014 trial) or less likely to happen (because Samsung and other industry players may see a pressing need to get clarification on some key legal issues, such as how to deal with patents deemed invalid by the patent office or on the value of design patents).
At a hearing in March, Apple faced a skeptical court for its fourth or so attempt to obtain a U.S. patent injunction against Samsung. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that vacates Judge Koh's August 2014 denial of an injunction in the second California litigation between Apple and Samsung and remands for further proceedings. However, Chief Judge Sharon Prost strongly disagrees with her two colleagues on the panel, Circuit Judges Moore and (notoriously Apple-admiring and generally patentee-friendly) Reyna, who outvoted her.
Last year, I absolutely liked and agreed with Judge Prost's dissent (on the reasons, not the outcome) in the "Posner" appeal with respect to injunctions over FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents. Today I am once again more convinced by what she writes than by the majority opinion. Last year, her position was favorable to Apple. Today, what she writes supports Judge Koh and, by extension in this particular context, Samsung.
Presumably Samsung will view the Chief Judge's loud and clear dissent as an invitation to request a full-court review.
"This is not a close case."
"One of the Apple patents at issue covers a spelling correction feature not used by Apple. Two other patents relate to minor features (two out of many thousands) in Apple's iPhone—linking a phone number in a document to a dialer, and unlocking the screen."
"Although seemingly straightforward, Apple considered this feature so core to the Apple iPhone user experience that it opened the first iPhone ad with imagery illustrating the operation of this 'slide to unlock' feature."
It's a very simple, thus intuitive feature. That's why it came in handy when Apple was trying to explain to consumers what the iPhone user interface was about. That still doesn't make it a technological achievement. Chief Judge Prost and 15 European judges, eight of them serving on courts that have more power in their countries than the Federal Circuit has in the U.S. (where it is often overruled by the Supreme Court), got this right, and two circuit judges are either Apple fanboys or patent radicals or both.
"Because the majority finds legal error by the district court where none exists. Then, under the guise of the purported 'legal error,' the majority reverses without deference the district court’s rejection of Apple's survey evidence, never mentioning that the survey was rejected by the district court because Samsung's serious challenges to its techniques and conclusions were unrebutted by Apple. The majority further relies on 'evidence,' found nowhere in the record, that carriers or users preferred having the patented features on Samsung's phones. It also concludes—contrary to our case law—that Apple's alleged evidence of 'copying' is sufficient to show nexus to Apple’s alleged lost-sales. Because the majority here reaches a result that comports with neither existing law nor the record in this case, I must respectfully dissent."
It's almost an understatement to say that the Federal Circuit majority shows no "deference" to the district court's factual holdings. What's happened here over these past few years is an insanity because whatever Judge Koh did was overruled. Judge Koh tried hard to apply the Federal Circuit's latest ruling when issuing her last one, and time and time again, she was reversed.
"But the majority quotes nothing from the district court’s opinion to show there is such an error. And for good reason: there is nothing. Hence, there is no error.
The words 'sole' and 'predominant' are not even present in the district court's opinion. There is simply nothing in the district court's opinion that explicitly or implicitly required Apple to show that the patented features were the 'sole,' 'predominant,' or 'exclusive' reasons for purchasing Samsung’s products."
A footnote clarifies that Judge Koh's decision used the words "exclusivity" and "exclusively" only in the context of irreparable reputational harm, an aspect the majority opinion didn't even reach.
"In making these factual findings [concerning the "Hauser survey"], the district court followed our case law faithfully. Nothing in the district court's opinion suggests that it deviated from our precedent. Rather, the majority deviates from our precedent by repeating as a mantra the phrase 'some connection' in [...] ('Apple III') detached from the causal nexus standard explained in our prior cases."
"The majority has no legitimate basis to reverse the district court."
"[T]here was no evidence at all of such 'carriers' or users' preference;' there was no 'strong' evidence of 'copying;' and 'copying' alone is not dispositive to establish a causal nexus to Apple's alleged irreparable harm from lost sales."
In the copying context, Chief Judge Prost criticizes her colleagues for quoting as a district court holding what was actually a reference to certain Apple theories Judge Koh disagreed with.
"Based on this record, I cannot agree with the majority's broad warning that '[i]f an injunction were not to issue in this case, such a decision would virtually foreclose the possibility of injunctive relief in any multifaceted, multifunction technology.' See Majority Op. at 22. Rather, injunctive relief will be appropriate when and if, consistent with our case law, the causal nexus requirement is met. This is not such a case."
The only part of Chief Judge Prost's dissent that I don't agree with is her take on the public interest. On that one I'm closer to the majority position. However, that factor doesn't matter if one follows Chief Judge Prost's reasoning on the causal nexus requirement.
Apple will benefit from this decision in any near-term settlement talks, but this is not over yet. There could be a full-court review, and while the majority opinion strongly suggests that Judge Koh should enter an injunction, Judge Koh denied one in the first case despite an appellate victory for Apple, and Apple then dropped its appeal of that decision on remand. Furthermore, an injunction over something like slide-to-unlock would be merely symbolic because even Apple didn't claim in the second California case that Samsung's more recent devices were infringing that patent. The only patent that would likely give rise to disagreement between the parties is the '647 "quick links" patent.
What's so outrageous about my two most recent posts on the EPO labor conflict (1, 2) that the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) had to remove its links to (and quotes from) those posts?
Document temporarily removed due to threats of reprisals from EPO management. SUEPO is taking appropriate action to counter the threats.
It's not even the first act of censorship against an independent blog. In July it became known that the EPO blocked examiners' access to TechRights, another blog that calls the EPO leadership out on its wrongdoings.
This blog here is critical of what's going on at the EPO but far from SUEPO-aligned.
In the earlier one of the two posts, I actually concurred with EPO president Battistelli on the complicated issue of how SUEPO should deal with a suicide rate that appears to be more than twice as high as that of the average Dutch or German populations but still, in my opinion, is not necessarily attributable to the lamentable situation at the EPO (given that such small statistical samples are not reliable).
In the more recent one, published earlier today, I explained why I didn't agreed with SUEPO's choice to march to a local authority today, given that the EPO enjoys diplomatic immunity and local authorities can only enter the EPO's premises with the EPO president's consent.
What may have riled the EPO leadership is that I published documents from internal proceedings targeting the chairwoman of SUEPO's Munich chapter. The EPO's internal "ServRegs" contain some strict prohibition of such disclosures, which is acceptable in connection with what really needs to be kept confidential but unfortunately also used in areas where the EPO needs more transparency.
Article 20, Unauthorized disclosure: "A permanent employee shall exercise the greatest discretion with regard to all facts and information coming to his knowledge in the course of or in connection with his duties; he shall not in any manner whatsoever use or disclose to any unauthorized person any document or information not alreayd made public. A permanent employee shall not, whether alone or together with others, publish or cause to be published, without the permission of the president of the Office, any matter dealing with the work of the Organization."
Article 22, Disclosure in legal proceedings: "A permanent employee shall not without permission from the president of the Office disclose, on any grounds whatever, in any legal proceedings, information not alreadyy made public of which he has knowledge by reason of his duties. Permission may be refused only where the interests of the Organization or of a Contracting State so require. It may not, however, be refused if, in the opinion of the court, this would be likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice."
"Miscarriage of justice" is definitely a major concern with respect to legal proceedings relating to the EPO labor conflict.
Finally, some recommended reading for whomever at the EPO believes that it's a good idea to prohibit links to this blog: the Streisand effect.
Last week, the TechRights blog published a letter by the head of the EPO's investigative unit to Elizabeth Hardon, the chairwoman of the Munich chapter of the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), summoning her to a hearing last Thursday. I also blogged about this development because it shows that the promise of "union recognition" is just a carrot the EPO leadership has been dangling to staff without any genuine desire to improve the internal climate.
Since I didn't receive a copy of either letter from Mrs. Hardon (whom I listened to at a couple of EPO demonstrations in Munich), I have no idea whether she is the source of the leak. Even if a letter is marked as "confidential," the EPO is so large an organization that the source could be anywhere, especially in light of the fact that presumably more than 99% of the staff is against the current leadership style.
As an employer, I also care a lot about confidentiality. However, confidentiality obligations can only apply to what is reasonably designated as confidential. I find it hard to see how the EPO could realistically demand silence over repressive action against one of the leaders of its staff union. Of course, if this involved third-party secrets (such as patent applications that haven't been published yet), then everyone would have to maintain strict confidentiality.
If, for example, Allianz or BMW (two other large Munich-based employers) threatened to fire one the labor union leaders among its employees, that story would draw press coverage within less than 24 hours.
More than anything else, this appears to be an attempt by the EPO to prevent SUEPO from communicating with the outside world on a level playing field. Obviously, the EPO's own website states the positions of its leadership, and that is something SUEPO has to live with. But SUEPO must at least be allowed to create transparency in such a critical context as this one.
SUEPO is holding another demonstration today as I read on its website. While previous demonstrations involved marches from EPO buildings to diplomatic representations of key EPOrg member states, staff will "march to the local Labour Inspectorate, Gewerbeaufsichtsamt" today. That one is an institution of the Bavarian government (part of the administration of the district of Upper Bavaria, to be precise). In a letter addressed to that institution, SUEPO argues that the German government has a particular duty of care for the many EPO employees based on its territory (and notes that approximately 25% of the EPO staff are German citizens).
I understand SUEPO's desire to draw attention to certain issues, but as the law stands, German authorities are not allowed to supervise the EPO in any way other than the influence the German government has by virtue of its status of being a contracting state and, therefore, being represented on the Administrative Council of the EPOrg.
Just like in my previous post on the EPO labor conflict, my message to EPO staff is that you can't have your cake and eat it. In a perfect world for you, you would have all the benefits (including tax benefits) of being employed by a famous international organization and would be under the protection of local authorities. That won't work. You either have to bite the bullet, stay at the EPO, enjoy certain privileges but also live with the fact that you won't have all the rights that your colleagues right across the street at the German Patent and Trademark Office don't have (though German patent examiners are not allowed to go on strike, by the way). Or you have to determine that the overall "package" you get at the EPO is still better than your best alternative on the job market. If you elect to take that package, you must accept certain structural shortcomings.
"The authorities of the States in which the Organisation has its premises shall not enter those premises, except with the consent of the President of the European Patent Office. Such consent shall be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action."
As a reaction to my previous post, someone told me that only a privileged few could simply choose their job. Obviously, with thousands of EPO employees affected, there are thousands of individual situations. But in general engineers and other scientists with multilingual skills are definitely in demand. As I wrote last week, most EPO employees would simply have to accept an initial pay cut (especially from an after-tax point of view) if they decided to work in the private sector. Some might reach their previous income level again over time; others might never reach it again. But if you left, then the Gewerbeaufsichtsamt of Upper Bavaria would indeed be responsible for your labor conditions.
I also don't consider it a valid argument that many EPO employees may have bought a house in the Munich area and would have to stay here due to long-term mortgage arrangements. First, there are many tech jobs in the Munich area itself. Second, if you had to move to another city or country, German banks would have to accept that you rescind your mortgage contract. Third, house prices have gone up a lot in Munich in recent years, so you wouldn't have to sell at a loss.
A little over a year ago, Apple and Samsung withdrew their pending claims against each other everywhere but in the United States. Now there is more hope than ever that even the U.S. part of their dispute may come to an amicable end. In a joint case management statement filed in the Northern District of California late on Friday by local time, both parties have responded favorably to Judge Koh's recent inquiry about their willingness to engage in yet another mediation effort.
"Apple's Statement: The remaining issues to be tried to a jury are limited to the amount of damages that Samsung owes for its sales of five infringing products. Thus, as an alternative to a fourth trial, Apple would be willing to participate in binding, final, and non-appealable arbitration to calculate the final amounts owed to Apple for those five products, provided that such arbitration take place on a schedule that would conclude no later than December 31, 2015 and the Court's prior 'Groundhog Rules' apply to the arbitration. To the extent supplemental damages are not resolved by motion, Apple would be prepared to include those issues in the arbitration. Multiple prior efforts at private mediation have been unsuccessful. However in advance of and in addition to arbitration, Apple would also be willing to mediate again with Magistrate Judge Spero as ordered earlier in the case. If Samsung is unwilling to agree to this procedure, Apple requests that the Court schedule a trial for March pursuant to Apple's proposal above.
Samsung's Statement: Samsung is willing to engage in a mediation with the private mediator previously used by the parties or another mutually agreed upon private mediator. While Samsung suggests a mediation before a private mediator to avoid burdening the Court, Samsung is also willing to mediate with Magistrate Judge Spero. Samsung proposes that the mediation be completed by November 15, 2015."
The passages quoted above show different approaches. Apple talks about arbitration; Samsung doesn't. Samsung would have a preference for private mediation; Apple only mentions court-moderated mediation. But court-moderated mediation--in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, as in 2012--is the common ground between those two statements, and in that case, the court will set the rules, so Apple can't impose any conditio sine qua non of the kind it proposes for arbitration.
While arbitration would also have been just limited to a certain damages question, mediation can address anything that remains to be resolved between the parties. If mediation succeeds entirely, the whole dispute will go away. If it succeeds in part, it will at least be narrowed.
More than anything else, both parties need a face-saving exit strategy now. It would really be nice to avoid a situation in which Apple would behave like a sore loser (not a loser in legalistic terms, but in practical terms, given that its "thermonuclear war" on Android went nowhere) and kept trying to collect money over invalid patents, which could also set a terrible precedent (well, Apple's lawyers obviously argue this would just affirm the law as it stands) with a view to future cases in which patent trolls will do the same against operating companies including, but not limited to, Apple. It just wouldn't look good if Apple collected money on an ethically questionable basis, under circumstances that make it so needless and pointless given that Samsung had posted a billion-dollar bond anyway and Apple would get paid later with interest if it ultimately prevailed. Maybe this common ground in terms of court-moderated mediation will help avoid all of this. I'd be very, very happy for both parties if it worked out.
Due to previous press reports on what Apple was going to show at Wednesday's event, there were no surprises for an informed audience, but I actually liked--as an app developer and as a user--what I saw. Before the official announcement of 3D touch I had already discussed with the lead user interface programmer on one of my projects how we were going to make use of 3D touch in that app. In my opinion, many people understimate how the lack of "right-clicks", hovering and similar alternatives has really limited smartphone app UIs for some time.
But Apple wasn't first to come up with this. As The Verge noted, Huawei brought a comparable technology to market first. That is so symptomatic of Apple's problems in patent litigation: Apple is often first to do it right, no doubt about that. But the patent system is about being first, period, and the difference between "first" and "first to do it right" is either not patentable at all or, where it is, it usually doesn't result in a scope of protection that gives a right holder serious leverage in court.
I wouldn't have thought so. I learned it over the years watching those Apple v. Android cases unfold. There came a point at which I had to face this reality, even at the risk of being portrayed as a flip-flopper on some Apple investor discussion board or wherever.
At least it's comforting to know Steve Jobs himself apparently used to think that his patents were nuclear weapons.
Apple may be an even better company under Tim Cook than it was under Steve Jobs. I just can't reconcile with Apple's aspirations to be the greatest company in human history its inexplicable approach to honor and justice in connection with invalid patents. I have no idea whether Steve Jobs would have done the same, but according to his biography, he wanted to sue Android device makers "to right this wrong" (of Google having imitated iOS; "a stolen product" in Steve Jobs's opinion) as opposed to committing a whole new wrong. The latter is, regrettably, what Apple is doing now.
Simply put, Apple wants to cash in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over intellectual property rights some of which shouldn't have been granted in the first place. The one who set out in 2010 to chase thieves would become a large-scale thief himself if this happened, not in a purely legalistic sense, but in ethical terms.
In a nutshell, Apple wants a license to steal. I'm not saying that what Apple demands isn't possible under U.S. patent law: unfortunately, it could happen, especially since invalidations resulting from reexamination proceedings don't have retroactive effect with respect to damage awards in previously-concluded cases. But as the saying goes, it takes good people to do nothing in order for bad things to happen. Some people at Apple have unfortunately chosen to keep pushing for something that would be bad. Now the ball is in the court of... the court.
Samsung accurately noted in its post-verdict reaction that at least some of these patents are being reexamined by the patent office, and I think we are definitely going to see some invalidations there.
The invalidations have indeed happened. The '915 patent, which Apple considered its most valuable software patent in the 2012 trial, has been held invalid by the USPTO's Central Reexamination Division, a decision that has been affirmed by a Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB). The reexamination of the D'677 iPhone design patent is at an earlier stage, but it took more than two years for a first Office action to come down, and it appears very solid.
Apple now argues that the '915 rejection isn't formally final because Apple will appeal any rejection decisions further. It wants a rehearing. Should the rehearing be denied or not change the outcome, Apple will appeal the case on to the Federal Circuit.
No matter how right Apple may be on any formal aspects of this, I don't understand why Apple thinks it's a good idea to request a partial final judgment in order to collect money over what appears to be, in part, non-property. Some of the patents Apple holds will, unless things change in the further process, be ultimately found never to have rightfully belonged to Apple in the first place. Apple is not entitled to a payment over such "rights" any more than it would be to the price of an iPhone from someone who never got an iPhone.
The key legal argument with which Apple's filing, shown further above, urges Judge Koh to enter a partial final judgment is that the Federal Circuit, in its mandate to the district court, directed "immediate entry of final judgment on all damages awards not predicated on Apple's trade dress claims." Apple says that the court should therefore reject Samsung's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the '915 patent is invalid as well as a motion for a stay.
Apple obviously wasn't going to become the first patent holder not to oppose JMOL on invalidity. But the alternative request for a stay would not hurt Apple. After the 2012 verdict Samsung already posted a billion-dollar bond (which was adjusted after the retrial). There's no risk--none at all, even if Samsung theoretically went out of business--that Apple wouldn't get paid. Apple will get paid with interest.
Since there is really no need for immediate enforcement of a partial final judgment, I wonder why the Federal Circuit ordered it at all. It benefits Apple, but it just doesn't seem right. I defended the U.S. government's FRAND-based veto of an ITC import ban in 2013 and wrote that allegations of protectionism failed the plausibility test. If U.S. courts simply allowed Apple to cash in on patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place, instead of letting the USPTO finish its job, the question of protectionism would be on the agenda again, and the answer would be a different one than two years ago in a disparate context.
I also found it a bit strange that Judge Koh recently set a retrial date, given that Samsung's intention to appeal the design patents-related part of the case to the Supreme Court is well known. By contrast, in Oracle v. Google the district court did absolutely nothing on remand from the Federal Circuit in light of Google's Supreme Court petition, much less set a retrial date.
Political initiatives to improve the terrible situation at the EPO appear to be "too little, too late." Now that the summer vacation season has ended, it's apparent that things keep getting (even) worse.
I have heard from EPO staff that Mrs. Hardon was demoted last year by personal decision of Mr. Battistelli, on a basis that my sources consider unfair. She may now even be fired.
The above PDF document, which actually contains a SUEPO flyer as well as correspondence between SUEPO and Mr. Battistelli, relates to a very sad incident: the fifth suicide of an EPO employee in 39 months. But in this regard I neither support Mr. Battistelli nor SUEPO. I agree with either one to a limited extent and mostly disagree with both.
Mr. Battistelli -- and this is the first time for me to agree with him and it may also be the last -- is absolutely right that it was not enough for SUEPO to wait for a limited period of time before it tried to gain political mileage out of the latest suicide. Should Mr. Battistelli's representation (which I don't doubt in this particular case) be correct that the widow didn't want anyone to talk about the personal circumstances of this tragic incident, then SUEPO should have respected that forever, not just for two weeks.
The part of Mr. Battistelli's letter that I find ridiculous is where he asks for a climate of trust for his reforms, some of which violate long-standing principles of European labor law.
Another problem that SUEPO has here is that even five suicides in 39 months (almost one tenth of a percent of the EPO's workforce) are too small a number to be statistically reliable. There are definitely serious issues at the EPO, but small statistical samples have too much variance. Five suicides can happen among thousands of EPO employees even for circumstances that have nothing to do with the social and human rights conflict at that organization. SUEPO has far stronger -- and ethically less debatable -- arguments to demand a change for the better.
"Staff at the EPO needn't be suicidal or depression-leaning. Many employees — and examiners in particular — are highly qualified, often with Ph.D.-level degrees and many years of technical experience."
I'll take this one step further: EPO employees who are unhappy about the situation should try to find a better way to vote with their feet than taking to the streets of Munich (and other cities) to no avail. They should quit their jobs at the EPO and take jobs in the private economy. Engineering jobs, especially.
Dear EPO Employees: if you truly wish to promote innovation, the EPO is the wrong place to be. If you believe that this system -- broken beyond repair -- is good for innovation, you just believe and propagate the same lies that the EPO leadership you hate so much has been telling for a long time.
If you want to help Europe to be more innovative (let's face it: Europe has a major innovation problem), bring your education, your skills, your talents and your energy to the table where you can contribute to the creation of actual products. Wouldn't it be so much more rewarding for you to learn about customers using products you helped create than to grant patents, most of which won't be upheld in court (at least not in the form in which you grant them) when seriously challenged (see 1 and 2)? Apart from that, most of the patent applications you process aren't filed by European companies anyway.
I know that your net salaries at the EPO may not be immediately matched by private sector employers (though it may happen if you get promoted over time). You would have to accept an initial pay cut. But money should never be the only reason to go to work. For you, the risk-reward ratio is actually much better than for patent attorneys. Patent attorneys -- who make far more money on the patent applications you process than you do, as you know -- have to invest a lot more time and money in their education, and when they start to make serious money, the likelihood is next to zero that they could reach the same income level in an engineering capacity (they'd have to get very senior management positions at large corporations). Your situation is different.
For the overall economy, a bloated patent system with too many examiners and too many patent attorneys is a waste. It's a waste because Europe needs scientists and engineers to create true innovation.
Let me tell you about my own perspective, too. I've been fortunate to do some really interesting patent-related work for some time without ever having received formal training. Last year I founded an app development company and closed down my consulting firm. I've also reduced my patent-related blogging a lot, as you can see in the right column here. It's so much more enjoyable to create "real stuff" that people will use (I'll launch both games early next year) than to deal with discussions of what the state of the art was in 1997 or how a certain claim term should be interpreted. I don't want to be a hypocrite: I'm convinced I'll make far more money with my apps than I ever would have with consulting (and my consulting business was actually quite successful in all respects). But even if I knew that I was going to make only half as much money in app development, I would still prefer it by a wide margin.
It's self-delusionary for you to think that the EPO is the best place for you to work, or the best place for you to promote innovation. Start a new life. European industry needs you to build, for example, electric and self-driving cars before that market will be dominated by Silicon Valley companies. Your scientific knowledge, your overview of the state of the art, your experience in analyzing technologies, your ability to express yourselves in the three official languages of the EPO -- those assets are underutilized where you presently are.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1295
 v. 
 v. 
 v.