Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20130509083407920
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:12:33+00:00

Document:
Samsung has just filed a motion for a new trial on liability in Apple v. Samsung with respect to Apple's '381 patent. That's the bounce back patent, which was used by Apple in the first trial in California, and the jury ruled that Samsung infringed that patent with 18 products. As you know, the two companies are currently in the pre-retrial motion stage leading up to a retrial on the question of damages only, scheduled to begin in November.
The eighteen products at issue in this motion are all products for which the jury found infringement of the '381 patent and awarded damages. The Court ordered a new trial on damages as to all of the products at issue in this motion except the Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy Tab 10.1(WiFi), Mesmerize and Vibrant. Dkt. 2271. This motion is based on "newly discovered evidence" because Samsung learned from PTO records made publicly available on June 12, 2013, that Apple had successfully advocated a new claim construction of the only asserted claim – Claim 19 – and significantly narrowed its scope in connection with reexamination proceedings before the PTO to avoid having this claim rejected due to the Lira reference. Under this claim construction, the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi), Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Replenish and Vibrant cannot possibly infringe Claim 19 of the '381 patent.
Wow. Why would Samsung have to find this in papers filed with the USPTO instead of from Apple just telling them? In any case, Samsung argues newly discovered evidence. The Lira patent is the prior art that caused the USPTO to reject claim 19 earlier.
Samsung may renew its motion for a stay of the new trial on damages as to the ’381 patent if the USPTO does not re-open the prosecution of the ’381 reexamination following Apple’s response to the final office action finding claim 19 of the ’381 patent invalid. Any such motion, and any opposition to such motion, may not exceed three (3) pages in length. The parties shall contact Ms. Parker Brown for a hearing date. The response to any such motion is due ten days after the filing of a motion.
This event isn't a perfect fit, but what can the judge do now? If they don't infringe, it makes no sense to have a trial for damages. And you can always ask for a retrial based on newly discovered evidence. So, Samsung suggests a delay to work out the kinks.
Alternatively, Samsung hereby moves the Court for an order entering judgment on liability as to Apple’s claims and Samsung’s counterclaims, and for an order staying the remainder of this case pending resolution of appeal(s) of that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2). This alternative request is brought on the grounds that in the event the Court does not permit further adjudication of liability, judgment should be entered as to liability so that the parties may take immediate appeal(s) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
As you know, if you follow our News Picks, there was a ruling just the other day that, as long as it happens prior to a final judgment, a USPTO reexamination decision trumps anything that the courts might do or even what they already did. That's why all this matters so much to both.
Unfortunately, some of the supporting evidence is being filed under seal, or more precisely Samsung is asking that it be, so at the moment there is no way to know to what degree this is all exactly as Samsung tells it, or even if the judge will care. She can be a bit grumpy about reexaminations. In a speech recently, she ranted about it: "What is so special about patent law?" she fumed. "Why do you all get 5 billion do-overs?" So who knows? But the answer to her question is fairly obvious: because millions are at stake, and no one should have to pay damages on a patent that is invalid. She should care a bit more about justice than speed. And why are patents different? Because the USPTO has issued invalid patents, a lot of them, but the law presumes that they are valid, and people who are innocent are getting hurt right and left. It's so bad, the President of the United States, has said the economy is being damaged. That's what's so special about patent law. It's become toxic.
Here's the snarky notice [PDF] Apple filed with the court telling the court that the '381 patent's claim 19 had survived after all, and attached as an exhibit [PDF] is the USPTO paperwork detailing the phone calls between Apple and the USPTO in May.
At the trial in this action, Apple persuaded the jury that certain Samsung products infringed the '381 patent using a broad reading of Claim 19 of that patent. But, to avoid having the claim cancelled as invalid due to the Lira reference during subsequent reexamination proceedings initiated by a third party, Apple advocated an entirely new and far narrower interpretation of Claim 19. Based on the narrowed interpretation advanced by Apple during an oral interview with the Examiner in a desperate bid to save that claim, the Examiner changed his prior final rejection and confirmed Claim 19. Samsung is entitled to a new trial on liability under Rule 59 based on these developments because there is "newly discovered evidence" that would have resulted in a finding of non-infringement with respect to the '381 patent. The requested new trial on liability would include all products for which the jury found infringement of the '381 and awarded damages, regardless whether the Court ordered a new trial on damages for the product or let the damages award stand. This includes the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi), Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Replenish and Vibrant ("New Trial Products").
Each of the three requirements for a new trial under Rule 59 based on newly discovered evidence is satisfied. First, developments during a reexamination proceeding constitute "newly discovered evidence" as that term has been defined in the case law. Second, the exercise of diligence would not have resulted in this evidence being discovered earlier. Indeed, Samsung could not have predicted that Apple would change course and successfully proffer an entirely different interpretation of its claims during reexamination to avoid having its patent invalidated based on the Lira reference. Samsung diligently monitored the reexamination and discovered that Apple successfully proposed an entirely different claim interpretation to the PTO immediately after this information became available – on June 12, 2013.
requires that the visual effect of edge alignment be present and the specific purpose or cause of the computer instructions performing the snap back be to perform edge alignment. For example, if edge alignment occurs due to computer instructions that cause centering of an electronic document, as in Lira, Claim 19 is not infringed. As stated in the declaration of Samsung's expert, Andries van Dam, Ph.D., under this new construction, the Court or jury would have necessarily found that the New Trial Products do not infringe the '381 patent.
In the event the Court declines to order a new trial, it should enter judgment on liability as to all of Apple’s claims and Samsung’s counterclaims in light of the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 2664281 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2013), which held that that 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) provides appellate jurisdiction over a judgment in a patent case entered only on liability. Were the Court to enter such a judgment, it also should stay further proceedings in this case since a decision by the Federal Circuit may materially affect the necessity for and scope and contours of the partial new trial that the Court has ordered.
"The one or more programs further include instructions for translating the document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed, after the object is no longer detected on or near the touch screen display."
1 Dkt. 1931; Trial Tr. at 1751:15-1755:5 (Declaration of Robert J. Becher, dated June 26, 2013 ("Becher Decl."), Exh. 1). A chart reflecting which applications Apple accused for each New Trial Product is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Becher Declaration. Importantly, Apple refused to break out the accused phones by application as proposed on a verdict form which Samsung advocated. Dkt. 2286, at 8.
3 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, at 2-3 (Becher Decl., Exh. 3).
4 Dkt. 2079. In addition to claim 19, the PTO rejected all other claims in this office action.
6 April 29, 2013 Hearing Transcript, at 12:9-13 (Becher Decl., Exh. 4).
7 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, at 2-3 (Becher Decl., Exh. 3).
8 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, at 3 (Becher Decl., Exh. 3) (emphases in original).
9 van Dam Decl., ¶24.
10 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, at 5 (emphasis original)(Becher Decl., Exh. 3) (bolding in original).
11 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, at 6 (Becher Decl. Exh. 3) (emphasis and bolding in original).
12 van Dam Decl., ¶25.
15 van Dam Decl., ¶26.
18 van Dam Decl., ¶29.
19 van Dam Decl., ¶30.
22. Following the jury trial and the August 2012 verdict, on October 13, 2012, the PTO rendered an initial office action rejecting all claims of the ’381 patent as, inter alia, anticipated or obvious over the Lira reference (and another reference) and then issued a final office action rejecting Claim 19 of the ’381 patent over the Lira reference on March 29, 2013.
Lira did not anticipate Claim 19 because it did not disclose computer instructions that were specifically designed to cause an electronic document to snap back to a particular edge of the electronic document. In other words, Apple argued to the PTO that the cause and effect (as described to the PTO) – or, the root purpose or cause of the snap back computer instructions in claim 19 must be edge alignment.
(Apple Response to PTO, May 13, 2013) (emphasis added).
25. It is my opinion that, through its arguments to the PTO, Apple disclaimed all subject matter with respect to Claim 19 in which the specific purpose or cause of the computer code that generates the snap back effect is anything other than edge alignment. Edge alignment occurs when the area beyond the edge of a document is shown visually, but then the edge alignment code causes that area beyond the edge to disappear so that the edge of the electronic document aligns to the edge of the screen or window.
alignment. For example, if edge alignment occurs due to computer instructions that cause centering of an electronic document, as in Lira, Claim 19 is not infringed.
27. I also conclude that Apple will not be able to recapture through the doctrine of equivalents any subject matter in which the cause or purpose of the computer instructions that cause the snap back effect is not edge alignment, as it is precluded from doing so by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
28. During the August 2012 trial, Apple had not yet made any of the narrowing statements relating to Claim 19 of the ’381 patent that it recently made during the reexamination proceedings. Consequently, the scope of Claim 19 as presented to the jury at trial was significantly broader than it is now.
29. At trial, Apple’s expert Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan, testified that several Samsung devices infringed claim 19 because the Gallery, Web Browser, and/or Contacts applications running on those devices incorporated snap back behavior. However, Dr. Balakrishan did not testify the purpose or cause of the computer instructions in the Gallery, Web Browser, and/or Contacts applications was specifically to perform edge alignment. Moreover, the computer instructions Dr. Balakrishnan and Apple presented and relied on at trial fail to meet the new post- reexamination limitations of Claim 19 as I explain in detail below.
30. In short, from a review of the computer instructions at issue and the operation of accused Samsung devices, it is my opinion that Apple failed to make a showing at trial that the new post-reexamination limitations discussed above are present in the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi), Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Replenish and Vibrant, under the Browser, Gallery, or Contacts applications.
The Samsung filing then goes on to argue the law on newly discovered evidence, which is basically what it sounds like. If facts show up after the trial that would alter the outcome that you couldn't have known before the discovery, you can ask for a new trial, to avoid injustice. In this case, there's no way Samsung could have investigated earlier to find out the newly discovered evidence, because it only just happened, when Apple changed its position on Claim 19 on June 12. The reexamination didn't end until after the trial, because the judge refused to wait for it to finish first. So now she's in a pickle of her own making, and given past history, that may not bode well for Samsung, if it irritates her to find out that there are times when it is, actually, better to wait.
Office are admissible under the public records exception set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). Id. at *2-4.
New information about the construction of the '381 patent from the reexamination would have changed the outcome of the case as it would have resulted in a finding of noninfringement with respect to the '381 patent. As shown by the declaration of Samsung's expert Andries van Dam, Ph.D. who evaluated the evidence Apple proffered at trial to support its claim that Samsung infringed the '381 patent, the Browser, Gallery and Contacts applications – the applications Apple accused at trial – do not infringe under the construction Apple proffered during reexamination.
25 Although the jury found the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S (i9000) and Galaxy SII (i900) to infringe, it did not award damages for these products. Dkt. 1930. As a result, they are not included in this motion.
26 van Dam Decl., ¶25.
31 van Dam Decl., ¶29.
32 Samsung does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents either. The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel provides that a patentee who relinquishes subject matter during prosecution, either by amendment or argument, cannot subsequently claim the relinquished subject matter is covered by its patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Laboratories Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1315-1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Aquatex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Based on its statements to the examiner, Apple surrendered all subject matter in which the purpose of the computer instructions that cause the snap back effect is anything other than strict edge alignment. van Dam Decl., ¶25. Thus, Apple cannot argue that computer instructions whose purpose or cause is something other than edge alignment – but that is in some way equivalent to such code – infringes Claim 19. van Dam Decl., ¶27. Moreover, even if Apple could argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, there would be no infringement of Claim 19 because there are substantial differences between the Gallery and Browser code and Claim 19. van Dam Decl., ¶¶37-38, 46-47.
Samsung then offers a mostly redacted section on why Browser, Contacts, and something else we can't read are not infringing under the new claim construction. Then it argues that alternatively the judge could issue a judgment on liability on all claims and counterclaims so there can be an immediate appeal, which, in light of the Federal Circuit's recent en banc decision in Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. is now allowed.
No moss growing on Quinn Emanuel, I see. That decision was on June 14, 2013 [PDF]. And I think it's probably fair to say that the law firm is aware of the judge's eccentric views on law firms that fight hard for their clients and seek reexaminations at the USPTO. In this case, it was an anonymous third party that filed the request, actually, which Samsung is careful to point out. But they are not expecting too much help from this judge, I suspect, given her extreme view, which is why they ask for the alternative relief of an immediate appeal. They aren't calling it extreme, but I do. I mean, if the law says you can ask for a reexam, why would a judge be mad at you if you follow the law?
STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF CLAIM 19 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,381 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/13/2013) Modified text on 6/14/2013 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
OPPOSITION to (  Samsung's Administrative Motion for Relief from April 29, 2013 Case Management Order ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 7/5/2013) Modified text on 7/8/2013 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Declaration of Erik J. Olson In Support Of  Apples Opposition To Samsungs Administrative Motion For Relief From April 29, 2013 Case Management Order filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 7/5/2013) Modified on 7/8/2013 linking entry to document #2328 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Declaration of Julie L. Davis, CPA, In Support Of  Apples Opposition To Samsungs Administrative Motion For Relief From April 29, 2013 Case Management Order filed by Apple Inc.. (McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 7/5/2013) Modified on 7/8/2013 linking entry to document #2328 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Declaration of Marylee Robinson, CPA, In Support Of  Apples Opposition To Samsungs Administrative Motion For Relief From April 29, 2013 Case Management Order filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 7/5/2013) Modified on 7/8/2013 linking entry to document #2328 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Perhaps this will make clear why I wrote initially that this isn't something that can be decided without deeper research, which I have now provided in part. Keep in mind that you'd need to actually read through all the transcripts to know for sure whether what Samsung is stating regarding a change in position is actually certainly accurate or not.
"A certificate will be issued in view of Patent owner's communication filed: 13 May 2013 and 20 May 2013" regarding claims 14 and 17-19.
Patent Owner's Representatives presented their position that the Lira reference lacked the "stop condition" in the claims where the translating in the second direction occurs "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed". To this, the Office noted that Lira does provide for animated snap-on-column functionality from an area off of the column upon pen lift (see page 15, lines 18-31), where the width of the column is sized to the window size so as to be less than or equal to the window width (see page 11, lines 10-17), with specific recitations to the column widths correcsponding to the dispay width 425 (see column 10, lines 1-5). The Office believes this is important as when the window snaps back to the column, corrective scrolling is stopped when the display is centered over the column, thereby placing the edges of the column at the edges of the equally sized display, where at the exact instance that the window is centered the area beyond the edge ceases to be displayed (same result). The Patent Owner's Representatives noted that claim 19, specifically teaches "instructions for" translating "until the area beyond the edge of the electonic document is no longer displayed", where the Office asked for further clarification as to whether there is support for actual coded instructions that effect this process, and noted that if there where this would be a good area to focus. The Office noted that though a corrective traversal appeals in Lira to stop when the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed, it may not be responsive to instructions requiring that but rather a result of instructions to center (same effect, different cause), pending further review. Patent Owner's Representatives noted that they would provide support.
Agreement was reached that Lira does not provide "instructions for" translating... "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed" as is stated in claim 19. Additionally Patent Owner agreed to cancel via Examiner's Amendment claims 1-13, 15, 16, and 20, where these claims were neither previously confirmed (as were claims 14, 17, and 18) nor provide said specific recitation to "instructions for" translating... "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed".
Is patent law not the stupidest thing you ever watched? A patent that has the same result as prior art, but which add "instructions for" translating... "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed", gets a patent. And for that, Apple wants to ban Samsung products from the market. Not just in the US. On pages 203 onward, there's a list of all the places on planet earth where the '381 patent is involved in "proceedings" in the US and around the world with equivalent foreign patents. The form is called "Notice of Prior and Concurrent Proceedings Under 37 C. F. R. 1,565(A)". So many stupid rules.
In summary, Claim 19 is Confirmed, as there is no prior art disclosure of a similar device with "programs including ... instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in resonse to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display."
Then on May 22, there was a telephone interview and on page 258, we read the Examiner's Amendment basically reinforcing the same thing as on May 13. So that is how claim 19 survived, but on page 252, there's a letter from Samsung to the USPTO, that they received on May 31, 2013, where Samsung notified the USPTO that Apple failed to inform the office that the judge in the Apple v. Samsung case had said in the April 29th hearing that she would likely delay the damages retrial with respect to claim 19 of the '381 patent "in the event that the Examiner did not re-open the prosecution of the '381 reexamination." And they attach a portion of the hearing transcript.
A. Claim 19: Lira does not disclose a device having "instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed"
Claim 19 is directed to a device having one or more programs that include specifically recited instructions. In particular, the one or more programs of the device of claim 19 include "instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed".
As discussed in the interview, Patent Owner asserts that, even under the broadest reasonable construction standard, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a device of claim 19 must include instructions for performing translation in the second direction with the recited stop condition (i.e., "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed"). Further, the person of ordinary skill would understand that incidentally achieving a similar visual result, based on a different stop condition, is neither an express nor inherent disclosure of the required instructions. Lira discloses a centering function. Thus, Lira fails to disclose, explicitly or inherently, instructions for translation in the second direction with the stop condition (i.e., "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is not longer displayed") recited in claim 19.
As discussed in the interview, Patent Owner asserts that claim 19 requires executable program instructions rather than just a result achieved on the screen of the device. In particular, claim 19 recites, "[a] device comprising ... one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors". Each of the recited "instructions" is included in the one or more programs.
Patent Owner asserts that even under the broadest reasonable construction, the final instructions of claim 19 require the executable program instructions that not only specify the particular command (i.e., translation in the second direction), but also specify a particular stop condition (i.e., "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the significance of specifying a stop condition for translation in the second direction in a device operating based on executable program instructions. Unlike translation in the first direction, which is terminated by detecting that the object is no longer on the touch screen (i.e., user input), there is no input-based stop condition specified in claim 19 for ending translation in the second direction. Rather, the device of claim 19 includes instructions specifying that translation in the second direction is terminated based on determining that the area beyond the edge is no longer displayed. In operation, the device of claim 19 would stop translation once the stop condition is met, based on the recited instructions.
In summary, a device of claim 19 must include executable program instructions having the recited translation stop condition of "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed".
[I]nstructions for translating the document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed, after the object is no longer detected on or near the touch screen display.
Similarly, the originally filed specification included descriptions of program instructions consistent with the ordinary meaning of program instructions, as they are used in the claims. See, e.g., Specification filed December 14, 2007, at paragraphs , , . amd . As such, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the instructions for translation in the second direction, as wth all of the instructions recited in claim 19, are directed to elements of a computer program, rather than merely to a result achieved on the screen of the device of claim 19.
4. Lira does not disclose executable program instructions having the recited translation stop condition of "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed"
Patent Owner asserts that Lira fails to disclose, explicitly or inherently, a device of claim 19 under the broadest reasonable construction discussed above. Moreover, Lira fails to do so, regardless of whether an internal boundary of a document is or is not an edge of an electronic document, as claimed. The Office Action cites to Lira at page 15 for disclosure of translation in a second direction, based on Lira's snap-to-nearest column function. (Office Action at pages 9-10.) Lira's snap-to-nearest column function does not include a stop condition of "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed".
Rather, Lira makes clear that the stop condition for the function is based on centering of the column: "the display 1205 centers the logical column 1210 as the pen 1200 is lifted from the screen". (Lira at page 15, lines 23-25 (emphasis added).) Stopping translation based on the column being centered is substantially different than stopping based on the area beyond the edge no longer being displayed.
In view of Lira's unequivocal disclosure of a centering-based stop condition, Lira's description of its snap-to-column function as "caus[ing] the logical column 1220 to snap into alignment with the display window 1205 as the user stops scrolling" is merely a disclosure of the incidental visual result of translating until the edge of column 1220 is aligned with the screen, without being a disclosure of instructions having a stop condition of "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed". Notably, this incidental result only occurs when the width of the column corresponds to the width of the display, as Lira leaves no ambiguity as to the centering-based stop condition used in the snap-to-nearest column function.
Accordingly, Patent Owner asserts that Lira fails to expressly or inherently disclose a device having executable program instructions having the recited translationg stop condition of "until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed", as required by claim 19.
Mystery solved. What a snake move this is. Anyone recall Apple saying any of these limitations at trial when describing Samsung's alleged infringement? If so, cite page and line number of the transcript. Because I remember nothing quite like this.
The history goes on and on, but this is all hand typing, and I'm sick of it. But I'll tell you that on page 181 of the PDF there is more from a May 23rd filing, asking for the interview it eventually go and repeating more or less the same things, and so forth, including why the patent examiner earlier rejected claim 19 based on Lira, such as beginning on page 48.
But we've seen enough now to understand what Samsung is talking about. I don't know how its products work, but they do, and I gather they are saying that their products lack the computer stop condition instructions in their software. And if so, they should be granted a new trial, I would think. Whether that will happen is a different question. As Joseph Stiglitz points out in a New York Times opinion piece, the court in Apple v. Samsung makes "a pretense at balance" but seems to "consistently favor the home team". Amen to that.

References: v. 
 § 1292
 v. 
 § 1292
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.