Samsung Loses Bid to Stop Apple’s Expedited Patent Trial in California

| News

A California Federal Court has ruled in favor of Apple’s request for an expedited trial in its patent infringement case against Samsung in the state. The trial is set to start now on July 30, 2012, although Apple had hoped for an even earlier date in February.

Apple v SamsungApple wins important trial scheduling fight against Samsung

Apple and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle over mobile device-related patent infringement claims for several months. Both companies have alleged that the other’s mobile devices use patented technologies without proper licensing. In addition to their U.S. lawsuit, both have filed similar claims in other countries, too.

“Samsung opposed any expedited schedule and didn’t even propose a specific trial date,” Florian Mueller of Foss Patents said. “Instead, Samsung highlighted that the median time to trial for patent cases in that district is 23 months, which would have corresponded to a trial date in March 2013.”

He added, “Judge Koh’s expedited trial date for Apple v. Samsung is 15.5 months after Apple’s original complaint.”

So far, there are 19 patent lawsuits between the two companies in nine different countries. As part of those cases, Samsung has agreed to not sell its Galaxy Tab tablet in Australia, and has been hit with two preliminary injunctions blocking the sale of some of its smartphone products in the European Union.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

RonMacGuy

Expedited trial?  And it’s set for the end of July 2012?  Wow, I would hate to see what a non-expedited trial date would be!!

Samsung will only sell a couple thousand tablets in the US by then, so I guess no big deal!!  LOL.  Wait, I forget, are the sales “quite smooth” or “quite small”?  grin

Along with the Kubrick defense, Samsung could also argue that they obviously didn’t copy off the iPad since if it were a good copy, they would be selling millions of them instead of thousands of them!!

Nemo

Yes, I know that it seems like quite awhile to July 2012, but apparently Judge Koh wants to decide this matter on a full record.  The parties will have completed discovery well before the trial date, so we will see the parties respective motions for summary judgment and their oppositions thereto, long before the trial date. 

If I have time, I will check the court’s docket to see when the motions for summary judgment are due.  Apple probably expects that its prospects for summary judgment are good and, therefore, hopes to prevail in this matter, I am guessing, at least three to four months before July 2012.

Nemo

The real thing to take note of is that Samsung must not have much faith in its Kubrick defense, because it is trying every means to delay Judge Koh’s judgment in the case, which is usually a sign that the party seeking to delay is in trouble.  Of course, the Kubrick defense is in itself adequate proof that Samsung is in trouble.

RonMacGuy

Nemo,

Thanks for your comments.  Very interesting.

Tell me, do the non-US judgements carry any weight in the US court, or will Judge Koh focus on the issues independent of the other decisions in Europe, Australia, etc.?

daemon

Courts in Wisconsin don’t have to give any weight to decisions courts in Idaho make…. There’s instances where even Federal District Courts hand down decisions in direct contradiction to each other, which then leads to a decision from the US Supreme Court that then stands as the guide for all the lower courts in the US.

US Judges do not operate in a vacuum, they have the authority to consider any other decisions that were handed down and either disregard them or embrace them at their discretion.

Also, Europe mostly uses Civil Law, where as in the US we use Common Law, something that we get from the UK along with the rest of the Commonwealth Nations.

ibuck

In a market where at least one organization (HP) has abandoned their (tablet) product within a year of starting it, waiting over 24 months for trial sure seems to fit the adage “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Preliminary injunctions against the sale, importation or distribution of the allegedly patent infringing product seem the only remedy for the injured party in such cases.

Nemo

daemon is not quite right.  There is a difference between controlling precedent and persuasive precedent.  Controlling precedent is when a higher appellate court of competent jurisdiction hands down a holding on an issue of law, which must be followed by all lower courts in cases that are factually on point, that is, where the relevant facts to applied to the legal principle are the same.  And even this is an over simplification, because, inter alia, we venture into the area of how broadly or narrowly to read precedent and whether a case is distinguishable on the facts. 

Persuasive precedent is where a court in its analysis of matter has so well treated the legal and/or factual issues that other courts are persuaded by that analysis and are, therefore, inclined to apply that court’s precedent, even though they are not required to do so.

Now, jurisdiction ain’t easy stuff, so you can’t always say that the opinions of a state court aren’t controlling precedent in federal courts, and it is often the case, though not always, that federal court opinions are controlling in state courts—a lot depends on whether the case at the bar presents a federal question.  Suffice it say that I am not going to be able to teach anyone jurisdiction here so that you’d be competent to practice.  What I can say is that non-US judgement can always be persuasive precedent, and depending on the U.S. Const. and U.S. treaty obligations and/or based on principles of comity, U.S. courts may be inclined or obliged to honor the judgment of foreign courts, though that is not usually the case.

More to RonMacGuy’s point, neither the decisions of the court in the Netherlands or the court in Germany are controlling authority for Judge Koh in deciding the Apple v. Samsung case before her, though either of the parties may, if they think that the either the facts and/or legal principles of those foreign cases are relevant, cite those cases in their arguments to Judge Koh.

mhikl

I will check the court?s docket

Time to watch the Rumpole series again. I love legal lingo.

My wife hates it. I can’t refrain from calling her Hilda for months afterwards.

Nemo

Dear iBuck:  Though Apple may have the better case, Apple apparently wasn’t able to show Judge Koh enough so that she felt granting Apple the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction was warranted, given the standards for a preliminary injunction.  Either Apple couldn’t show that it was likely to prevail on the merits or Judge Koh concluded that Apple would not be irreparably harmed by not obtaining a preliminary injunction or both. 

But she clearly thinks, along with Apple, that Apple’s case is strong enough so that trial should be expedited, so that a decision on the merits, based on a complete record, can be had as soon as the parties complete discovery.  This does not bode well for Samsung, or for Hal.

RonMacGuy

Nemo, you kind of sound like you know what you are talking about with all these fancy lawyer terms, but I think I am going to wait for The Dishonorable Judge ‘Bad News’ Bosco to weigh in on this!! Sorry!!

grin

furbies

My wife hates it. I can?t refrain from calling her Hilda for months afterwards.

Don’t you mean “She who must be obeyed” ?

mhikl

Don?t you mean ?She who must be obeyed? ?

I’m not that brave.

Log-in to comment