Retrial
Latest
Apple won't have to pay a patent troll $625 million after all
Patent troll VirnetX has won multiple patent lawsuits against Apple, including a recent $625 million judgement over FaceTime and VPN tech. However, it appears it overplayed its past success during that trial. After Apple appealed, federal Judge Robert Schroeder threw out the judgement and demanded a retrial. The reason? VirnetX inappropriately mentioned the previous verdict, possibly prejudicing the jury against Apple.
Judge denies mistrial in case against Silk Road's founder (again)
If you were hoping that Ross Ulbricht (Dread Pirate Roberts of Silk Road fame) was going to get a retrial, you might wanna walk those expectations back a bit. Okay; a lot. Despite the two former federal agents involved in the investigation purportedly stealing bitcoins and committing wire fraud during the investigation, the presiding judge Katherine Forrest has denied a motion for a new trial. Albrecht's defense protested, saying that the warrantless attempts to identify the Silk Road server violated his privacy rights and that the corruption charges demanded another look to see if the case had been tainted, as Wired tells it. None of that changed her mind though. She says that the evidence of Ulbricht's guilt was "overwhelming" and that there was little chance that conceding to any of those defenses would alter the outcome of the trial at all.
Judge denies re-retrial in never-ending Apple v. Samsung patent battle
It turns out we're not the only ones who are ready to see this patent battle royale come to an end. Last night, Judge Lucy Koh denied Samsung a retrial in the case that will not die, but took the opportunity to shame Apple's lawyers for bringing the Korean company's foreignness into the equation. The court-appointed shaming comes as a result of closing arguments made during a partial retrial that saw a portion of Apple's original award bumped from $450 million down to $290 million in damages. At the time, Apple's attorney argued that Samsung's infringement of Apple's patents could have an impact on the US economy. When I was young, I used to watch television on televisions that were manufactured in the United States. Magnavox, Motorola, RCA. These were real companies. They were well known and they were famous. They were creators. They were inventors. They were like the Apple and Google today. But they didn't protect their intellectual property. They couldn't protect their ideas. And you all know the result. There are no American television manufacturers today. Samsung originally moved for a mistrial in that case based on those comments, but was denied. Instead, Koh informed the jury to avoid letting prejudice inform its decision. While Koh didn't see the need for yet another trial, she repeatedly referred to the comments as "troubling," saying they "could have been perceived as invoking racial or ethnic prejudice."
Apple v. Samsung lawsuit inches closer to a conclusion, jury revises total damages due Apple to $888 million (update)
When Apple was awarded over $1 billion in damages at the conclusion of the tech trial of the century (until the next one, at least), we knew that the ultimate price paid by Samsung would be different. Why? A few months after the jury announced its calculations, presiding judge Lucy Koh ordered a retrial regarding $450 million of the original award because the jury based that number on some faulty legal logic. In this second damages calculation proceeding, Apple has asked that the jury adjust the award to $380 million, while Samsung argued it only owes $52 million. Today, the jury has settled between those two numbers, and Samsung's revised legal tab is $290 million. That number, when combined with the $598 million not at issue in the retrial brings the total Samsung owes to $888 million. Of course, this latest decision doesn't change anything but dollar signs -- the court's earlier finding of infringement upon Apple's patents still stands. Still, with the damages settled, the case is closer than ever to a conclusion, though the lawyers on both sides still have plenty left to do. There are still post-retrial motions and appeals to be filed, as has been the case with prior rulings made during the case. Still, at least now we know just how big a check Samsung will have to write if and when those appeals cease. Update: We reached out to Apple about today's proceedings and a company rep offered the following response about the protection of "hard work": For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money. It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it's impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost.
