Of course Samsung has to get someone to listen to them and to believe their claims. This has been an issue in the US where Apple has always gotten away with being the favorite of the ITC and the courts. One thing that Samsung does have going for them is that some of the claims were extremes and were covered by the media quite well (even the sites that were pro Apple). Examples of this were strewn throughout the trial, but included the fact that Apple was allowed to continually state (as fact) “we were ripped off” by Samsung and that “Samsung copied”. Samsung, on the other hand, was not allowed to show crucial differences in their products and had key pieces of evidence excluded from the trial (including allowing a key witness to avoid testifying in the trial).
There were time constraints that were also unreasonable in terms of cross examination testimony of expert and lay witnesses. Samsung also brought up the fact that they were required to lay foundation for Apple documentation, but Apple was not put under the same constraints. One item that always stood out during the trial was Apple claims that Samsung deliberately destroyed evidence, yet when Samsung brought up the fact that Apple had a suspicious lack of emails on the subject during the timeframe of claimed infringement Judge Koh did not order Apple to present any and all emails and documentation related to the case or show cause for their absence.
Samsung has also asked for a judgment on the patents that Apple used citing that no reasonable jury would find them valid. This is something they asked for at the beginning of the trial and Judge Koh tossed out. Judge Koh also worked very hard to limit the amount of evidence that Samsung was able produce to show that Apple’s patents were not original (a requirement for patents). Samsung tried to enter depositions, testimony and other physical evidence to show that Apple borrowed their designs from others. This was spun by some in the press as the “Apple copied too” defense, but was in reality meant to prove to the jurors that Apple’s designs, UI, and even their utility patents like the “rubber band” patent were not original and therefore not valid at all.
Samsung’s key argument in these matters is that the behavior of the court (in particular Judge Koh) prevented them from receiving a fair trial. They also appear to be looking into Jury Misconduct which is something that we called into question on the day the verdict was released. The Jury admittedly ignored the evidence of prior art and instead intended to punish Samsung. Samsung appears to be taking exception to the jury selection as well as the conduct of the jury during their deliberation phase of the trial. To back up the impression that Samsung is pushing for jury misconduct they have filed an additional motion that is asking the court to seal the motion for judgment as a matter of law and also “prohibiting the parties from any further communication with jurors who served during the trial until the matters raised by this motion have been finally resolved.”
Samsung has some very compelling evidence to suggest that they were treated unfairly by the court and also that there was misconduct on the part of the jury. In the meantime Apple is asking for outright sales bans and even more money ($707 Million) from Samsung. As we said the day the Verdict was released, this is all far from over and in the end it might not turn out the way that Apple wanted to.
Discuss this in our Forum
