Judge denies Apple motion to reschedule post-trial decisionsApple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday issued an order denying Apple's request to rearrange the schedule of post-trial hearings, allowing a hearing on Samsung's motion to dissolve the existing Galaxy Tab ban to come before a decision on motions to overrule the jury's decision.
After the landmark Apple v. Samsung decision was handed down, both parties filed post-trial motions. Apple is looking for a permanent sales ban on eight Samsung devices, while the South Korean electronics giant is requesting to dissolve an existing preliminary injunction against its Galaxy Tab 10.1.
In the interest of expediency, Judge Koh last week consolidated Apple's permanent injunction motion, initially scheduled for Sept. 20, with so-called "Rule 50" motions to overrule the jury's decision, scheduling the hearing for Dec. 6. Meanwhile, Samsung's motion to dissolve was inserted into the Sept. 20 date, causing what Apple said was asymmetry in the post-trial timeline as the dissolving of the Galaxy Tab injunction can possibly be overturned with a favorable Rule 50 decision.
Apple's request attempted to align the permanent sales ban hearing with the motion to dissolve, both of which would be heard on the Dec. 6 court date.
Judge Koh explains that the scope of Apple's motion for a sales ban is broader than Samsung's request, saying, "[T]he Court finds good cause for setting different briefing and hearing schedules for the parties respective injunction-related motions."
From Thursday's order:
Wrapping up the order, Judge Koh modified the schedule of the Court's post-trial proceedings, extending Apple's opposition filing due date to Sept. 10, while Samsung's reply is now expected by Sept. 14.
On Topic: patents
- Future iPhones might collect fingerprints, photos of thieves
- Apple-licensed iPod navigation patent invalidated by US regulatory agency
- Apple patent details visual-based AR navigation, confirms Flyby Media acquisition
- Apple awarded pair of 3D user interface patents related to computer vision
- Judge says 'common sense' not enough to invalidate patent in Arendi v. Apple & Google