AppleInsider Staff
U.S Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over two California patent cases involving Apple and Samsung including post trial motions for the landmark Apple v. Samsung jury trial, may put the second suit on hold until an appeals court comes to a decision on the first.
According to in court reports from Reuters, Judge Koh asked counsel for both parties if an upcoming utility patent suit should be suspended until after an appeal regarding the Apple v. Samsung verdict has been reached. The appeal pertains to the jurist's decision to deny Apple's request to ban certain Samsung handsets following the Apple v. Samsung jury trial.
Due to the appeals court's schedule, a ruling is not expected until at least September, while the utility patent suit is currently slated to begin in March 2014.
Judge Koh suggested that the two parties' legal struggle could cover both California lawsuits.
"I just don't know if we really need two cases on this," Judge Koh said.
In response, Apple attorney William Lee argued that both cases should proceed as planned, noting that different patents have been asserted in each suit. Victoria Maroulis, Samsung's counsel, disagreed, claiming that "overlap" between the two should be enough to suspend the second complaint.
The parties were ordered to mull over Judge Koh's suggestion and give their official decisions by March 7.
Charles Martin
Amber Neely
Sponsored Content
Malcolm Owen
Oliver Haslam
11 Comments
I get the feeling that judges, sooner or later, regret taking on Apple cases.
They generate a lot of paperwork in requests and appeals, that have to be responded to.
[quote name="AppleInsider" url="/t/155988/apples-second-suit-against-samsung-may-be-postponed-until-appeals-court-ruling#post_2278165"]In response, Apple attorney William Lee argued that both cases should proceed as planned, noting that different patents have been asserted in each suit. Victoria Maroulis, Samsung's counsel, disagreed, claiming that "overlap" between the two should be enough to suspend the second complaint. [/quote] That's no surprise. The longer Samsung delays, the more they get to take advantage of the IP they've stolen from Apple. It has already been shown that they're far better off due to their theft - even after paying a paltry $1 B fine.
Microsoft vs Motorola:
Judge James Robart told both sides to stop using the court "as a pawn in a global, industry-wide business negotiation".
Motorola vs. Apple:
"Judge Crabb initially expressed willingness to suggest such a rate. But when Apple's lawyers wrote in a filing last week that they would reject her guidance if the rate ended up being higher than $1 USD per iPhone, she grew irate at the Cupertino company's apparent arrogance."
Apple vs. Samsung:
"A federal judge in California has sanctioned Samsung for destroying e-mail evidence in its ongoing patent infringement case with Apple."
Motorola vs Apple:
An ITC judge issues sanctions against Apple over counsel's misrepresentations. Judge Thomas Pender... imposed sanctions against Apple for its counsel's misrepresentation of facts during an opening statement and in a pre-hearing brief.
Apple vs Motorola:
'Judge Richard Posner stated that there was no point in holding a trial because it was apparent that neither side could show they had been harmed by the other’s patent infringement.'
Apple vs. Samsung:
"If Apple thought it could spin its way out of a U.K. court-ordered apology to Samsung, the iPhone maker needs to think again ... "I'm at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Bloomberg quoted Jacob as saying. "That is a plain breach of the order."
Apple vs. Motorola:
"I deny the second half of Apple’s motion (seeking prohibition of the deposition) as frivolous and the first half (seeking substitution) as untimely. I've had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple. "
I think the courts are catching on.
Apple vs. Samsung:
"A federal judge in California has sanctioned Samsung for destroying e-mail evidence in its ongoing patent infringement case with Apple."
Apple who initiated the lawsuit also destroyed email evidence. The Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal granted the adverse jury instruction against Samsung when Apple filed the email spoilation charges, but when Samsung filed the same motion against Apple, Grewal denied Samsung's motion stating the filing missed the *tentative* deadline, one day after Apple'd filed theirs.
Needlessly to say, this was an embarrassment to Grewal who clearly exhibited bias against Samsung. Koh later dropped the charges and both parties agreed not to pursue this further.
I have a feeling Apple and Samsung will be in court for many many years to come.