Article by http://www.Notebookbattery.Gr/ : A federal jury taking part in the Apple-Samsung court case delivered a miscellaneous verdict Friday.
The panel ruled with the purpose of various Samsung products infringed on two patents with the purpose of Apple had sued finished taking part in its most recent patent court case and found indemnity on a third patent, awarding new than $119.6 million taking part in indemnity. However, it found Apple did not infringe on two other patents and and awarded Samsung $158,400, axiom Apple infringed on a Samsung patent.
The jury found all accused Samsung phones infringed on the primarily patent on back number, the ’647 “quick-links” patent, but the campaign did not infringe on two others associated to universal search and background organization. Pro the ’721 “slide-to-unlock” patent, it ruled roughly Samsung products infringed, while others did not.
Pro a fifth patent, the moderator had ruled with the purpose of Samsung’s products infringed on the Apple patent, and the jury resolute with the purpose of infringement was conscious.
Meanwhile, the panel ruled with the purpose of Apple violated individual of two Samsung patents with the purpose of the company had countersued finished, but ruled the infringement was not conscious and awarded no more than the $158,400.
A discrepancy on the verdict form, however, process the panel long for grasp to get here back on Monday to treat the verdict. (see updates under.)
The verdict was reached with three stuffed days of thought, with a retired IBM selling element executive serving in the role of the foreman of the four-man, four-woman jury.
Apple had been seeking $2.2 billion taking part in indemnity, while Samsung argued with the purpose of it allocated on nearly all $38 million before so, not with the purpose of it supposed it infringed Apple’s patents taking part in the primarily place. It was and seeking approaching $6 million from Apple taking part in its countersuit.
The $119.6 million is and far not as much of than Apple got taking part in its ultimate court case hostile to Samsung, somewhere two juries taking part in the same courtroom awarded all but $1 billion taking part in indemnity. With Samsung continuing to advance ground taking part in the market–and courts so far having been unwilling to order its products be situated distorted before taken rotten the market–a clear-cut court case can be situated made with the purpose of Samsung has already outflanked Apple taking part in the ongoing lawful battle.
And of curriculum, both sides long for likely ask moderator Lucy Koh to resolved aside the most recent verdict and, failing with the purpose of, long for appeal the jury’s verdict.
With the purpose of supposed, Apple praised the ruling.
“We are appreciative to the jury and the invite pro their service,” Apple told Re/code. “Today’s ruling reinforces what did you say? Courts around the earth grasp already found: With the purpose of Samsung willfully stole our ideas and commonplace our products. We are fighting to defend the remorseless effect with the purpose of goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees apply their lives to deceitful and delivering pro our customers.”
Representatives of Samsung and Google were not right away on hand pro comment. However Google appeared to get here elsewhere a winner; it had agreed to provide indemnity to Samsung with regard to two patents on back number, both of which the jury ruled were not infringed.
The jury heard new than 50 hours of testimony taking part in all, in the role of well in the role of opening and final statements.
Bring up to date, 6:05 p.M.: Apple has identified individual creation found to infringe pro which veto indemnity were awarded; moderator Koh says the jury long for be situated asked to treat with the purpose of spit. Set the unpunctuality of the hour, the jury long for grasp partially an hour tonight before it long for grasp to get here back on Monday.
6:30 p.M.: The jury decides it would more accurately settle things with the weekend, so they long for be situated back on 9 a.M. Monday.
Samsung’s outside attorney, John Quinn, declined to comment on the indemnity decision, noting the verdict is not yet final set the discrepancy still to be situated addressed by the jury. Google has and declined to comment.
没有评论:
发表评论