JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 211
Friday, 03 August 2012 10:58

Judge Koh Denies Apple's Request For Judement, While Apple Asks For Sales Data to Be Sealed in Samsung V Apple Patent Case

Written by

Reading time is around minutes.

There are some interesting happenings in the Samsung V Apple trial this morning (well, really overnight). It seems that Apple is working very hard to have sales data sealed. As of right now we do not have the motion that Apple filed, so we are not sure if this means Apple is requesting the evidence not be allowed, or if they just do not want it going public. We are hearing from different sources that they may be asking for either or both (we are guessing that they want it barred as evidence).

The data which consists of sales summaries for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, tracking studies from Q2 2011, and buyer surveys from 2011 is to be used by Samsung in questioning Phil Schiller (Apple SVP Worldwide Marketing). Apple is claiming that if the sales data is allowed it will cause “severe harm” to Apple. Now we can sort of understand not wanting to publicly release actual sales and tracking information to the general public, but this may be vital evidence that can refute the damage estimates as well as some of Apple’s claims of consumer confusion (which we have touched on as well).  

Some have speculated that Apple might not want these raw (and real) numbers released because they differ from some of the numbers that Apple reports publicly (from their PR Teams to the general public). One very outrageous claim was that these numbers might be different than numbers reported to stockholders. We highly doubt that the last one is true, but do have a feeling that the sales numbers and tracking data will refute Apple’s claims of harm by Samsung’s products. This reason on its own is enough to make Apple not want them used as evidence.

Judge Koh is going to have to approach this one very carefully as she now has a much better feel for who she is dealing with in John Quinn. She has even given in a little on some of the “Sony” evidence and is allowing some of it “to prove design functionality”. This little bit is still not truly enough. If one looks at the reasons that she outlined for Samsung’s use of evidence it makes little sense to only allow that one minor part.

“(1) [to] rebut Apple’s creation theory that the iPhone was ‘revolutionary’; (2) to rebut allegations of copying; (3) to establish that the industry at large was moving toward the basic design concepts; (4) to prove design functionality; and (5) to rebut allegations of willfulness”

It seems to us that all of those reasons are very valid. We have not heard of a response by Samsung yet, but we do know that they are sure to have more than a few tricks up their sleeve as Quinn has shown he is a very shrewd tactician at this point in the trial (and it is just getting started). Judge Koh also quashed Apple’s request for summary judgment on the whole case. We expect there to be more drama in today’s proceedings as both Pill Schiller and SVP of iOS Software Scott Forestall will be in the hot seat. They will be questioned about the origins of the iPhone and iPad concept, Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s claimed patents and Apple’s infringement of Samsung’s claimed patents for 3G and mobile e-mail.

We will keep you up-to-date on any new findings or drama from the court as well as both Apple and Samsung’s PR campaigns outside the courtroom.

Read 2416 times

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.