Displaying items by tag: Judge Lucy Koh

The day following the Verdict from the 9 member jury we poured through the amended worksheet and noticed some very unusual things about it. We stated that it appeared that the jury had predetermined guilt and then spent the majority of their time figuring out how much they should make Samsung pay Apple. This was before any of the jurors had started to cash in on their “fame” and began the rounds with the tech press and TV. Now that at least one member of the jury and the jury foreman have come out and made public statements their intentions in producing the verdict are clear making Samsung’s bid to get it overturned a little easier… if Judge Koh at least attempts to play this one fairly.

Last night the verdict was handed down from the jury in the Samsung V Apple and in a staggering leap of logic the 9 person jury found for that Samsung was guilty of willful infringement on the majority of patents that Apple presented, but that Apple had not infringed at all on the Samsung patents. Then they found that Samsung was not-guilty of Anti-Trust behavior for those attempting to enforce those same patents.  Although our initial reaction was shock, after reading the details of the verdict and taking into account how the trial was handled by Judge Lucy Koh we were actually not surprised.

When we got into the lab this morning and started checking things out we stumbled across something that was simply shocking.  At appears that Judge Lucy Koh has decided to bar testimony of the Samsung designer that started their move to more simple designs. Her claim is that because she did not design any of the phones that Apple claims are infringing her testimony will not be of value: “The risk of undue prejudice to Apple outweighs the probative value of Ms. Park’s testimony”.

In following a trial as big as the Samsung V Apple trial there are small things that popup over the course of a case this large and this public. We have already found out that both Samsung and Apple tend to release the number of units “shipped” to investors rather than the number of units actually sold. This is not an uncommon item as when product is shipped to a company like Best Buy or Target they are still listed as a unit “sold” for many companies. But there are other items that come out as well; one of these is only visible if you look closely. This is the strength of the actual claim(s) involved. Although both sides often object just to make things annoying for the other what we have noticed is that Apple appears to want considerably more real data and evidence blocked than Samsung.

We have been critical of Judge Lucy Koh for seemingly biased views towards Apple in many of the patent cases that have crossed her bench. Most recently we were appalled to see her go from a stance of not enough evidence of irreparable harm to a full preliminary ban on sales of the Galaxy Tab. This has prompted more than one person to complain and also to question her ability to properly discharge her duties. Apparently more than a few people are feeling the same way as a petition to have her “impeached” and removed from her position.

There are times in the US Legal system when I wished there was a review body that could not only reverse bad decisions, but also levy fines and consequences for bad and obvious prejudicial judgments on the part of our justices in the US. If there were I have a feeling that Judge Lucy Koh would be exceptionally poor right about now. This is due to her recent judgments in granting injunctive relief in favor of Apple despite the lack of sufficient evidence that Apple is being injured or that the devices in question actually violate Apple patents.