The Samsung-Apple ITC investigation (337-TA-794) originated with a complaint brought by Samsung against Apple back in June 2011, in which Samsung accused various Apple products of infringing five patents. Two of these patents — U.S. Pat Nos. 7,706,348 and 7,486,644 — were alleged by Samsung to be essential to the UMTS 3G cellular standard.
Transcripts From Apple v Samsung Trial: Days 1-3, Including Full Voir Dire ~pj Updated. At last! We can now read the entire voir dire in Apple v. Samsung, so everything that was asked and answered is now public. We have Days 1-3, with more to follow. So let's dig in.
I want to say Lee, the first person I played today, who was on the other side of those discussions who testified that he was there, that Samsung -- that Apple did accuse Samsung both of infringement of utility patents, but also of copying the designs of their products.
Samsung is telling the court that "Apple is attempting to 'sandbag' Samsung and obtain an unfair tactical advantage" by various proposals on how to go forward and by refusing to seriously meet and confer with Samsung.
Here's the transcript for Day 6 [PDF] of the Apple v. Samsung trial, August 10th, a day when lots of witnesses were put on the stand -- Hal Poret, Kent Van Liere, Ravin Balakrishnan, Karan Singh, John Hauser, and Boris Teksler. This is still Apple putting on its case. And I think you could call this "Experts' Day".
In this patent infringement suit, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) moves this court to compel from Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) production of Apple’s recent settlement agreement
Apple now claims that Samsung should have been aware of Apple’s new claim construction position because Dr. Balakrishnan’s expert report and trial testimony suggested “that computer instructions and edge detection might be relevant to claim 19.” (Surreply at 9) (emphasis
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY TO
Samsung filed a reply (Dkt. No. 2352). Apple has filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Dkt. No. 2358), which Samsung has opposed (Dkt. No. 2360). Samsung noticed the motion for August 15, but asked the Court’s Clerk whether the motion could be heard during the Case Management Conference.
APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. _____ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of California In case no. 12-cv-0630, Judge Lucy H. Koh.