I'll have a lot more to say about this case and the problems the $1.05 billion jury verdict illustrates, but, in the absence of information that hasn't been in the press accounts, James Maxeiner's critique of the jury form seems misplaced. Samsung had the power to ask for a "special verdict" form more detailed than the one that went to the jury. As best I can tell, they chose not to do so, and thought it advantageous not to. (It's possible that they did ask for such a form, the judge denied the request, and I missed the press coverage of it, or that the press didn't cover the issue.) Maxeiner worries that this gives the Federal Circuit nothing to review, but that's not so, either. The trial was decided on discovery disputes that resulted in the jury not seeing highly probative Samsung evidence, and that, along with questions of the scope of the patents, will surely be before the Federal Circuit.
Apple v. Samsung, part I
- On the Supreme Court cert docket (II): Limelight v. Akamai
- Update in Kitagawa v. Apple, Inc. (9th Cir.)
- Federal Circuit rejects Apple injunction on Samsung
- Opening brief in Kitagawa v. Apple (9th Cir.)
- Access to justice for me, but not for thee department
- Around the web, April 11
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Pane and Suffering at Apple Store on Long Island
- Apple class actions
- "When Lawyers Become Trolls"
- Alex Tabarrok on medical patents
- November 23 roundup
- Study: patent trolls cost at least $500 billion
- Around the web, September 20