I know Samsung designed the "bounce back" feature of Apple's '381 patent out of its latest phones.
I suspect your update could have included workarounds to other patents cited in the verdict.
Just talked to the jury foreman. He said he used to scoff at design patents and trade dress, too, but not now.
Doesn't a patent have to be new and novel and unobvious? What so new about a rectangular case with rounded corners and with conectors around the edge?
The patents in question don't even mention the operating system so any comparison to Android is mute.
At least if they had some dimensions in there like, "The length is 2.3 times the width and the thickness is 0.12 times the width" or something like that, then it would be adding something to the technology. But these patents add nothing.
Mmmm. I'm going to patent a cylindrical device with a protrusion on the side large enough to encompass two fingers whose interior is of sufficient capacity to allow the containment of various liquids, one such liguid being coffee, but not necessarily restricted to the aformentioned liquid.