Apple sued Samsung for $2.2 billion. It's very difficult to gauge the jury and impossible to predict where they will come down and how much they will award Apple - if anything. Samsung has already conceded some of the infringement charges but legal experts seem to agree that the narrower patent limitation dictated by the appellate court ruling is likely to reduce the potential award.
"She was also unhappy the Samsung attorneys had not asked her to define "analyzer server" for this case."
Samsung's lawyers pointed to Judge Posners claim construction multiple times, but Koh conveniently ignored their request in favor of her hometown queen's. Now, according to Koh, everything is Samsung attorney's fault. Wow!
I just don't understand the point of spending additional time -- she probably knows by now that whatever the outcome maybe, much of that would be reversed by more experienced, impartial CAFC judges later. Why even pretend to care about the appelle court's decision while allowing Apple to demand $8 per patent in the first place and basing all claim constructions on Apple's?
Famed Judge Richard Posner, an appeals judge which was sitting in the district court trial by designation, issued the ruling which started this issue. Judge Posner is well known in legal circles for his "bold rulings" and this one was reversed as expected. For a patent attorney's view on the matter see this blog:
If the appellate court ruling is adopted for this particular case, the Apple will, in all likelihood, get far less than they would otherwise have got since the patent infringement will only be considered with regards to the Smartphones as they are on the client side. Any reparations on the server side might just fly out of the window if that interpretation is adopted.
Even if the issues surrounding the quick-links definition are decided in favor of Samsung (that is if they are only considered from the client half and not the server half limiting it only to handsets), the fact that Samsung have already admitted to a number of the infringement charges leveled against them and, if the jury plays perfectly fair, even these alone would still be a big payday for Apple!
@lakehemit: Sure, most expected Posner's decision to be reversed -- his anti-software/patent view are widely known -- or the appeals court to give Moto/Apple at least opportunity to present their case before a jury.
I'm just pointing out that it's Koh's own failure to notice problems in the flawed claim construction, not Samsung lawyers lapse, contrary to what judge Koh claims.
Personally, while I agree with the majority that Posners' decision didn't stand much of a chance in the court of appeals, I think it's also a mistake to think that presenting a technical case to a non-technical jury brings a better outcome.
@anan: I must have missed something -- did Samsung really admit to infringing during the trial? My understanding is that Judge Koh had decided Samsung infringes on autocorrect patent before the trial started and Samsung brought expert witnesses, eg Daniel Wignor, to contradict that. At least three of Apple's assertions are also in questions since they are not used by any Apple products and, according to Mueller of FOSS, the quick-links claim construction decision by appeals court likewise weakens Apple's case. In all, Samsung's defense strategy has been that (1) Apple's patents are invalid, (2) Samsung's devices doesn' infringe, even if they are valid, (3) it's Google Android that infringes, not Samsung, even if #1 and #2 are proven to be false.
Which particular patent claims are you referring to?
I believe that the collective wisdom of a Jury is likely to give a better outcome on technical issues than the singular (and usually decidedly non-technical) wisdom of a Federal Judge. That is particularly true for Silicon Valley Juries that often have a few technical people on them. In any case, until Congress sees the wisdom of creating a special patent court system, like tax, family and bankruptcy courts, this system with Judges like Posner and Koh is the best we have. (Yes I know family courts are state courts.)