View Single Post
Old 08-29-2012, 07:13 PM   #29
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dulin's Books View Post
also the jury found Apple was not infringing Samsung's valid software and standards patents. I suppose a reasonable jury could find that way on the software but on the standards patents? Um the Apple phone works, right? So then they are infringing on those two without a license. Thats the only logical ruling.
No, they were found not to be infringing, because those patents were embodied in a chip Apple purchased from Intel, who has a license for the patents. Samsung had already got their royalties.

The relevant jury instruction:
Quote:
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 34
PATENT EXHAUSTION

I will now instruct you on how to decide Apple’s defense of patent exhaustion. Apple contends that Samsung is barred from enforcing the ’516 and ’941 patents against Apple’s accused iPhone and iPad products because they incorporate baseband chips that Intel sold to Apple with authorization from Samsung.
To prevail on the defense of patent exhaustion, Apple must prove that the following is more likely true than not:
First, that Intel was authorized to sell the baseband chips under the terms of the license agreement between Samsung and Intel;
Second, that the sales were made in the United States. The location of the sale depends on many factors, and you may find that the sale occurred in several places. A sale occurs wherever the “essential activities” of the sale take place. The essential activities include, for example, negotiating the contract and performing obligations under the contract; and
Third, that, if the accused products infringe, it is because the baseband chips substantially embody the ’516 and/or ’941 patents. The baseband chips embody the relevant patent if they include all the inventive aspects of the patented device.
Apple must prove all three of these elements to prevail on this defense of patent exhaustion. If Apple does not prove any one of these elements, you must reject Apple’s affirmative defense and find for Samsung on this issue. If you find that Apple has proven all three elements, you must find for Apple on this issue.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote