Christopher Carani, a partner at the Chicago-based IP law firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, gives his analysis on the big Apple vs. Samsung hearing scheduled for Thursday in Judge Lucy Koh’s federal court.
“This is a major hearing in an extremely important patent case that impacts one of this country’s most critical and fastest growing industries… This case will have implications far beyond the confines of these proceedings. It will impact the industry at large and how IP [intellectual property] is used.”
Carani is an design patent law expert whose pre-trial analysis of the case proved accurate. He identifies five major issues to be addressed in Thursday’s hearing, and suggests that Apple has the upper hand in four of them.
1.) Will Judge Koh set aside any of the jury’s findings on liability? – Carani says the judge could have accepted Samsung’s arguments before the trial, yet she didn’t. She did agree with Apple on one issue the jury rejected, that of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab copying Apple’s iPad design. She could possibly overrule the jury on this point.
2.) Juror Misconduct – The legal battle the jury foreman had with a company partially owned by Samsung 20 years ago may “make for good TV,” Carani writes, “but [is] unlikely to gain much traction.”
3.) Will Judge Koh enter a permanent injunction prohibiting a number of Samsung phones in the U.S.? – Carani assumes she will, but what about Apple’s recent agreement with HTC? Does that complicate things? “If no injunction, what will be her order? A compulsory license?” Carani ponders. “If one feature of thousands in a smart phone is infringing, should a court ban the entire product? This is cutting-edge law.”
4.) Will the Judge increase the amount of damages based on the willful infringement findings? – The possibility of the jury’s $1.05 billion damage award being tripled is possible, but not likely. Carani says any damages increase is likely to be modest.
5.) Will the judge add on more dollars for supplemental damages? – Supplemental damages, such as those for infringing sales since the jury’s finding, and for prejudgment and post-judgement interest are possible. Carani thinks it’ll happen, saying post-judgement interest is mandatory, and the denial of pre-judgement interest is unusual.
Carani thinks things look pretty good for Apple. While Judge Koh could rule on these issues before the end of the year, it’s more likely a 2013 ruling is in the cards.
