Samsung lawyer Kathleen Sullivan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP said the South Korean company had all but stopped using the patents, so no injunction was needed.
Wait, I thought Samsung said it didn’t infringe on Apple’s patents. Now they’re saying they did infringe, but they sort of stopped. This company is crazypants crazy.
Sleazy is a better word.
I don’t like Samsung much, but you’re making a mistake.
These words were delivered in court in a precise context, the injunction Apple seeks, to ban sales of a few Samsung products. In parallel, Samsung is appealing the judgment of the 2012 trial. And these are two distinct procedures.
Apple is seeking the injunction based on the terms of the 2012 judgment, according to which Samsung did infringe on Apple’s patents. The terms are, for the time being, considered as true, and the Samsung lawyers aren’t supposed to dispute that in the court for the injunction. They save their efforts for the main appeal.
Should the Samsung appeal succeed and the 2012 judgment be overthrown, the injunction would have no merits. But it will take months or years for the appeal to be examined, and in the meantime Apple and Samsung have to apply the consequences of the 2012 judgment.
There was the very same issue in the 2013 retrial, when some decisions by the 2012 jury were nullified due to their mistakes. Another jury had to calculate damages, but they were told that the main conclusions by the previous jury did still apply. And the Samsung lawyers didn’t dispute the conclusion. That wasn’t the place to discuss this.
“all but stopped” <— hehehehe. Why not just say “stopped”?