This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20635961
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Apple v Samsung: Judge revisits patent verdict | Apple v Samsung: Judge revisits patent verdict |
| (34 minutes later) | |
| A US federal judge has urged Apple and Samsung to end their ongoing worldwide legal battle over patents, as she reviews the $1.05bn (£652m) awarded to Apple in damages in an August ruling. | A US federal judge has urged Apple and Samsung to end their ongoing worldwide legal battle over patents, as she reviews the $1.05bn (£652m) awarded to Apple in damages in an August ruling. |
| "I think it's time for global peace," Judge Lucy Koh said at the end of a hearing in San Jose. | "I think it's time for global peace," Judge Lucy Koh said at the end of a hearing in San Jose. |
| Samsung is seeking a new trial, or reduced sum, after a jury said it had violated Apple patents. | Samsung is seeking a new trial, or reduced sum, after a jury said it had violated Apple patents. |
| Judge Koh said she would issue a series of rulings over several weeks. | Judge Koh said she would issue a series of rulings over several weeks. |
| Apple, for its part, has asked for an increase in the award and for a permanent ban on the US sales of eight Samsung smartphones the jury said illegally used Apple's patented technology. | Apple, for its part, has asked for an increase in the award and for a permanent ban on the US sales of eight Samsung smartphones the jury said illegally used Apple's patented technology. |
| The two companies are embroiled in several lawsuits in many different countries. | |
| 'Tenuous connection' | |
| Judge Koh is working her way through 26 different items up for review in the jury verdict. | |
| Samsung has also asked for the verdict to be entirely dismissed and for a new trial to be held. | |
| One of Samsung's main arguments centres around the impartiality of foreman Velvin Hogan. | |
| Samsung said it was misconduct on his part not to disclose that he had been sued by his former employer, Seagate Technology, in 1993. Samsung now holds a stake in Seagate. | |
| Mr Hogan has said that according to court instructions he only needed to disclose litigation within the previous 10 years. | |
| Although Judge Koh did not indicate what she thought of Samsung's argument in court, legal experts said it was unlikely to be reason enough for a whole new trial. | |
| "The connection here is tenuous," said Christopher Carani, a patent lawyer in Chicago. "I would be surprised if Judge Koh accepted this argument and scrapped the jury's entire finding." |