The following is excerpted from an August 1, 2011 post by Seth Leventhal at the Minnesota Litigator blog:
An interesting aspect of the case is the Court’s decision to separate the jury trial into two jury trials based on product categories (separating strictly music-playing devices like the iPod Classic from the more varied Apple products like the iPod Touch etc) to simplify the issue for each jury.
Then the first jury found patent infringement, patent validity, and damages for a one-time “lump sum” $8 million (as opposed to awarding “running royalty,” which presumably would increase PA’s damages massively.) Apple contends the first jury’s lump sum award now gives Apple a ”freedom to operate” license, while PA contends the jury’s verdict cannot be extended beyond the products that were in evidence and that were found to infringe.
Does the second trial go forward? Can the first jury’s damages award apply to devices that were not even part of the trial?
Read the full post here.