Right now, Apple has two distinct patent-themed cases in varying stages in the U.S. court system, with this particular one dealing with three distinct patents, and an overturned $120 million verdict in favor of Samsung, which the company won back in February of this year. However, according to a report published by Reuters, that decision has led Apple to an interesting place:
“In a petition for rehearing en banc filed on Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by Apple’s attorney William Lee of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, the company said the panel used materials that it researched itself and were not part of the trial court record to overturn the infringement verdict. This undermined Apple’s Seventh Amendment right to have a jury, and not an appellate court, decide the facts of the case, the company said.”
Apple is now insisting that when the appeals court overturned the $120 million decision in favor of Apple, and effectively gave Samsung a win in not having to pay that amount (and it being decreed that Samsung didn’t infringe on the patents), they did so not by simply using the evidence utilized in the initial case, but by taking into consideration new evidence as well.
Apple is arguing that while judges have the right to overturn a case based on the evidence introduced in the original case, they cannot reach that same decision if new information is presented after the fact. In that case, it would violate the company’s 7th Amendment: The right to trial by jury.
Essentially, Apple believes that, with the new evidence that was introduced, a new trial should have been put in place to properly introduce that evidence in front of a jury, and, perhaps even more than that, so Apple could argue against it.
At this point, it’s starting to look like this particular case against Samsung is also going to go to the Supreme Court, if it continues on this trajectory, just like a separate patent-focused case.[via Reuters]