Originally Posted by TuxDave
Back to my original point of "Going to jury is a crap shoot". It's clearly in Samsung's favor to try again. People think the first decision was the most idiotic decision ever. I think it goes back and forth between "Samsung's lawyers are idiots" "The judge is an idiot" "The jury are idiots" "Apple cheated". Either way, I'm sure everyone is a couch-lawyer and thinks they could easily present a case that would guarantee a victory.
So yeah, even if Apple's case is solid, it's still going to be a crapshoot at the end of the day.
I'm a real lawyer, and I think there's a tremendous amount of what I can only describe as FUD in most of these discussions. For example the UK case was mostly about different patents, and to the extent it was about the same ones the results were largely the same.
Likewise with respect to Judge Koh, who by the way was a patent lawyer for about a decade primarily representing tech companies before being appointed to the court, in legal terms very few of her decisions are really controversial. Excluding the prior art because it wasn't disclosed during discovery is completely normal for example. Unusual would be admitting it. That's just how the court rules work: there's a time to disclose all your evidence and if you don't your evidence isn't admitted.
Beyond that, some people seem to say that she should somehow have prevented it from getting before a jury. If that means anything, I guess it means that they think she should have granted a motion to dismiss. Given the evidence it is essentially certain that if she had done that the Federal Circuit would have reversed her.
It is true that in a couple cases she has been overturned with respect to preliminary injunctions. Both to Apple's benefit and Samsung's benefit at different times. That's not terribly surprising though. Preliminary injunctions are more serious and more difficult than most legal decisions, and much more likely to be overturned on appeal than most types of decision.
Overall I have to agree with MotionMan. Looking for bias in the judge here is barking up the wrong tree.