Apple vs Samsung: Revised Final Jury Instructions

One of the biggest case in tech is coming to an end. Judge Lucy Koh has given her final instructions to the Jury. The Jury was handed a document containing a total of 84 instructions to go through.

Here is a list of some of the instructions given:

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 DUTY OF JURY

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law of the case.

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to the jury room to consult during your deliberations.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so.

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important.

 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits that were received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you:

  1. (1)  Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they said in their opening statements and throughout the trial, and what they will say in their closing arguments or at other times are all intended to help you interpret the evidence. But these arguments and statements are not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.
  2. (2)  Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.
  3. (3)  Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition, sometimes testimony and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a limiting instruction, you must follow it.
  4. (4)  Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness said, or part of it, or none of it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testified about it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; (2) the witness’s memory;
(3) the witness’s manner while testifying;
(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;
(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;
(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and
(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.

 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 70 INFRINGEMENT—LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION— FACTORS—SLEEKCRAFT TEST
(15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a))

You must decide whether Samsung’s alleged use of Apple’s iPad/iPad 2 trade dress in the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is likely to cause confusion about the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or approval of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonably prudent consumer in the marketplace is likely to be confused about the source of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple must show more than simply a possibility of such confusion. Apple may prove a likelihood of confusion by providing direct evidence of consumer confusion. Evidence of non-consumer confusion may also be relevant where there is confusion on the part of: (1) potential customers; (2) non-consumers whose confusion could create an inference that consumers are likely to be confused; and (3) non-consumers whose confusion could influence consumers.

I will suggest some factors you should consider in deciding whether there is a likelihood of confusion. The presence or absence of any particular factor that I suggest should not necessarily resolve whether there was a likelihood of confusion, because you must consider all relevant evidence in determining this. As you consider the likelihood of confusion you should examine the following:

  1. Strength or Weakness of Apple’s Asserted Trade Dress. The more the consuming public recognizes Apple’s asserted iPad/iPad 2 trade dress as an indication of origin of Apple’s goods, the more likely it is that consumers would be confused about the source of Samsung’s goods if Samsung uses a similar design or configuration.
  2. Samsung’s Use of the Trade Dress. If Samsung and Apple use their designs on the same, related, or complementary kinds of goods, there may be a greater likelihood of confusion about the source of the goods than otherwise.
  3. Similarity of Apple’s and Samsung’s Designs. If the overall impression created by Apple’s asserted iPad/iPad 2 trade dress in the marketplace is similar to that created by Samsung’s designs in appearance, there is a greater chance of likelihood of confusion.
  4. Actual Confusion. If use by Samsung of Apple’s asserted iPad/iPad 2 trade dress has led to instances of actual confusion, this suggests a likelihood of confusion. However actual confusion is not required for a finding of likelihood of confusion. Even if actual confusion did not occur, Samsung’s use of the trade dresses may still be likely to cause confusion. As you consider whether the design used by Samsung creates for consumers a likelihood of confusion with Apple’s products, you should weigh any instances of actual confusion against the opportunities for such confusion. If the instances of actual confusion have been relatively frequent, you may find that there has been substantial actual confusion. If, by contrast, there is a very large volume of sales, but only a few isolated instances of actual confusion, you may find that there has not been substantial actual confusion.
  5. Samsung’s Intent. Knowing use by Samsung of Apple’s asserted iPad/iPad 2 trade dress to identify similar goods may show an intent to derive benefit from the reputation of Apple’s trade dress, suggesting an intent to cause a likelihood of confusion. On the other hand, even in the absence of proof that Samsung acted knowingly, the use of Apple’s trade dress to identify similar goods may indicate a likelihood of confusion.

Revised Final Jury Instructions

Source: MacWorld UK

Posted by | Posted at August 22, 2012 17:40 | Tags: , , , , , ,
Storm is a technology enthusiast, who resides in the UK. He enjoys reading and writing about technology.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

SOLVED! iPad Magic Keyboard Loud Clicking Sound

October 10, 2020
- Solved! Remove loud clicking sound on iPad Magic Keyboard...

The iPhone 12 To Feature Major Camera Upgrade

September 19, 2020
According to a lot of breaking news, the upcoming iPhone...