This is an old chestnut all trial judges resort to when they get tired of listening to a lawyer who keeps arguing a point after the trial judge has ruled the other way. It's the judicial equivalent to "talk to the hand", and it no more indicates a likelihood of prevailing on appeal than the analog implies that the hand is going to be more sympathetic.
This verdict was all about questions of fact that were for the jury to decide, and which may not be re-examined by any appellate court. If there were no meaningful errors by the trial judge when ruling on motions, in admitting or excluding evidence, or in charging the jury as to the controlling law, the verdict can't be overturned on appeal.
Samsung's public statement--or at least the portion quoted by MacRumors--didn't seem to focus on an appeal, but rather on trying to press their rather moot point that patent protection (I imagine particularly trade dress) is anti-consumer. (Of course, patent law has been anti-consumer since the first patent was issued in what is now the United States in 1641. It's always better for consumers when anyone with a lab can sell Lipitor for a fraction of the price Pfizer charges, but then consumers would never have drug companies investing much in research and development, and so to avoid heart attacks they'd then have to diet and exercise, something which consumers hate to do even more than paying money.)
Last edited:
