Read the order: the whole motion is based on the mentions being fine for one suit and prejudicial for the other, and Apple consented to the consolidation. If one accepts the ridiculous record of patent jurisprudence in East Texas, there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial. If, like me, one doesn't accept that, it's obvious that the judge is just trying to keep the whole disgusting façade from collapsing.
I read the order before I made my comment, thanks. The order makes clear note of why these mentions were prejudicial in this case.
> Apple consented to the consolidation
IANAL but seems like you don't understand the difference between consent and objecting to but preferring consolidation to trying the cases out of order.
> there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial
The judge goes into detail on how mentions of the earlier trial were used in the consolidated one to "gratuitous" prejudicial impact, including the repeated mentions to infringement by FaceTime 1.0 when that finding had been reversed. He quotes several of these at length, goes on to cites multiple precedents, then goes into detail why VirnetX's cited precedent doesn't apply to this case.
