You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general.
There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unless there is very clear evidence of willful infringement, in which case, the final damage can be tripled. The legal standards for awarding triple damage likewise is very high in this country and that was rejected years ago.
Leaving aside your ignorance in patent litigations, most don't believe that frivolous minor patent violation should enable patent holders to disgorge infringers' entire profit. There are over 120+K active patents in any given mobile devices today, and the courts have over the years developed legal theories limiting the scope of damage to the infringed component only. This is precisely why SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed them to re-define what that proper infringed component, or "article of manufacture," on which damage can be calculated ought to be. It seems like Apple's judge willfully botched the jury instruction again, rather than help the jury define and award damage more inline with the SCOTUS decision.
Do you know who else believes in this? Apple has over 90 pending patent litigation today (as defendant)and has consistently argued the same for apportionment in cases where Apple is defendant, while asking for the whole kitchen sink against a foreign company.
You are not only losing the plot, but you are also clearly unfamiliar with this particular case, much less patent lawsuits in general.
There is no punitive damage in patent trials, unless there is very clear evidence of willful infringement, in which case, the final damage can be tripled. The legal standards for awarding triple damage likewise is very high in this country and that was rejected years ago.
Leaving aside your ignorance in patent litigations, most don't believe that frivolous minor patent violation should enable patent holders to disgorge infringers' entire profit. There are over 120+K active patents in any given mobile devices today, and the courts have over the years developed legal theories limiting the scope of damage to the infringed component only. This is precisely why SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower courts and instructed them to re-define what that proper infringed component, or "article of manufacture," on which damage can be calculated ought to be. It seems like Apple's judge willfully botched the jury instruction again, rather than help the jury define and award damage more inline with the SCOTUS decision.
Do you know who else believes in this? Apple has over 90 pending patent litigation today (as defendant)and has consistently argued the same for apportionment in cases where Apple is defendant, while asking for the whole kitchen sink against a foreign company.