Samsung 律師團這次提出了很有趣的論點：double-patenting，也就是同一件發明申請了兩個以上的專利。
http://bit.ly/WDjlT7
the verdict found that some Samsung products -- specifically the Vibrant (JZX1010), the Galaxy S (i9000)(JX 1007), and the Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019) to infringe both the '677 and the '087 patents.
判決書說這三台同時侵犯了'677 和 '087 這兩個造型專利。但是一件產品「理論」上應該只能和一種造型專利相像。也就是說陪審團無法分辨這兩個專利那裏不一樣。因此Samsung 律師團認為比較晚申請的的 '677 專利應該無效。
Third, the D'677 patent is invalid for double-patenting. Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186, 198 (1894) (second patent must be "substantially different" from first). D'677 and embodiments of D'087 (particularly the sixth embodiment) depict the same design; the only elements added by the D'677 are the color black and oblique lines, features that do not make D'677 "a separate invention, distinctly different and independent," id at 198, and the D'087 subsumes the D'677 because Apple admits that "the flat front surface [of D'087] could be any color. It could be transparent. It could be anything." RT 1019212-17.5
_________________
5 Apple claimed that the same Apple devices that embody D'087 also embody D‚'677 (RT 1021:16-1023:22), and that the same Samsung devices that infringe D'087 also infringe D'677. RT 1049:6-23, 1056:6-1057:24; 1060:7-1064:11.
我是覺得很有說服力。