Wise Owl Shopper Discounts

head

Sale – Wildlife Gift – Meerkat Bobblehead, Ideal Gift. – Mega Price

One of a series of collectable Animal Bobbleheads. These little fun ornaments are suitable for the home and office. The head is slightly oversized compared to the body. Instead of a solid connection, its head is connected to the body by a spring in such a way that a light tap or movement will cause the head to bobble.The Bobblehead is approximately 6″ in height and comes complete with velcro to secure it to a level surface if required. Bobbleheads are also known as nodding heads or wobblers and they make a great gift for animal lovers and collectors alike.

  • Bobbleheads happily nod their heads when touched or moved
  • Approximately 6″ (14cm) high Resin Figures
  • A great gift idea for family and friends

Special Offers: Sale Best Buys

Eunicell Branded 20 x CR2016 3 V Lithium Coin Cell Sales Eunicell Germany – Mega Discount

20 Batteries 3 V Lithium Blister card on a 4 5 pcs

Newest Brand from manufacture

Easy, powerful and persistent

Technology: Lithium

Alternative designation: BR2016, DL2016, ECR2016, KCR2016, KL2016, KECR2016, LM2016, 5000LC, FA, sb-t11, 208-202, 280-206, L10, l-f1/4 V, ea-50cf/3D

Brand: Eunicell

Voltage: 3V Constant Charge Voltage

Capacity: 90 mAh

Dimensions: diameter 20 mm/Height 1.6 mm

Temperature range: -30 °C – + 70 °C

Intended Use: wristwatches, Movie u.Fotogeräte Databases, calculator etc.

  • 3 V
  • We send by default legal batteries because the consignment!
  • Head Lithium Cell
  • Fresh production

List More: Sale Category

Apple, Samsung to face off at another patent damages trial

Apple and Samsung will be heading back to court for another damages retrial.

CNET

Get ready for Apple v. Samsung round number… oh, forget it, we don’t remember, either. Apple and Samsung will head back to district court for yet another design patent infringement trial.

Judge Lucy Koh, in an order signed Sunday, has ordered the two tech giants to meet again in a courtroom to determine how much Samsung owes Apple for infringing three patents. The decision follows a Supreme Court ruling a year ago that said damages could be determined differently than they typically had been in the past, with the infringing “article of manufacture” potentially being a part of a product instead of the entire product. “The Court finds that the jury instructions given at trial did not accurately reflect the law and that the instructions prejudiced Samsung by precluding the jury from considering whether the relevant article of manufacture… was something other than the entire phone,” Koh wrote in the order, handing Samsung a victory in its quest for a retrial.

Apple and Samsung didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Apple and Samsung have been battling over patents since 2012, and a question about how much money could be owed for infringing design patents made it all the way to the Supreme Court in late 2016. In December, the Supreme Court[1] said in a unanimous opinion[2] that damages for design patent infringement can be based only on the part of the device that infringed the patents, not necessarily on the entire product.

That ruling reshapes the value of designs, and how much one company has to pay for copying the look of a competitor’s product. Before the ruling, the law said an award could be collected on the entire profits of an infringing device. In this case, that’s the £399 million Samsung paid Apple last last year.

The Supreme Court didn’t give guidance on how damages should be decided, though, and in February, an appeals court punted the case back to district court for the Northern District of California. Apple had asked for the appeals court to uphold the earlier damages ruling because Samsung never showed an “article of manufacture” to be anything other than an entire phone. Samsung, meanwhile, wanted the case sent back to district court for a new damages trial.

Koh, in her order on Sunday, detailed how to define an “article of manufacture” at question in a case. Previously, Apple had argued the article of manufacture was an entire phone. Koh said the test for determining what item has been infringed will be based on four factors:

  • “The scope of the design claimed in the plaintiff’s patent, including the drawing and written description;
  • The relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole;
  • Whether the design is conceptually distinct from the product as a whole; and
  • The physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product, including whether the design pertains to a component that a user or seller can physically separate from the product as a whole, and whether the design is embodied in a component that is manufactured separately from the rest of the product, or if the component can be sold separately.”

Koh said the plaintiff, Apple, “shall bear the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article.”

Koh said in a separate ruling that a case management meeting set for Oct.

25 will still be held and that both Apple and Samsung must file plans “advancing the case schedule and trial date” by that point. The Smartest Stuff[3]: Innovators are thinking up new ways to make you, and the things around you, smarter. iHate[4]: CNET looks at how intolerance is taking over the internet.

Apple v.

Samsung

References

  1. ^ Supreme Court (www.cnet.com)
  2. ^ unanimous opinion (www.supremecourt.gov)
  3. ^ The Smartest Stuff (www.cnet.com)
  4. ^ iHate (www.cnet.com)

1 2 3 249
Categories