Wise Owl Shopper Discounts

item

Twister Tracks Neon Glow in the Dark 221 Piece (11 feet) of Flexible Assembly Track Emergency Series – Sale Item

Ready, set, glow with the colorful, high flying fun of this Twister Tracks set! The flexible, detachable tracks allow kids to easily change the direction and shape of the raceway for the light-up cars–their minds will race with all the possible combinations! Turn out the lights and see how the colorful tracks glow in the dark when illuminated by the vehicles. Comes with 221 pieces (11 feet of track & light up vehicle) + do it yourself decal stickers for the vehicle. Tested & safe for ages 3-adult. Batteries not included.

  • Includes 11′ feet (220 pieces) of neon glow in the dark (5 glow colors) flexible assembly track
  • 1 Transparent Light Up (5 LED lights) Police Car (requires 2 AAA batteries, not included)
  • 1 DIY (do it yourself) stickers for the police car
  • Police Car has a rear black light that leaves a glow in the dark trail on the neon glow in the dark flexible track!
  • There’s no wrong way to build, snap the track pieces together in infinite track combinations. Tested & Safe for Ages 3-Adult.

Related Items: Sale Products

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)

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 3 612
Categories