This week, Apple — ignoring a federal judge’s request that it reduce the number of infringements in its second patent suit against Samsung — requested permission to add the Korean company’s latest marquee phone, the Galaxy S4, to a list of 22 devices it believes infringes on its patents. But, so as not to raise the court’s ire, it proposed a swap. If the court approves its request, “Apple will eliminate (without prejudice) one of the Accused Products named herein, so that it will continue to accuse only 22 products of infringement at this stage of the litigation.”

In other words, Apple is proposing a sort of “one in, one out” accused-product policy as a means of dragging Samsung’s newest flagship smartphone into the suit.

Not a bad strategy, given the commercial significance of the device, though it remains to be seen if the court will agree to it after encouraging both companies to limit and simplify their lists of accused products.

Samsung, too, has submitted a list of 22 products — one that essentially spans Apple’s entire portfolio. So there’s a lot at stake here when the case finally goes to trial in March of 2014.

Below, both companies’ lists of accused products:

Apple

1. Admire
2. Captivate Glide
3. Conquer 4G
4. Dart
5. Exhibit 2 4G
6. Galaxy Nexus
7. Galaxy Note
8. Galaxy Note 10.1
9. Galaxy Note II
10. Galaxy Player 4.0
11. GalaxyPlayer 5.0
12. Galaxy Rugby Pro
13. Galaxy SII
14. Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch
15. Galaxy SII Skyrocket
16. Galaxy S III
17. Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus
18. Galaxy Tab 8.9
19. Galaxy Tab 2 10.1
20. Illusion
21. Stratosphere
22. Transform Ultra

Samsung

1. iPhone 3G
2. iPhone 3GS
3. iPhone 4
4. iPhone 4S
5. iPhone 5
6. iPad
7. iPad 2
8. iPad 3
9. iPad 4
10. iPad mini
11. iPod touch (fifth generation)
12. iPod touch (fourth generation)
13. iPod touch (third generation)
14. MacBook Air
15. MacBook Pro
16. iMac
17. Mac mini
18. Mac Pro
19. iTunes
20. iCloud
21. Apple TV (third generation)
22. Apple TV (first generation)

Now, thanks to Apple’s dispute with Samsung, the public will learn at least a little more.

According to the document, both sides are getting a nonexclusive, nontransferrable and non-sublicensable license to certain of the other’s patents. Apple also agrees not to sue HTC over certain covered products, though the specific products are redacted.

The agreement also appears to exclude any of Apple’s design patents and nine specified HTC patents as well as coverage for any products that are defined as cloning an Apple product. (An arbitration process is outlined should Apple feel that HTC has released a “cloned” product.)

Samsung has just entered a redacted version of the agreement into the public record, presumably in an effort to argue that the deal indicates that Apple doesn’t need an injunction against Samsung products in order to be properly compensated for any patent infringement.

There’s an awful lot of black ink covering far more than just the royalty rates that HTC must pay Apple. That said, there’s 140 pages worth of text so there are bound to be some useful tidbits that managed to avoid being Sharpie-d out of view.

For instance, the document includes the agreement by both parties to keep things quiet, even going so far as to include the only press release to be issued by the parties.

Below is a PDF of the black ink-soaked settlement.

Apple-HTC Settlement (Redacted)

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

However, the 140-page settlement document was redacted and excluded key pieces, such as the royalty rates that HTC must pay to Apple. It does include some interesting details, including the patents covered, an anti-cloning provision and confidentiality provisions.

Samsung is likely to use the Apple-HTC deal as evidence that Apple doesn’t need an injunction against Samsung’s products in order to be compensated for any patent infringement. A jury has already ordered Samsung to pay more than $1 billion in the case, though both Samsung and Apple are expected to argue in a court hearing on Thursday that the amount should be changed.

Samsung is also seeking a new trial, alleging, among other things, that a juror’s failure to disclose a past lawsuit amounted to misconduct.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Matt Chatterton

“We’re pleased that the court has dismissed Apple’s lawsuit with prejudice,” Motorola said in a statement to AllThingsD. “Motorola has long offered licensing to our extensive patent portfolio at a reasonable and non-discriminatory rate in line with industry standards. We remain interested in reaching an agreement with Apple.”

An Apple representative declined to comment. The company is seeking to have the dismissal made “without prejudice,”–a legal term that essentially means that the matter could be heard later.

The suit is one of many legal disputes raging between Apple and Google, and within the broader mobile industry. This one was set, in part, to perhaps determine what might constitute fair and reasonable licensing terms by which Apple could license Motorola’s industry-standard wireless patents.

Microsoft and Motorola have a similar question set to go before a Seattle federal court next week. The Federal Trade Commission is also said to be weighing whether to sue Google over the handling of such patents.

In one of the other high-profile battles, a San Jose, Calif.-based jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple more than $1 billion over various patents related to its Android-based devices. Samsung has vowed to fight the verdict, as well as any injunctions against its products.

As first reported by Reuters earlier today, the chief executives of both companies recently met to at least broach the subject. Sources familiar with the situation confirm that the two sides have had some early, high-level discussions.

Those same sources tell AllThingsD that a further meeting is planned. A Google representative declined to comment, and an Apple representative was not immediately available for comment.

It isn’t clear how far the talks have progressed, but it is certainly noteworthy that the meeting took place at all.

The timing makes sense. It’s not unheard of for litigants to need a trial just to get some external sense of where things stand before coming to the table. And Google certainly got a $1 billion wake-up call from the San Jose, Calif., jury that heard the Apple-Samsung case.

That said, just because Apple and Google talk does not mean they will agree on anything. There’s a ton of bad blood here.

And there are lots of issues to sort out. Google is wearing several hats here. First, it owns an Android handset maker — Motorola — which is currently suing Apple in the ITC. Secondly, as the creator of Android, it would ideally like to achieve some measure of protection for other devices that use its operating system.

Google also has a huge services business that comes from being the search provider for Apple devices and, until recently, also the maps provider.

Now, Apple and Samsung are fighting over the legal instructions that the jury will get just before it begins its deliberations. Those deliberations are still at least a week away, with each side having used up roughly half of their allotted 25 hours of time before the jury.

But the battle over those instructions is heating up.

The two parties agreed on a number of instructions contained in a 30-page filing on Monday. However, a second, 273-page filing contains all of the matters that are in dispute.

Jury instructions are often a source of debate in a lawsuit, especially in a high-stakes, complex case like this, where the jury will be asked to sort through complicated notions such as patent validity and willful infringement. There are also other kinds of disputes, with each side trying to use the legal instructions as a final way to help make their case.

Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over the San Jose, Calif., case, said in a weekend order that she was disappointed that there wasn’t more agreement on the matter.

“The Court is disappointed by the parties’ respective reports regarding their meet and confer efforts on final jury instructions,” Koh wrote in a weekend order requiring the two sides to meet.

On Monday morning, she asked the sides to provide the disputed instructions (in Microsoft Word format) as well as six printed copies, so that the court can start settling the matter.

Koh said she hopes that testimony will wrap up on Friday, with discussion of jury instructions on Monday, and closing arguments to take place on Tuesday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Boris Teksler said that Apple was shocked when it saw the first Galaxy phone that came from a company it considers a close partner.

“We didn’t understand how a trusted partner would build a copycat product like that,” Teksler testified, indicating that late CEO Steve Jobs and then COO Tim Cook spoke to Samsung about the issue.

Apple showed a presentation that Apple gave to Samsung in August 2010, showing what it believed were the Apple patents being infringed by Android’s application framework. In the ongoing patent suit, Apple is arguing that Samsung owes Apple billions for infringing on patents related to the iPhone and iPad.

Teksler testified there were three categories of patents held by Apple: Those required for standards, those for core computing and those related to Apple’s unique user interface. Teksler said that Apple has no interest in licensing those patents.

“It’s what we don’t wish to share and don’t want others to mimic,” Teksler said, adding those patents shouldn’t need to be licensed by a company building a product that is not a knock-off.

On cross examination, Teksler was asked if he prepared the PowerPoint shown to Samsung.

“I believe it was Keynote, but yes,” he said, referring to Apple’s presentation software.

Teksler followed several other witnesses on Friday, including an MIT marketing professor and several patent experts.

He is among the last witnesses that Apple plans to call during this part of its case, with its final witnesses due to wrap up on Monday. Samsung is also set to begin its defense on Monday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Now, it’s not much of a raise, mind you. The seven men and two women hearing the case will now get $50 per day instead of $40 for each day they serve beyond 10 days.

That’s barely enough to cover lunch and parking, never mind missing work. And it’s truly a pittance when you compare that amount to the hundreds of dollars per hour being billed by the myriad attorneys, consultants and experts in the case.

Just this week, several of Apple’s experts testified they are being paid $500 per hour for their work in the case, and one can assume that many of the lawyers are somewhere in that ballpark.

You could argue that the lawyers and experts are being paid for their legal expertise, but it is the jurors who are being asked to wade through hours of testimony, sort through complexities of the law and technology, and render a verdict.

Not only are they being asked to evaluate whether patents are being infringed, they are also being asked to ascertain whether they should have been granted in the first place, essentially becoming underpaid patent-office employees in addition to poorly compensated jurists.

But at least they are getting a raise.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

“All this time we’ve been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide,” Shin wrote in the email, dated February of 2010, just one month before Samsung announced what would become its first extremely successful Android smartphone, the Galaxy S. “Yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple’s iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth.”

“It’s a crisis of design,” Shin wrote.

It’s important, considering Apple’s $2.5 billion case against Samsung involves whether or not Samsung infringed Apple’s patents for the iPhone and iPad with Samsung’s own Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Specifically, Apple is suing Samsung over the way its phones look and act, claiming Samsung “slavishly copied” Apple’s handset design.

But when Samsung strategy head Justin Denison took the stand, he downplayed the language used in the email, citing it as hyperbole typical of that used internally at Samsung.

“Samsung does an excellent job of remaining very humble, self critical and maintaining a sense of urgency within its own ranks to drive hard work and innovation,” Denison said. “We want to change so that it never rests on its laurels and becomes complacent. So you hear a lot of hyperbolic statements like ‘crisis of design’ and ‘heaven and earth.’”

Later questions to Denison from Samsung attorney John Quinn attempted to downplay the importance of being first to market with certain designs. Denison said Apple hasn’t always beaten Samsung to the punch. Samsung has introduced many technologies before Apple, he said, including voice recognition tech. But Denison said he didn’t feel “ripped off” when Apple introduced similar features.

So, for example, if the iPhone 5 were to come out tomorrow with a larger screen (a feature it is expected to sport), Denison said he’d be fine with it — even though one of Samsung’s most striking features in its recent line of smartphones is the inclusion of increasingly larger screen sizes. It’s an industry trend, he says, and isn’t something worth griping over.

There is strategy in this: If Samsung plays it cool whenever Apple makes strides that could be seen as similar to Samsung’s, then by Samsung’s logic, Apple should be cool with the same.

Alas, that’s probably wishful thinking.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

The group meets frequently, literally sitting around a kitchen table, to debate all products under development.

“We’ll sit there with our sketch books and trade ideas,” Stringer said, appearing as the first witness in the Apple vs. Samsung trial. “That’s where the really hard, brutal honest criticism comes in.”

From there, the group puts the sketches into a computer-aided design program and, if warranted, creates a physical model.

“Our role is to imagine products that don’t exist and guide them to life,” Stringer said.

There could be 50 designs for a single button, he added. “We’re a pretty maniacal group of people,” he said.

This process, he notes, is what led to the iPhone and iPad among other products. With the iPhone, Stringer said the company wanted something that would “wow” people, in particular because Apple was new to the market.

Apple is seeking $2.5 billion in damages, while Samsung is also seeking damages.

Stringer, who reports to Apple design chief Jony Ive, said he has been involved in every product Apple has released since he joined the company in 1995.

Earlier in the day, Apple made its opening argument alleging Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad and infringed on several patents. Samsung, meanwhile, said the facts will show that it, like others, was inspired by the Apple products, but that Apple is also inspired by its competitors.

Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller is expected to be the next witness, following Stringer.

Update, 3:06 p.m.: In later testimony, Stringer was shown an early model of the iPhone, which bore the label iPod. He was asked why it had the name iPod on the back.

“Either we had not yet coined the term iPhone, or we were trying to disguise its iPhone identity,” Stringer said.

Other models, created later, known generally as the “extrudo” models, feature a brushed metal look and a lozenge-like shape. Apple ultimately abandoned that approach, Stringer said, and returned to the design concepts present in the earlier model.

“We found something more beautiful,” Stringer said, noting that Apple decided to go revisit its earlier look, something it often does.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

“There’s more to the story than what you just heard,” Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven told the jury, beginning his opening statement. He showed other phones that predate the iPhone and have large rectangular screens taking up most of the area, most notably the LG Prada phone from 2006.

“Apple didn’t invent that,” he said. “That was already out there.”

There is a difference, Verhoeven said, between commercial success and inventing something. Verhoeven also showed an HP and Fidler tablet from years before the iPad that featured a large rectangular screen with rounded corners.

Earlier in the day, the same jury heard Apple lawyers argue that Samsung chose the easy road and copied Apple rather than innovating in response to the iPhone and iPad.

In the highly-watched case, Apple is seeking billions of dollars in damages for patent and trade dress infringement, while Samsung has denied it copied the products, and further charges Apple’s wireless products use its patented technology.

Apple, in its opening, showed a series of Samsung designs that predated the iPhone and some that came after.

Samsung countered that Apple showed only part of the story, noting that Samsung had large rectangular phones before the iPhone and makes non-rectangular ones today.

“Unlike Apple, that makes only one kind of phone,” Verhoeven said, “Samsung makes all kinds of phones for all kinds of people.”

There has been an evolution in technology, Verhoeven said, with technology allowing for more features. “As that functionality increased, the entire industry moved to [larger screens].”

No one, he said, was going to want to watch movies on tiny screens, so screens got bigger.

“It’s not just Samsung,” Verhoeven said. “The evidence will show it is the entire industry.”

Verhoeven said that Samsung isn’t trying to say that the iPhone wasn’t successful, or even that it wasn’t inspiring. It inspired the industry and inspired competition, he said.

“Everybody does it in the commercial marketplace,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing wrong with that.”

Update, 11:38 a.m.: Verhoeven giving an update on Samsung’s participation in the mobile industry. He notes that the company has been in the market since 1991, long before Apple. They’ve spent $35 billion in R&D from 2005 to 2010. Over 20,000 engineers working on R&D worldwide with more than 1,000 designers.

“Samsung is not some copyist,” Verhoeven said. “Samsung is a major technology company that develops its own innovations.”

Verhoeven is talking about Samsung’s local presence in Silicon Valley.

Samsung also supplies 20 percent of the components (by cost) in the iPhone.

“The guts that make this phone work, the flash memory in the phone, the main memory in the phone, the application processor in the phone, they are all supplied by Samsung,” Verhoeven said.

“Clearly, Apple thinks Samsung invented something,” he said.

Samsung also supplies the Retina display and produces the A5x chip in the latest iPad.

11:44 a.m.: There’s nothing wrong with being inspired by competitors, Verhoeven said. Indeed, Apple was inspired by Sony, pointing to an email from Richard Howarth to Apple design chief Jony Ive. That document was allowed, while other Sony-related evidence has been excluded.

Apple was inspired to move to something more Sony-like. “They were inspired by a competitor.”

11:48 a.m.: Verhoeven downplayed the importance of the Samsung market studies comparing its products to the iPhone and iPad.

“Everyone benchmarks against each other,” Verhoeven said. Apple does the same thing, he argues, citing the pretrial testimony of Apple vice president Greg Joswiak.

“If you are going to be the best at something, you have to know what your competition is doing,” Joswiak said in a deposition.

Verhoeven noted that Apple had teardown studies of the Galaxy S phone and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

“Does that mean that Apple is a copyist?” Verhoeven said. “No, it means it is a competitor. There is nothing wrong with that.”

11:51 a.m.: Turning to the specific allegations, Verhoeven starts with Apple’s trade dress infringement claims.

Verhoeven argues there is not likely to be confusion, a necessary element of trade dress infringement. A tablet, Verhoeven said, is an expensive product that people research before buying.

“It is not something that someone walks into the store, makes a mistake and just casually buys,” Verhoeven said.

11:58 a.m.: Verhoeven is noting that Samsung makes a lot of different phones which not only have different shapes, but different home screens.

“Samsung phones are different,” Verhoeven said, pointing to a screen showing the Droid Charge and several other phones.

12:01 p.m.: There is also no dilution of Apple’s trade dress by Samsung, Verhoeven said, noting that there are tons of other smartphones and tablets that look similar to both Samsung’s products and Apple’s.

12:02 p.m.: Lunch! We’ll reconvene at 1.

1:04 p.m.: Court is back in session; jury should be here momentarily.

1:06 p.m.: Jury is back and Verhoeven is addressing Apple’s allegations of design patent infringement claims.

The first he deals with is a patent related to the iPad design.

“As you can see it is a very simple design,” he said. It’s basically a large rectangular design with rounded corners and minimal ornamentation.

Verhoeven said it is not new and original, pointing to the 1994 Fidler tablet that Samsung referenced earlier in its opening statement. He then holds up a model of an Apple tablet (one much thicker than even the original iPad) that Verhoeven said was the model for the patent in question.

(Don’t forget, Apple first started working on the iPad before even the iPhone’s debut, so likely it would have been a lot thicker had it come to market then.)

Comparing the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to that really thick model, Verhoeven notes there is a clear difference.

1:15 p.m.: Also, part of what Apple’s designers testified made the iPad unique — a single piece housing — isn’t an element of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Verhoeven said.

“The evidence does not add up,” Verhoeven said. “An ordinary observer could tell the difference.”

1:18 p.m.: On to the iPhone design patents.

“There’s a lot of prior art out there,” Verhoeven said, saying there are a lot of design patents for similar phones with large rectangular screens.

Also, Verhoeven notes that, unlike the patented phones, Samsung’s accused phones don’t have a bezel that is flush with the screen, something that Apple’s designers say is part of what made the iPhone design unique.

And while Apple’s design patent covers a phone with a bezel of uniform thickness, some of Samsung’s accused phones either have no bezel or one of varying thickness.

So, Verhoeven is arguing that if Apple’s design patent is valid, than it is these features that make the patent different from prior art and Samsung isn’t infringing on those elements.

1:25 p.m. PT: The next patent covers the iPhone home screen image.

“The ordinary observer could easily tell the difference,” Verhoeven said, showing the Captive, Droid Charge, Vibrant, Gem, Mesmerize and Showcase, each of which he says has a different home screen and is also clearly different from Apple’s patent.

1:28 p.m.: Moving on to the three utility patents being asserted by Apple, Verhoeven said he wants to cover a few different points.

He starts to address the jury instructions and Apple objects that he is starting to argue the law.

Verhoeven shifts tactics a bit.

“The patent office doesn’t know everything,” he said. Sometimes there is prior art the patent office doesn’t know about. “That is the case with each of these patents,” Verhoeven said.

Samsung is showing a program called FractalZoom that it says shows one, single-fingered gesture being used for panning and a second two-fingered gesture for zooming. That, Verhoeven said, is the same thing that Apple is patenting. There is also a similar gesture approach in a separate “Nomura” patent.

Finally, Verhoeven introduces Jefferson Han’s well known Ted talk from 2006 on multi-touch computing. “He also showed this very same functionality,” he said. “This patent that Apple is (alleging infringement of) is not valid.”

1:36 p.m.: Another patent, relates to centering an object on a screen, Verhoeven said, also was not new. He is showing a product called LaunchTile, demonstrated in April 2005, that he said acts similarly. Microsoft, he said, filed for a patent on similar technology later that year.

By the way, while Samsung is arguing that the Galaxy Tab is easily distinguished from the iPad, colleague John Paczkowski reminds me that Samsung’s own lawyers have had some trouble making the distinction.

As with the other two utility patents, Verhoeven says the evidence will show that there is prior art on the “bounce back” patent.

Samsung will also argue it doesn’t infringe on the patents, but Verhoeven said that he doesn’t have time to get into that.

1:40 p.m.: Instead, he is shifting to a discussion of the patent claims Samsung is making against Apple.

Verhoeven starts by rebutting the notion put forth by Apple that it is significant that Samsung didn’t allege infringement until after Apple filed suit.

“Samsung isn’t in the habit of suing its business partners,” Verhoeven said. “Samsung isn’t the one who decided to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace.”

1:42 p.m.: Verhoeven says that Samsung’s data transmission patents are the kinds of things that allow the iPhone to do things like send pictures and surf the Internet.

“These aren’t minor features of your touch screens,” Verhoeven said. “These are core innovations.”

In addressing a second utility patent, Verhoeven stresses how important these technologies are, taking a second swipe at Apple. They are “much more fundamental patents than neat things you can do on a touch screen.”

Verhoeven also said that the evidence would not support Apple’s claim that Samsung breached a duty to share its patent applications with the relevant standards bodies.

1:50 p.m.: On to the three other patents, which relate to camera and music technology.

In discussing one patent on camera technology, Verhoeven notes that Samsung was the first to offer a camera phone with three methods for sending photos: one for sending a plain text message, another for a message with text and photos and a third for sending an image from a photo gallery.

The technology was so important in the iPhone, Verhoeven said, that Apple highlighted it during the product’s introduction, playing a clip of late Apple CEO Steve Jobs sending a photo from the gallery to Senior VP Phil Schiller.

“That is cool technology, I admit it,” Verhoeven said. “The issue is Samsung invented it.”

1:57 p.m.: A second patent covers being in a photo gallery, taking a new picture and returning to the same place in the gallery, while the final patent covers playing music while doing another task.

Verhoeven now wrapping up.

“I think the evidence is going to show here that Samsung hasn’t done anything wrong,” Verhoeven said. “Samsung is an innovator. If anything what we have here is infringement by Apple.”

And, with that, opening arguments are done and the court takes a five minute break.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

The judge on Sunday said that Samsung would not be able to present the “Sony Style” issue as part of its opening argument. Monday’s debate was to whether Samsung would be allowed to introduce testimony from Shin Nishibori, the former Apple designer who created a Sony-inspired take on the iPhone.

Judge Lucy Koh said she was trying to understand how, if at all, Nishibori’s testimony could be allowed without introducing previously excluded evidence. Samsung’s lawyers argued that Nishibori’s testimony could rebut Apple’s argument that Samsung is “slavishly copying” Apple.

“Just like we look to competitors to get inspired, so does Apple,” said Samsung’s lawyer Charles Verhoeven.

Of course, getting Nishibori in court could also prove thorny. A lawyer representing the former designer filed a letter with the court on Sunday, saying that Nishibori would not appear, and is in Hawaii recovering from various medical issues.

In a Motion For Reconsideration also filed today, Samsung argued that disallowing the “Sony style” argument will compromise the trial. “The Court’s Order striking numerous demonstrative exhibits from Samsung’s proposed opening statement for the jury trial set to begin today threatens the fundamental fairness of this trial and will compromise the integrity of any verdict,” the company said.

The arguments came just ahead of jury selection in the case, which is set to begin shortly.

Update, 9:55 a.m.: The prospective jurors have just been brought into the courtroom as the process of jury selection begins.

10:40 a.m.: Jurors are being probed for potential conflicts. It’s clear this trial is taking place in heart of Silicon Valley. Several of them have ties to Apple or Google including stock owners, former consultants, etc.

Asked whether they had read books about Apple or Google, one potential juror held up his hand and said he had read an article in the Wall Street Journal article today, holding up the newspaper.

“I’m going to ask you if you wouldn’t mind recycling that,” Judge Koh told the juror.

Potential jurors are now being asked what phone they have, who makes it and whether they are considering buying any Samsung or Apple products in the near future. This is going to take a while.

11:06: After an enlightening look at the tech habits of San Jose shoppers, would-be jurors now being asked if they have read anything about the case. Lots of hands have gone up. All but one juror say that what they have read would not keep them from being fair and impartial.

11:25: As part of quizzing potential jurors about whether the trial would be a financial hardship, Judge Koh says evidence portion of Apple vs. Samsung trial should run through at least Aug. 17 and possibly through Aug. 20 or Aug. 21.

1:10 p.m.: Just back after a short lunch break. It’s looking more likely the opening arguments won’t happen until Tuesday as everyone has agreed both openings should take place on the same day. Plus, there’s still a bunch more questioning of the prospective jurors still to go.

A few jurors who said they could not be impartial for one reason or another were excused just before lunch. More detailed questioning of those that remain is slated to start shortly.

1:45 p.m.: Much of the questioning this afternoon centers around prospective jurors experience with technology and patents.

In another sign this trial is taking place in Silicon Valley, four of the remaining potential jurors have had patents issued to them, including one who is named in more than 125 patents.

Jurors are also being asked how often they blog or post to social media: Facebook, Twitter, even MySpace.

2:45 p.m.: After several hours of questioning by the judge, the lawyers are now getting their first chance to ask questions. Each side has 20 minutes to quiz the remaining prospective jurors. Apple’s lawyer has gotten his time, Samsung gets their time after a brief bio break.

3:15 p.m. Samsung lawyer is quizzing potential jurors individually. He asks a woman who has a pair of patents to her credit and works in technology why it is she has a basic phone, rather than a smartphone.

She responded that she doesn’t like the fact you need a pricey data plan.

“I use the phone to call people,” she said. “For the data, well I am on the computer all the time.”

The lawyer then turned his attention to a woman who said earlier she is contemplating an iPad purchase, asking why that is.

“I love the technology,” she said. “You can just sit around in the yard and play with it.”

“You know other companies make tablets,” he responded

“Apple comes out with really, really nice stuff,” she said.

Well, you asked…

3:35 p.m.: Apple renewed its effort to have excused for cause a Google employee who has patents related to Android. Koh rejected the motion, saying that the juror has answered all questions credibly and said he can keep an open mind despite his employment and ownership of Google stock options.

Each side will now get to strike four of the remaining jurors without giving a reason.

4:00 p.m.: Jury of 10 picked. Google employee not among the final jurors.

4:02 p.m.: The chosen 10 getting their preliminary instructions. Opening arguments for both sides will take place tomorrow morning. Each will get about an hour and a half.

4:35 p.m.: Jury done for the day, due back at 9 a.m. to see a video about patents, then hear opening arguments.

1463_motionforreconsideration –

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

NTP said Monday it “has reached a mutual resolution with 13 companies,” including all four major U.S. cell phone carriers; device makers including Apple, HTC, Motorola, Samsung and LG; as well as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. NTP sued the carriers in 2007 and and filed more suits in 2010.

Details on the pact are fuzzy, with a press release from NTP not even saying that the company is getting money, let alone how much. NTP got more than $600 million from RIM after a protracted legal battle.

NTP’s outside lawyer, Ron Epstein, told AllThingsD that his client was compensated but didn’t offer any details on the amount the company received.

“NTP was happy with the outcome,” said Epstein, who heads Redwood City, Calif.-based Epicenter IP Group. The deal, NTP said, provides broad coverage for all parties to NTP’s patents, including eight related to wireless delivery of email. NTP’s suits, which had been on hold, have now been dismissed.

With the pact — and past deals with Nokia and RIM — NTP has now reached licensing agreements with most of the wireless industry, though there are still a few firms Epstein says the company is approaching about licenses.

What’s unique about the deal, Epstein said, was the fact that NTP managed to get all of the parties to come together and work out a single settlement. That, he said, was a first in his 20 years of practicing patent law.

“We believe this is potentially a new model for how these significant patent portfolios might be licensed,” Epstein said.

The latest pacts are with Lake Success, N.Y.-based Coby Electronics, and Tustin, Calif.-based Aluratek.

“The licensing agreements with Aluratek and Coby Electronics demonstrate yet again that licensing is the path forward to resolving intellectual property disputes within the industry, and can be effective for companies of all sizes,” Microsoft Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement.

The company has signed pacts with big names like HTC, Samsung and LG, as well as a host of smaller Android brands and contract manufacturers. However, it has also gone the litigation route in some instances, including its ongoing spat with Motorola Mobility.

Microsoft has also expressed hope that perhaps, with Google’s purchase of Motorola now complete, it might strike a deal there, as well.

Abdel Ibrahim/The Tech Block

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Apple was likely to prove that the Galaxy Nexus infringed on four patents and issued an injunction banning U.S. sales of the device. Samsung appealed that ruling to the federal appeals court, but Koh said Tuesday she would not put the ban on hold while Samsung pursues its appeal.

Although the ban is temporarily on hold, Apple has until Thursday to submit papers to the appeals court arguing why the ban should continue while Samsung pursues its appeal. There’s no immediate timetable for when the court could rule on that.

Meanwhile, the appeals court declined to put a separate ban on hold, that one against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

Apple and Samsung representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Google had pulled the Galaxy Nexus from its online store, but said it planned to return the product to its virtual shelves as soon as next week via a software patch designed to work around Apple’s patented technology.

Though not Samsung’s biggest seller, the Galaxy Nexus is strategically important to Google as the lead device for Ice Cream Sandwich, the current version of Android. It is also among the first devices scheduled to get Jelly Bean, the next version of Android which Google has said should arrive in the middle of this month.

Google also gave developers at its recent I/O conference a Galaxy Nexus loaded with a test version of Jelly Bean. It is unclear whether Google may alter some of the features of Jelly Bean in order to avoid the Apple patent.

The phone, which had been offered unlocked for $349 via the Google Play store, is now listed as “coming soon.” The move comes hours after District Court Judge Lucy Koh declined to put a sales ban on hold pending an appeal by Samsung.

The Galaxy Nexus was designed by Google but is manufactured by Samsung. Apple sued Samsung over the device, arguing that it infringes on four of its patents. Koh ruled that Apple is likely to prevail and last Friday issued a preliminary injunction banning sales of the device.

Samsung has appealed the ruling.

Google has said it plans to push out a software update that should allow sales of the Galaxy Nexus to resume.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to put the ban on hold while Samsung pursues an appeal.

“Although some consumers may be disappointed that they cannot purchase the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy Nexus, as Samsung itself has repeatedly insisted, is not Samsung’s only smartphone product on the market,” Koh wrote in the ruling.

In order for the sales ban on the Nexus to go into effect, Apple must post a $95.6 million bond to account for the potential impact should a court later decide the injunction was issued in error.

While the ruling means that the Galaxy Nexus is barred from being sold as is, Google and Samsung have been preparing a workaround software patch that Google says should enable sales of the Nexus to continue.

On Monday, Koh declined to put a separate injunction on hold, that one related to Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

Although not the biggest-volume Android phone, the Galaxy Nexus is critical strategically for both Samsung and Google, as it was the first device running the Ice Cream Sandwich version of Android and is also the reference point for developers testing the next version of the operating system, known as Jelly Bean.

Google gave out Galaxy Nexus devices to developers at last week’s I/O conference in San Francisco.

Update: Samsung said in a statement late Tuesday that it is disappointed with the ruling and will continue to pursue its appeal.

“We believe today’s ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior products to consumers in the United States,” Samsung said in a statement. “Meanwhile, we are also working closely with Google to resolve this matter, as the patent in question concerns Google’s unified search function.”

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh issued an injunction on that product last week, as well as a separate injunction barring sales of the Galaxy Nexus smartphone in patent infringement cases brought by Apple against Samsung.

Samsung appealed the ruling over the weekend, asking a federal appeals court to put the injunctions on hold. Koh is also being asked to put the injunction on hold. On Monday she denied a stay for the Tab ban, but has yet to rule on that request relative to the Nexus.

“Samsung is disappointed with the court’s decision that denied our motion to stay,” a Samsung representative said on Monday evening. “We believe today’s ruling will ultimately reduce the availability of superior technological features to consumers in the United States. Regardless, we will continue to pursue a request for an appeal of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 preliminary injunction, which we filed on June 26 to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

The ban on the Nexus is potentially even more significant. Although not the biggest-volume Android phone, the Galaxy Nexus is critical strategically for both Samsung and Google, as it was the first device running the Ice Cream Sandwich version of Android, and is also the reference point for developers testing the next version of the operating system, known as Jelly Bean.

Google gave out Galaxy Nexus devices to developers at last week’s I/O conference in San Francisco.

In order for the sales ban on the Nexus to go into effect, Apple must post a $95.6 million bond to account for the potential impact should a court later decide the injunction was issued in error.

Correction: This story originally indicated that Koh had denied the request to put the Galaxy Nexus injunction on hold. A ruling on that has yet to occur.

Here’s the good news: The nearly-new board of Yahoo is chock-full of experienced and active operators from a variety of backgrounds that are critical to the future of the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

And the bad news? The nearly-new board of Yahoo is chock-full of experienced and active operators from a variety of backgrounds that are critical to the future of the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

In others words, in almost completely upending its director roster over the last several months, Yahoo has given itself a new lease on life, but has also created a significant challenge in forming a cohesive governing structure that can work together in fixing all that ails Yahoo.

Among the important decisions that this new boy band — and they are, as usual, all men save for one woman — has to come to agreement on within the next months: Settling its patent-infringement lawsuit with Facebook; deciding on a permanent CEO — either selecting current interim leader Ross Levinsohn as permanent or someone else; approving a strategic plan for the company that actually sticks; and, most of all, figuring out a governance style that is strong without being too meddlesome.

Which should make Yahoo’s annual meeting on July 12 much more interesting than most.

One thing is clear: The days of overwhelming control in the hands of a few directors — as has been the case in recent years under departed Chairman Roy Bostock — are over.

In its place is a situation with a number of strong factions under new Chairman Fred Amoroso, who appears to have taken a consensus approach to managing the board.

It’s not as if he had a whole lot of choices, said numerous sources, especially noting the aggressive involvement of activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — who joined the board with two others in the settlement of a proxy fight — in all aspects of Yahoo of late.

Along with helping finally complete a partial sale of Yahoo’s assets in China, Loeb has also be active in discussions with Facebook over a patent settlement, and has also been searching for new board members and possible new execs for Yahoo.

“Dan has a lot of ideas,” said one person close to the situation, “and he is not shy about communicating them.”

To be fair, it’s a welcome change from the lackluster performance of the previous board, which seemed almost comatose at times as Yahoo pinged from one crisis to the next.

And Loeb is also joined by several other directors who are taking a more substantive role, including Weather Channel CEO David Kenny, American Express CMO John Hayes and former Discovery Communications COO Peter Liguori.

“Every one of them has a lot to say and has definite opinions on what needs to be done, since most have run major businesses,” said another Yahoo source. “Which either means 11 times the noise, or 11 times the help.”

Or, perhaps, 11 times the fun (but only for me).

Speaking of fun, here’s the comely One Direction showing how it’s done, in the music video “What Makes You Beautiful”:

Late Tuesday, Apple filed a motion in U.S. District Court in San Jose, requesting a preliminary ban on the Galaxy S III, which it alleges infringes two of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604, “Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system,” and No. 5,946,647, “System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data.” The former applies to Siri — Apple’s speech-recognition personal assistant — and the latter to data tapping.

Rather than lodge an entirely new complaint against the SIII, Apple asked the court to simply add it to an existing complaint regarding Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus. A welcome gesture, though it’s not going to make this rat’s nest of patent litigation the company is involved in any less confusing.

“Apple has been able to obtain the Galaxy S III sold in the United Kingdom and determined that this device clearly infringes on at least two of the Apple patents at issue in the preliminary injunction motion for the exact same reasons as the Galaxy Nexus,” Apple wrote in its filing. “Because the Galaxy S III contains two of the exact infringing features already at issue with respect to the Galaxy Nexus, the S III is not more than colorably different from the Galaxy Nexus, and falls within the scope of Apple’s current proposed order submitted in connection with its motion for a preliminary injunction.”

The company has asked the court to impose an injunction on the Galaxy S III before June 21, its launch date in the U.S.

The company this week finds itself on the receiving end of another patent-infringement suit, this one filed by Mobile Telecommunications Technologies (MTEL). A Lewisville, Texas, LLC, MTEL owns a portfolio of early wireless paging patents that once belonged to SkyTel Communications. It claims that RIM’s BlackBerry OS infringes on five of them. Among the patents MTEL is asserting against RIM, “Nationwide communication system: A two-way communication system for communication between a system network and a mobile unit,” and a “Mobile paging telephone call back system and method.”

Broad stuff. Dusty, too. Most of these patents were registered between 1996 and 1999. So why is MTEL suing now? It’s a patent troll, and this is what patent trolls do (MTEL is also suing Clearwire for infringement).

MTEL’s complaint seeks an injunction against RIM’s continued use of the technologies at issue here, and, of course, unspecified damages. But what it’s really looking for is go-away money. It’s not going to get it without a fight, though. A spokesperson for RIM said the company will vigorously defend itself against MTEL’s suit. As well it should. But as I said earlier, with the floor of its business dropping further by the day, RIM’s got far more important things to do than fend off patent trolls.

In January, as the freshly crowned CEO of Yahoo, Scott Thompson initiated a series of dramatic acts to get the company back on track. The most notable was to make the boldest — or most boneheaded — move the head of Yahoo could make: Filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook.

The controversial move was wildly unpopular in Silicon Valley, and even among many Yahoo employees.

But after a drawn-out weeklong controversy over a fake computer science degree on Thompson’s resume, he is reportedly headed out, and global media head Ross Levinsohn is in the driver’s seat as interim CEO.

Now one of the big questions is: Will Levinsohn take steps to repair Yahoo’s relationship with Facebook, especially since it has proved to be one of the most fruitful the ailing Silicon Valley Internet giant has seen in years?

Sources say that some members of Yahoo’s board, as well as the top exec, would welcome a settlement with Facebook on the litigation. Thompson was the main advocate of the in-your-face strategy against the social networking giant, levying a barrage of legal claims at a critical time — the quiet period before Facebook’s public offering this month.

So, if Yahoo wanted to turn back the tide of rancor toward Facebook, now is the time it could happen.

The lawsuit essentially deemed Facebook a thief of Yahoo’s social innovation, claiming that were it not for Yahoo’s many years of research and development, products such as Facebook’s News Feed, privacy settings, advertising models and more would never have come into existence.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” one line from Yahoo’s lawsuit reads.

It’s unclear how much Levinsohn, acting as temporary CEO, will be able to change, in terms of the progress of the lawsuit. But if he’s looking to dial things back, his first call could be to Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who would be instrumental in reaching some sort of detente in the case.

The initial act of aggression from Yahoo caught many in technology — including Yahoo’s employees — by surprise.

That’s because the various partnerships that the pair have struck in recent years have been hugely successful.

Yahoo’s Facebook-integrated Social Bar application, for example, has essentially been a traffic funnel from Facebook to Yahoo, with nearly 40 million monthly active users accessing the application, according to AppData statistics, and it is now one of the top Facebook apps.

It’s what Director of Product Development Jonathan Katzman called, in an interview last year, “the future of social for Yahoo.”

Finding a middle ground in some sort of settlement with Facebook could win back Yahoo detractors, a culture that praises innovation and largely rebuffs the practice of patent litigation as an act of trolling.

Facebook declined to comment, as did Yahoo, but several sources said to expect some movement sooner than later.

The Cupertino, Calif., company has launched suits in multiple jurisdictions against Samsung and other companies making products that compete with its hit iPhone and use Google Inc.’s Android operating system. In its latest action, Apple argues the Samsung device — which uses a new version of Android dubbed Ice Cream Sandwich — is the most credible competitor to the iPhone yet and poses a potent threat to Apple’s market share.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »