Let's see. Samsung has lost at the 9th Circuit Court, then they couldn't get the full en banc review there, which is a loss, so they appealed under a different theory to the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC and have now lost there. They've lost at every turn in their appeal process. I suspect the en banc at the US Court of appeals in Washington will turn them down. There is no reason for the US Supreme Court to revisit this.
Unlike the Apple anti-Trust e-book case where the lower courts totally ignored the Supreme Courts specific guidelines on how to apply the anti-trust price fixing laws, there is no compelling reason for the Court to take this case up. In THAT case, there certainly is, because some trial judges and appellate justices need to be spanked all over again for ignoring CASE LAW that is res judicata, especially one in which the Supremes explicitly set out guidelines in writing with specific examples which the Apple case fit perfectly.
Love your Freepname. . .
Thanks. You’re right. It’s just that this case is one that seems to attract jurists’ needless fingerprints. I hope it doesn’t, going forward, but won’t be surprised if it does.