

There will be a hearing in Apple v. Samsung I in Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom, Courtroom 8 on the 4th floor, on August 21 at 2:00 PM, so if any of you stalwarts can attend, that would be fabulous. You don't even have to wake up early. Live sex with babes All of the chicks are aware of what they need here. Initially they are willing to show themselves off. Babes are beautiful. Some of these got a number of these blessed with big bouncy ass, big [redacted]. Some even have both. But all the babes have a wonderful face, full lips, trendy hair and soft smooth skin. They are queens of the chat plus they have live sex here like they mean . Babes chat is the area where you could find a gorgeous girl naked and watch her having fun with all the large dildo from the open live sex chat: Sex cam As a grown ass man you understand the rules of a live sex cam services. You can join the chat and you are able to tip to the model if you like her or if you would like to find some actions forward. However, the registration does not buy you models time and the woman herself. It is a chat18. You can see, kind and please yourself how you enjoy it. You can't act as a master. Of course if you are not at the BDSM conversation. You join the xxx chat room with other people so you can say hello to them when enter the area but you aren't obliged to communicate to them if you don't want. You might go personal and talk to the model only if you don't enjoy the company: As for the sexy content we labeled different methods of enjoying your sex life in the menu. And you can be totally sure you'll have the items tagged in your screen. We don't just talk but make your fantasies come true. What's it about? Didn't they just have a case management hearing in April? Why yes. Yes, they did, but there have been "progress and changes" since, according to the parties' Joint Case Management Statement [PDF], which fills us in on the details. Both parties would like some changes since the last case management hearing. Here's the last joint case management statement, back in April. And the judge's order on April 30 was to go forward immediately with the damages trial, unless certain things happened in the USPTO reexaminations of Apple's patents at issue. Some of those things have almost happened, and there are other quirks, so some changes are being requested. The real core issue is Samsung's '381 motion, asking for a new trial on Apple's '381 patent based on newly discovered evidence or for entry of judgment on liability. Apple Opposes with a capital O. It now wants another chance to file a sur-reply [PDF], which Samsung opposes [PDF], claiming that "Apple identifies no 'new' arguments Samsung raised in its reply that were not responsive to arguments in Apples opposition." The parties have been told that this motion wasn't on the calendar yet, but that they should be prepared to argue it on August 21. There is also the fact that the USPTO has found all relevant claims in the '915 patent invalid in a final office action. There can be more to come on that, but how does it impact the damages trial is the question? And that is why we really should be there to hear it, if any of you can arrange your affairs to get there and be our eyes and ears. Samsung is telling the court that "Apple is attempting to 'sandbag' Samsung and obtain an unfair tactical advantage" by various proposals on how to go forward and by refusing to seriously meet and confer with Samsung. For example, Apple wants the judge to restrict the parties to the same exhibits used at the first trial. But that's not really fair in Samsung's eyes, because since that first trial, Apple has said things to the USPTO that conflict with what they said about the '381 and '915 patents at that trial: Samsung does not believe the Court should limit the parties to the same exhibits disclosed prior to the first trial. For example, Apple has made numerous admissions to the USPTO subsequent to the first trial that directly contradict its arguments concerning the scope of the 381 and 915 patents. Apple should not be permitted to tell the Patent Office one thing and the new jury another. Samsung should be able to put this new evidence before the jury. Doing so would raise no issues concerning inconsistent appellate records because liability issues are not being retried and this damages trial will have its own separate record. Rather, the trial should be held based on an evidentiary record as it exists at the time of the new trial. If you can go, email me please and I'll tell you more. [Update: We still need a volunteer.]