In June, the US Supreme Court decided the Alice v. CLS Bank case, tweaking patent law in a way that suggests a lot more patents should be thrown out as overly abstract.

Samsung hoped that case would allow it to knock out two patents that Apple had successfully used against it in the long-running patent war between the two smartphone leaders. Last month, Samsung lawyers filed papers arguing that Apple's patents on universal search and "swipe-to-unlock" are exactly the type of basic ideas that the US Supreme Court wants to see rejected.

US District Judge Lucy Koh has now ruled that Samsung won't get a last-minute Alice reprieve. In a short five-page order (PDF), Koh found that Samsung didn't raise any defenses from the area of patent law that Alice relates to, Section 101, and it can't do so now.

"Samsung enumerated 31 disputed legal issues—including defenses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112—but did not identify any § 101 defenses against any Apple patents, nor incorporate Samsung’s earlier invalidity contentions," explains Koh. "Critically, Samsung did not raise § 101 at trial or in any pre-verdict or post-verdict motions... Samsung’s untimely attempt to invalidate two asserted patent claims months after the close of trial would unfairly prejudice Apple."

Samsung also tried to argue that the timing of the Alice decision should excuse its delay in raising the relevant issues. Koh found that unconvincing. The company raised many defenses in another area of law that was also being considered by the Supreme Court; it simply didn't pursue its Section 101 defenses, so it can't try to start a fight in that area post-trial.

Koh has overseen both of the big Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trials. The 2012 one resulted in a big win for Apple, with more than $900 million in damages; a May 2014 trial resulted in a smaller $120 million win. Both cases are headed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.