Thanks for posting that, SS.
I wonder how the court will interpret Samsung's contention about non-US sales after EDIG's evidence that many were, in fact, offered and purchased in this country. It appears Samsung argues that there was no intent to offer them here and, because of the activities of these so-called " gray-market" sales, (which are/were neither controlled nor sanctioned by Samsung) they should not be included on the list of infringements.
EDIG's response is succinct. We don't care how they were offered or who offered them, they wound up as being sold in this country so they're fair game.
A dilemma......I wouldn't bet on either ruling. Anyone here have knowledge of a similar situation?
