Judge Koh says no to Apple

In the Apple/Samsung matter, Judge Koh basically denied Apple's motion to present evidence it practices the patents at issue. The confusion is because of the difference between practicing patents vs. practicing claims. Apple has stipulated it does not practice the claims at issue in the litigation. That does not mean it does not practice other claims in the patents, which claims have not been asserted in the litigation.

This matter is not legally relevant to Apple's charge of infringement of the claims. To determine the presence of infringement, one looks to see whether the accused products of Samsung fall within the scope of Apple's asserted claims. What Apple makes or does not make is irrelevant.

Samsung asserting Apple's non-practice is playing the troll card. In that view, Apple is blocking progress by asserting patent claims not covering anything that Apple does. This would be troll-like behavior. Apple of course does make products, unlike so-called trolls.

As to copying that is only relevant to secondary considerations in a defense of invalidity through obviousness.
For example MPEP 716. Copying might be relevant to willful infringement.