I read the order before I made my comment, thanks. The order makes clear note of why these mentions were prejudicial in this case. > Apple consented to the co

I read the order before I made my comment, thanks. The order makes clear note of why these mentions were prejudicial in this case. > Apple consented to the consolidation IANAL but seems like you don't understand the difference between consent and objecting to but preferring consolidation to trying the cases out of order. > there is nothing in this order to justify a new trial The judge goes into detail on how mentions of the earlier trial were used in the consolidated one to "gratuitous" prejudicial impact, including the repeated mentions to infringement by FaceTime 1.0 when that finding had been reversed. He quotes several of these at length, goes on to cites multiple precedents, then goes into detail why VirnetX's cited precedent doesn't apply to this case.