apple-v-samsung-collage1

Ina Fried

Mobile


A federal jury in the Apple-Samsung case delivered a mixed verdict Friday.

The panel ruled that various Samsung products infringed on two patents that Apple had sued over in its latest patent case and found damages on a third patent, awarding more than $119.6 million in damages. However, it found Apple did not infringe on two other patents and also awarded Samsung $158,400, saying Apple infringed on a Samsung patent.

The jury found all accused Samsung phones infringed on the first patent at issue, the ’647 “quick-links” patent, but the devices did not infringe on two others related to universal search and background synchronization. For the ’721 “slide-to-unlock” patent, it ruled some Samsung products infringed, while others did not.

For a fifth patent, the judge had ruled that Samsung’s products infringed on the Apple patent, and the jury determined that infringement was willful.

Meanwhile, the panel ruled that Apple violated one of two Samsung patents that the company had countersued over, but ruled the infringement was not willful and awarded only the $158,400.

A discrepancy on the verdict form, however, means the panel will have to come back on Monday to clarify the verdict. (see updates below.)

The verdict was reached after three full days of deliberations, with a retired IBM business unit executive serving as the foreman of the four-man, four-woman jury.

Apple had been seeking $2.2 billion in damages, while Samsung argued that it owed at most $38 million or so, not that it believed it infringed Apple’s patents in the first place. It was also seeking about $6 million from Apple in its countersuit.

The $119.6 million is also far less than Apple got in its last case against Samsung, where two juries in the same courtroom awarded nearly $1 billion in damages. With Samsung continuing to gain ground in the market–and courts so far having been unwilling to order its products be changed or taken off the market–a strong case can be made that Samsung has already outflanked Apple in the ongoing legal battle.

And of course, both sides will likely ask Judge Lucy Koh to set aside the latest verdict and, failing that, will appeal the jury’s verdict.

That said, Apple praised the ruling.

“We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service,” Apple told Re/code. “Today’s ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: That Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers.”

Representatives of Samsung and Google were not immediately available for comment. However Google appeared to come out a winner; it had agreed to provide indemnity to Samsung with regard to two patents at issue, both of which the jury ruled were not infringed.

The jury heard more than 50 hours of testimony in all, as well as opening and closing statements.

Update, 6:05 p.m.: Apple has identified one product found to infringe for which no damages were awarded; Judge Koh says the jury will be asked to clarify that point. Given the lateness of the hour, the jury will have half an hour tonight or it will have to come back on Monday.

6:30 p.m.: The jury decides it would rather settle things after the weekend, so they will be back at 9 a.m. Monday.

Samsung’s outside attorney, John Quinn, declined to comment on the damages award, noting the verdict is not yet final given the discrepancy still to be addressed by the jury. Google has also declined to comment.

More Posts About the Apple-Samsung Trial




18 comments
Dorkus Maximus
Dorkus Maximus

Samsung has "outflanked" Apple because it pays less in legal damages than it profits from patent infringement. What a lovely, morally bankrupt, way of looking at the world. Thievery is fine as long as the penalty is less than the profit. Machiavelli would've been proud to have come up with such a construction.

JMWJMW
JMWJMW

It's always a bad day for a plaintiff when -- as here -- the jury awards you money that is less than you spent on the litigation itself.  One wonders if Apple post-Jobs is familiar with the term "diminishing returns."

JohnR
JohnR

The key thing here is that the jury found Samsung WILLFULLY copied Apple.

JohnR
JohnR

Samsung may have only lost $120M, but the damage to their reputation will be MUCH greater.

krkeegan
krkeegan

This seems like a win for Samsung.  Given their $2.2B demand, I doubt Apple ever offered to settle for as little as $120M.


Samsung's strategy of undervaluing their patents looks like an interesting strategy.  It likely caused the jurors to discount the patent values across the board.

shm224
shm224

@Dorkus Maximus  :  just wait 'til the case is heard in the court of appeal at federal circuit. 


The appeals judges aren't known to be as generous or biased as Apple's hometown jury -- Apple would be lucky if they get to collect a fraction of that $120M verdict. And that's if and a big if the patents are upheld by the appeals court judges. 


shm224
shm224

@stsk  : a lot of angry Apple fanboys. 

Dorkus Maximus
Dorkus Maximus

@JMWJMW  It's always a bad day for a defendant when a jury in a court of law finds it guilty of theft and orders it to pay close to $120 million in damages. One wonders if Samsung is familiar with the term "thief."

shm224
shm224

@JohnR  : that's an interesting idea..   because I'm pretty sure the same jury also said Apple infringed on Samsung's patent too.  


I think this is called confirmation bias. 

JMWJMW
JMWJMW

@JohnR Interesting comment; sounds like contra-fanboisim.  Don't people buy Samsung (I'm neither a customer of them or Apple) because they're cheaper than the competition, not because they're innovators?

shm224
shm224

@krkeegan  : not necessarily.   The final verdict $120M is still four times what Samsung thinks is a correct amount -- ie, if Samsung devices indeed infringe on Apple's patents.


Samsung tried to bring an expert witness to explain why Apple's asking rate is outrageous and unreasonable, uncommon industry practice, but, not surprisingly, they were rejected by Judge Koh (not surprisingly)


The appeal court judges at the Federal Circuits are less biased and more experienced than Apple hometown judges in SJ.  Chief Judge Randal and others don't believe in the kind of absurd royalty rate Apple was asking for in this round.  

JMWJMW
JMWJMW

@Dorkus Maximus You'd best look up the term "infringer."  A thief can only steal an item from you once; an infringer does that multiple times.  So, "infringer" is worse than "thief."  But still, if you spend $4 to recover $4, you've wasted much time and money going after an infringer.

Jubei
Jubei

Wrong. Big difference in willful stealing than unwillingly. The patent was purchased by Samsung for the sole purpose of using this in court. So in the end and in truth, Samsung is still GUILTY for willingly infringing on Apple. Apple was found guilty for unwillingly infringing on a Samsung (purchased) patent.

Jubei
Jubei

Oh please. Huge difference and you are trying misdirection of Samsung willingful guilt.

Consortium members: Apple, Inc., BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony.[

shm224
shm224

@Jubei  : Well, there is nothing in the law stating that you can't use patents you purchased to find infringement. 


Aren't we all too forgetful about Rockstar Inc, based in Plano, Texas -- the patent troll capital of the US -- and whose largest stake holder is Apple?


shm224
shm224

@Dorkus Maximus @JMWJMW @JohnR  : Ok. the jury found that Apple stole one of Samsung's patents. 


I don't know who those "some people" are, but they would surely refuse to buy stolen iPhones even if they are offered at discount I guess?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 293,170 other followers