or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B [u]

post #1 of 409
Thread Starter 
After only two and a half days of deliberations, the Apple v. Samsung jury handed down a sweeping victory for Apple, finding Samsung infringed on all but one of Apple's asserted patents while the iPhone maker didn't violate any of the Korean company's properties.

Update: Following a discrepancy in the jury's verdict, the damages amount has been dropped to $1.049 billion.

Jurors deciding the patent suit have reached a verdict just three days after hearing closing arguments from the parties' counsel, finding Samsung to have infringed on certain Apple patents, according to in-court reports from The Verge. The damages owed total nearly $1.05 billion for Samsung and zero for Apple.

Tally of Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringement on Apple patent claims:

  • '381 "rubber-banding" patent: Yes for all devices.
  • '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patent: Yes for all devices except for Intercept and Replenish smartphones.
  • '163 "tap-to-zoom" patent: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Ace, Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, S II AT&T, i9100, S II T-Mobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Replenish.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant.
  • D'667 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
    No for Ace.
    Yes for STA's Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.
  • D'087 iPhone design patent: Yes for SEC's S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, and Vibrant.
    No for Galaxy S II ATT, S II i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
    Yes for STA's S 4G and Vibrant only.
  • D'305 iPhone home screen design patent: Yes for SEC's Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
    Yes for STA's Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  • D'889 iPad design patent: No for all devices


Prior Knowledge findings:

Apple proved through evidence that Samsung "took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D?677, D?087, D?305, and/or D?889 Patents."

  • D'677 patent: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  • D'087 patent: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  • D'305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
  • '889 patent: No for both Galaxy Tab models.


Willful infringement findings:

  • '381 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  • '915 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  • '163 patent: Yes for SEC, SEA and STA
  • D'087 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA
  • D'889 patent: No for SEC, SEA and STA


Patent Invalidation

Samsung was unable to prove any of Apple's patents were invalid, including the '893 trade dress, while Apple was able to prove only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable.

Dilution of trademark:

Regarding registered iPhone trade dress:

  • SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, S2 i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  • STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.


Regarding unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress.

  • SEC: Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.
  • STA: Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize and Vibrant.
    No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, Galaxy S II for AT&T, Galaxy S II for T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G.


Damages

The jury found Samsung responsible for $1,049,343,540. Split per phone:

  • Prevail: Over $57 million.
  • Infuse 4G: $44,792,974
  • Mesmerize: $53,123,612
  • Replenish: $3,350,256
  • Transform: $954,060


Tally of Apple infringement of Samsung patents:

  • '516 UMTS patent: No
  • '460 patent: No
  • '893 patent: No
  • '711 patent: No
  • '460 patent: No


Antitrust

Apple did not prove that Samsung breached obligations with UMTS wireless communications standard nor could the company offer sufficient evidence that the Galaxy maker violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the industry with its technology.

Patent exhaustion

Apple was able to prove Samsung is barred from asserting the '516 and '941 patents, those relating to technology used by certain Intel chips in iDevices, as they were exhausted.

In order to come to a decision, the jury needed to fill out a complex 20-page verdict form comprised of over 30 multi-part questions, including damages calculations. The quick turnaround, which amounted to a little under 22 hours of deliberations, came without any questions to the court, hinting that the case was a one-sided win.

Verdict
Sample of the jury's completed 20-page verdict form. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Prior to hearing the verdict, Samsung counsel filed a notice requesting the court hold the jury for 30 minutes in case of inconsistencies relating to damages awarded. Upon review of the verdict form, two inconsistencies were found where the jury awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE and Intercept smartphone without citing any infringement. The jury was sent back to fix the error, which dropped the total damages amount to just below $1.05 billion.

Apple v. Samsung proceedings began on July 31 after a jury was selected a day earlier, with the Cupertino company seeking up to $2.5 billion in damages on allegations of trade dress infringement. Samsung countered with its own infringement claims, seeking nearly $422 million in royalties.

As for Friday's verdict, it was previously reported that the nine-member jury requested to extend their usual workday by one hour, which at the time was thought to be a sign of intense debates.

According to TGDaily, after the jurors' normal 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT shift was complete, they asked the court to stay an extra hour to finish whatever discussions were taking place behind the jury room's closed doors.

The jury sought to find consensus on a combined 40 hours of testimony and a mountain of evidence counsel presented during the court proceedings. Presiding Judge Lucy Koh, on numerous occasions, asked attorneys representing both companies to winnow their claims in hopes of presenting a digestible case to the jury, though counsel still managed to raise a litany of arguments backed by piles of demonstrative exhibits.

The proceedings were fraught with drama, from Samsung "leaking" excluded demonstrative exhibits to the media to presiding Judge Lucy Koh losing her temper over the reams of documents submitted by both parties.

At issue were seven Apple patents regarding the design of the iPhone and iPad, as well as utility patents relating to the use interface seen in iOS. Apple argued that many of the features seen on 24 Samsung devices blatantly copied the design patents, utility patents, or both, though it was unclear whether the company could prove willful infringement in court, a pre-requisite for awarding damages.

Samsung Phones


A number of internal documents were made public along the way, as Judge Koh mandated an open trial. Seemingly damning evidence included a 132-page Samsung report that included a side-by-side comparison of the iPhone and the Galaxy S.



Apple lodged its first complaint against Samsung in April 2011, saying the South Korean electronics giant copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad, sparking a worldwide dispute that now spans over 10 countries across four continents.
post #2 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Jury deliberations have finished in the Apple v. Samsung court case, with the verdict to be revealed shortly.
Developing

That was quick.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #3 of 409

post #4 of 409
Whoa. That seems awfully fast for such a complicated case. I mean complicated in the amount of information and instructions presented to the Jurors not the charge itself.

Methinks this might not be good, hope I am wrong.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #5 of 409

I bet Apple wins!

post #6 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Why yes I would love some. Thank you!
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #7 of 409
Whatever they decide...

Hopefully these companies can now get back to the business of making/selling quality gadgets sans all of this silly 'fear of litigation' nonsense.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #8 of 409

Oh snap!

post #9 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Whoa. That seems awfully fast for such a complicated case. I mean complicated in the amount of information and instructions presented to the Jurors not the charge itself.
Methinks this might not be good, hope I am wrong.
I was thinking the same thing. The complexity of the accusations and any damage calculations and the need for unanimity makes me think this isn't going in Apple's favour. Really hope I'm wrong and the jury smashes Samsung but I have a bad feeling because of how fast this was.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #10 of 409
Quick, everyone place your bets:

I bet that Apple wins most of the patent issues. I also bet that something gets invalidated.
post #11 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Whoa. That seems awfully fast for such a complicated case. I mean complicated in the amount of information and instructions presented to the Jurors not the charge itself.
Methinks this might not be good, hope I am wrong.

Quick results usually means that the jury didn't have to think about it very much.  

 

That could be good or it could be like OJ's trial.  :-/

post #12 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Whatever they decide...

Hopefully these companies can now get back to the business of making/selling quality gadgets sans all of this silly 'fear of litigation' nonsense.

This is unlikely to be the end though, is it. Whichever side loses will appeal.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #13 of 409

If the case does not fit, you must acquit!

post #14 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Quick results usually means that the jury didn't have to think about it very much.  

That could be good or it could be like OJ's trial.  :-/

I followed and by the end of it i had an opinion. I could fill out 1000 checkmarks in two days.
I am of average IQ. I think they had enough time during trial to get the idea and then just confirm.

If majority thought simillar, the rest could be easy.
post #15 of 409

Friday afternoon... have basically decided who did what, would you want to come back Monday morning?

Personally, Im as curious as hell how they got through all those instruction items so fast.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #16 of 409
The internet is gonna be buzzing all weekend. Crack your fingers, and either get your belly ready for some laughing or get your teeth ready for some gnashing.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 409

If Apple loses, Samsung loses too. Imo, it's time Apple take all their business elsewhere and drop Samsung components entirely.

post #18 of 409

Appeals or no appeals, I find it surreal that it has gotten this far in less than 10 years. What’s that all about? I thought red tape could be made to stretch forever.

post #19 of 409

"The jury has reached a decision in Apple's patent lawsuit against Samsung, according to people in the courtroom in San Jose, California."

 

Seems odd.

 

1.  Nick Wingfield.  Published 24 August 2012.  Jury Reaches Decision in Apple-Samsung Patent Trial.  New York Times.  Retrieved 24 August 2012.

 
 
post #20 of 409

Judge Koh just asked the jury "How in the world did you deliberate this case in 2 1/2 days? Are you smoking crack?"
 

post #21 of 409
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post
I thought red tape could be made to stretch forever.

 

Not when judges get to say you only have a set amount of time to present your case…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #22 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Can I work for you?

 

:)

post #23 of 409

APPLE WINS!!!! Apple stock is rising after hours. I am looking for BEER!!!

post #24 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero View Post

If Apple loses, Samsung loses too. Imo, it's time Apple take all their business elsewhere and drop Samsung components entirely.

Ab-so-lute-(a)lee.

post #25 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It was previously reported that the nine-member jury requested to extend their usual workday by one hour, which at the time was thought to be a sign of intense debates.
According to TGDaily, after the jurors' normal 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT shift was complete, they asked the court to stay an extra hour to finish whatever discussions were taking place behind the jury room's closed doors.

I thought this trial is in Northern California. I don't understand the time mentioned. 4:30 p.m. of which day? Right now it is not even 3:30 p.m. here in California.

 

EDIT: I see the words "was complete" is in error. They apparently asked for the extension earlier in the day sometime mid-session.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 409

Let's go! Apple had better win, otherwise there is no true justice in the court system. This isn't like the South Korea verdict, as that country can't be trusted. Samsung is responsible for 20% of that country's revenue. They practically own South Korea.

 

Hopefully the verdict will be a striking and devastating blow to Samesung and to all Fandroids everywhere!

post #27 of 409

Twitter has a live feed iCourt

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #28 of 409
Originally Posted by 69ergoo View Post
APPLE WINS!!!! Apple stock is rising after hours. I am looking for BEER!!!

 

Link? Proof?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #29 of 409

False alarm...Koh may send the jury back :(
 

post #30 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Link? Proof?

He's full of shit. AAPL is up about 50 cents right now in afterhours, which is nothing.

post #31 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Link? Proof?

They're lying.  Isn't announced yet.

post #32 of 409
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post
False alarm...Koh may send the jury back :(

 

Again, link? Proof?

 

And how can Twitter have a live feed? 140 characters at a time is live?


Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post
live blog on CNET at http://live.cnet.com/Event/Apple_vs_Samsung_verdict

 

That's more like it!

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #33 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Samsung Phones
The picture says it all. There's really no other way for this to go other than Apple winning big time. Anything else and American/Western innovation might as well self-immolate or simply farm its R&D off to China, Korea, or any other lowest-common denominator knock-off artists.
 

 

 

The picture says it all. There's really no other way for this to go other than Apple winning BIG time. Anything else and American/Western innovation might as well self-immolate or simply farm its R&D off to China, Korea, or any other lowest-common-denomitator knock-off artists.

post #34 of 409

How is it possible that Apple's two top lawyers are not present for the verdict reading??? McElhinny and Lee are both not present....
 

post #35 of 409

Seems as though Apple may have won although this is an assumption.  My assumption is based on Samsung's request for a thirty minute review of the verdict.  Apple has not requested time for a review.

 
post #36 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Again, link? Proof?

 

And how can Twitter have a live feed? 140 characters at a time is live?

Well lots of people in the room posting to Twitter, apparently the only sound is the tapping of keyboards

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #37 of 409

Quoted from cnet.com:

 

"The jury is made up of seven men and two women. Their ages run from early 20s to late 60s. Public records show that at least five of the jurors are 50 or older. One juror is 30-something, one is 20-something, and the ages of three other jurors could not be ascertained."

 

"Six graduated from college and three earned graduate degrees. Two other members spent some time in college without earning a degree."

 

"There's one inventor, a person who restores cars, a gardener, an avid reader, a musician and a video-game player."

 

"Four of [the jurors] have worked for technology companies, including Intel and AT&T. One worked for a hard-drive company. There are two engineers on the jury."

 

"One member owns an iPhone and no one on the jury owns a Samsung smartphone. However, two of them own Samsung feature phones. One of the unemployed jurors said he doesn't own a mobile phone. LG is a popular phone maker with the jury. Three of the jurors own LG phones and the last phone owned by the juror currently without a mobile phone was an LG. Two jurors own Android phones. The juror with the most gadgets owns an LG Android phone, a Kindle Fire tablet, a MacBook, and iPod Touch. This person also owns a TV and a DVD player made by Samsung."

 

"...six [of the jurrors] said they have Facebook accounts but only one person uses Twitter. No one blogs. Four jury members said they spend much of their time online using e-mail. Six told the court they use search engines a significant amount of time, while one jury member said he uses the Internet to play video games."

 

"...one juror seems to have more experience in key areas than the others. This juror has been on three previous juries, including at least two that involved civil litigation. He also has experience with patent registration and litigation. Only one other member has served on a jury before and no other member had any previous involvement with patents. This juror with the patent and jury experience told the court that he owned a start-up during the previous decade. The company filed for and was eventually issued a patent concerning video-compression software. CNET found records that showed the man's company also worked on optical lens technology to improve the viewing quality of television monitors. The man said the company eventually "went belly up."

He is one of two members of the jury to personally participate in litigation. One of the people connected to his business sued him over ownership rights to a piece of technology. Another juror sued a dentist in small claims court."

post #38 of 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

 

The picture says it all. There's really no other way for this to go other than Apple winning BIG time. Anything else and American/Western innovation might as well self-immolate or simply farm its R&D off to China, Korea, or any other lowest-common-denomitator knock-off artists.

 

Except ... OJ  

post #39 of 409

Just award Apple a couple of Kagillion dollars and ban all Samsung products from the US market.  Hahahahaha.

post #40 of 409
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung guilty of patent infringement, Apple awarded nearly $1.05B [u]