or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u]

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 
Judge Lucy Koh on Friday vacated more than 40 percent of the $1.05 billion in damages a jury awarded to Apple in its patent infringement case against chief rival Samsung.

Update: A complete list of devices affected by Friday's order have been included below.

Vanessa Blum, federal courts reporter for The Recorder in San Francisco tweeted on Friday that Judge Koh had struck roughly $450 million off the damage award Apple won in its case against Samsung. Koh has reportedly ordered a new trial for the $450 million.

Apple won the award in a sweeping victory at the end of a hotly contested trial. After just 22 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding Samsung guilty of infringement on all but one of Apple's asserted patents. Apple had asked for roughly $2.5 billion in damages.

Apple, the jury found, had not violated any of the South Korean conglomerate's patents.

In the initial ruling, Samsung had been found to be willful in its infringement, which held the possibility of a tripling of the $1.05 billion award.

Apple had tried to sway Koh toward moving the damages award closer to its initial goal of $2.5 billion. According to Bloomberg, Koh rejected Apple's request for a bigger reward, saying that the amount Samsung owed was under dispute and the jury was under no obligation to side with either party's damage estimate.

"It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation," Koh said, commenting on the ruling.

According to FOSS Patents, Judge Koh's order to vacate $450,514,650 from the judgment covers 14 Samsung products due to uncertainty over what amount of damages are attributable to an individual intellectual property right:

"The jury set only one damages figure per product, but half a dozen different intellectual property rights were found infringed, resulting in a lack of clarity..."



Judge Koh has not yet set a date for a second damages trial. When it is held, it may result in a higher or lower damages award for the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. The case will also require a different jury from the one that reached August's verdict.

Roughly $600 million of the initial verdict still stands.

Damages vacated for following Samsung products:
  • Captivate
  • Continuum
  • Droid Charge
  • Epic 4G
  • Exhibit 4G
  • Indulge
  • Infuse 4G
  • Galaxy Prevail
  • Gem
  • Galaxy SII for AT&T
  • Galaxy Tab
  • Nexus S 4G
  • Replenish
  • Transform

Damages remain for the following Samsung products:
  • Fascinate
  • Galaxy Ace
  • Galaxy S i9000
  • Galaxy S II i9100
  • Galaxy Tab 10.1 Wi-Fi
  • Galaxy Tab 10.1 with 4G LTE
  • Galaxy S 4G
  • Galaxy S II Showcase
  • Intercept
  • Galaxy S II Skyrockeet
  • Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch
  • Galaxy S II T-Mobile
  • Mesmerize
  • Vibrant


post #2 of 80

And in 4 months time, just like a certain British judge, will maybe pop-up consulting for Samescum?

post #3 of 80

Lemme guess, Apple can't appeal that.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #4 of 80
Bullshit. Completely expected.
post #5 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Lemme guess, Apple can't appeal that.

What little blurb is there in the story, she's ordering a new trial for the portion she struck off, so it's not lost yet.

post #6 of 80
I thought the amount would get reduced, so not surprised by this. Still surprised at the wilful infringement decision. That one still has me scratching my head.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #7 of 80

Why wouldn't I be surprised if Apple loses the "new trial". What was wrong with the old trial? You know, the one that Apple already won?

 

It does pay to be a crook though. Who says that crime is not profitable?

 

You rip off a competitor's device, and even if you get sued and the case goes to trial, it'll drag on for years, and even if you lose, just try the case again! And even if you have to pay a few hundred million dollars, then so what? The profits that the crooks have made from their copying far exceeds any little damage fees that they might have to pay.

 

It's like robbing a bank and making away with $10 million dollars. When you get caught, you wouldn't have to go to jail, but you would have to pay a fine of $1 million dollars, and you get to keep the rest. It's a win-win situation.

post #8 of 80

Stock down $11 now.  Couldn't be better news for Samsung with the S4 coming out in a few weeks.  *^%#!

post #9 of 80

Deceiving headline. Should read "Judge orders retrial of $440 million of $1.05 B verdict" The way its written sounds like Apple had its judgment award reduced unconditionally.

post #10 of 80
Next up in the news, Sir Robin Jacob and Lucy Koh are engaged to be married, the wedding will be paid for by Samsung and the honeymoon (permanent) will be in Korea.
post #11 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonky View Post

Bullshit. Completely expected.

 

Yep.  The judgement amount will be further reduced in the court of appeal, to less than $100M and, who knows, maybe the appeal court judge will also uphold some of Samsung's patents infringement claim.

post #12 of 80
This judge is out of control. She is completely ignoring the jury's verdict and following her own agenda.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #13 of 80
The government just wants to make money for the legal system, and they know Apple has the money to blow. Typical.
post #14 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

Yep.  The judgement amount will be further reduced in the court of appeal, to less than $100M and, who knows, maybe the appeal court judge will also uphold some of Samsung's patents infringement claim.

 

Or the new trial could result in a $2B judgement in Apple's favor.  It's a very expensive, long, drawn out game of legal roulette (apparently),

post #15 of 80

Next... Samsung will be awarded all of Apple's infringing patents. At least, that's what Samsung's lawyers want.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 80
Apple doesn't need the money. A few hundred million here, a billion there? Meh. It's all about legal precedent. Apple won. They'll also win against potential future copiers (including Samsung.)

As for Samsung, it's all just a cost of doing business. And what a dirty business it is. Their total corporate marketing budget was $12 billion last year. Losing hundreds of millions (or maybe billions, depending on the "new trial") is worth it for them. Because they've killed off all other Android handset makers.

They got sued in the process, but so what. LG: gone. HTC: gone. Huawei: no wei.
All headed for the "other" slice of the smartphone market share pie chart if not already there.

Oh, the irony. Samsung has destroyed all other Android handset makers, and they paid Apple for the privilege.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #17 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ub52209 View Post

Deceiving headline. Should read "Judge orders retrial of $440 million of $1.05 B verdict" The way its written sounds like Apple had its judgment award reduced unconditionally.

 I agree with your completely, but check out these headlines from a financial site:

 

03:43 Judge cuts Apple award nearly in half MarketWatch

03:43 Apple loses bid for more damages from Samsung MarketWatch

post #18 of 80
It's not the verdict that is in question, it's a damages trial. Basically, she's saying the old jury didn't calculate the damages correctly for the products/patents in question and she's asking for a new jury to review the damages and submit their findings.
post #19 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation,.." Koh said, commenting on the ruling.
 

 

"...but I'm going to do it anyway by cutting it by 40%".

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 #20 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

 I agree with your completely, but check out these headlines from a financial site:

 

03:43 Judge cuts Apple award nearly in half MarketWatch

03:43 Apple loses bid for more damages from Samsung MarketWatch

 

The negative press is great click-bait... Just ask AppleInsider!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Apple doesn't need the money. A few hundred million here, a billion there? Meh. It's all about legal precedent. Apple won. They'll also win against potential future copiers (including Samsung.)

As for Samsung, it's all just a cost of doing business. And what a dirty business it is. Their total corporate marketing budget was $12 billion last year. Losing hundreds of millions (or maybe billions, depending on the "new trial") is worth it for them. Because they've killed off all other Android handset makers.

They got sued in the process, but so what. LG: gone. HTC: gone. Huawei: no wei.
All headed for the "other" slice of the smartphone market share pie chart if not already there.

Oh, the irony. Samsung has destroyed all other Android handset makers, and they paid Apple for the privilege.

Sure seems to be how things are playing out. And Google is funding their OS development (until Samsung forks it or use their own OS and take all the advertising money with them).

post #22 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

"...but I'm going to do it anyway by cutting it by 40%".

Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 80

Meh, it's still a lot of money!

post #24 of 80
A big problem was with the jury decision form that both sides had worked out ahead of time.
 
Apple and Samsung were more worried about checking off what infringed, than leaving room for having the jury explain exactly how they came up with figures.
post #25 of 80

Congratulations to the judge for her 'sudden' windfall of x million dollars.

 

Swiss bank account? Payments to relatives? Brown paper bags stuffed with cash?

 

Could be one... could be all.

 

 
 
post #26 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain. 


Indeed.

 

Given that the judge gave a legal explanation for her decision, impugning her character is not only unjustified, it debases the character of the accusers.

post #27 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"It is not the proper role of the court to second-guess the jury's factual determination as to the proper amount of compensation," Koh said, commenting on the ruling.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple could get it all back, even more if the new jury can be convinced. What happened with THIS jury is that they made some easy-to-find errors in their damages computations. The court could identify the devices and where the mistakes were made but doesn't have a firm enough formula for how the jury had intended to figure damages. Therefor a new trial and a new jury on the appropriate figure for only those devices where the error was plain. 

 

So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?

 

Which was it?

 

The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.

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 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrustyMcLovin View Post

Meh, it's still a lot of money!

 

It's peanuts. It's the equivalent of you or I losing a nickel or a dime probably.

post #29 of 80

Wondering at what point they have to start writing checks?

post #30 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
It's the equivalent of you or I losing a nickel or a dime probably.

Well, it's (i.e., the ~$400M) more like a $1000 for someone who's a one-millionaire.... 1wink.gif

post #31 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

Wondering at what point they have to start writing checks?

 

To have people whacked?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

 

So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?

 

Which was it?

 

The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.

 

It's not REDUCED, the calculations were wrong, so the amount in question, for the patents and products in question, are going back to trial to be reviewed by a new jury for to-be determined damages. She's not reducing ANYTHING, she's asking a new jury to review and come up with a finding because of the errors by the previous jury.

 

She even says it's not her place to make this decision and thus is requiring a new trial. 

post #33 of 80
Judges out of control as usual!
post #34 of 80

Question is, will Apple appeal, push for a new trial, or try to settle?  Cook never wanted to sue; they did win an important victory, though, money aside.  Might deter future manufacturers from copying.

 

Having said that, looking at Samsung's passbook "competitor" they haven't really learned much of anything.

post #35 of 80
It's a good thing for Samsung she dismissed the jury, so she can delay this trial even longer.
post #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Question is, will Apple appeal, push for a new trial, or try to settle?  Cook never wanted to sue; they did win an important victory, though, money aside.  Might deter future manufacturers from copying.

Having said that, looking at Samsung's passbook "competitor" they haven't really learned much of anything.
Samsung needs to be taught a lesson and the sooner the better
post #37 of 80

Absolutely disgusting. Samsung's new wallet app shows that not only has the company not at all been deterred from their shameless knockoffs, but they seem to be going out of their way to do this, in an effort to mock and provoke. Again, disgusting. Never before has there been such a clear cut case of a company copying every single aspect of another company to attain their success, and shows just how useless the courts are in this case. A $1 billion verdict would have been less than a slap on the wrist compared to what Samsung has gained from their actions, but by the time this over Apple will probably be paying Samsung money.  What the **** is the point of even having a jury?

 

The only silver lining of Samsung's success is that eventually they're going to **** Google up the ass, and either completely rebrand Android or fork it into something else completely. Android will become utterly irrelevant as a mobile OS if Samsung switches, and they're already doing their best to replace as many of Google's services as they can. People are now buying "Samsungs" or "iPhones"- all the other Android makers are completely fucked, relegated to the "other" category. 

post #38 of 80
Here is the rub:

They maintain $600 million plus whatever additional damages the new jury sees those devices infringing upon patents. In short, it could cost Samsung more.
post #39 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Judges out of control as usual!
 

 

Why even have jury trials anymore?

post #40 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

 

So either Koh "second guessed" the jury or she didn't?

 

Which was it?

 

The 40% reduction indicates that it's black and white perjury.

I don't know whether you're intentionally acting as tho you don't get it, or it's really just going right over your head,

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge vacates 40% of jury's $1.05B verdict in Apple v. Samsung [u]