Apple v. Samsung damages breakdown revealed in jury verdict form

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2014
The U.S. District Court for Northern California late Friday made public the Apple v. Samsung jury's verdict form, revealing exact damages figures assigned to each device found in infringement of parties' patents.


Source: U.S. Courts


After the Apple v. Samsung jury handed in its decision earlier today, awarding Apple $119.6 million and Samsung $158,000, the final verdict form has been made available for public viewing. The document offers further insight into the jury's thinking.

In its verdict, the jury found Samsung guilty of infringing on two Apple patents, the '647 patent for data detectors and the '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock." A third property, Apple's '172 patent for text input prediction/spell checking, was already ruled infringed by presiding Judge Lucy Koh. For that patent, the jury found willful infringement on Samsung's part, possibly opening the door to additional damages.

Apple's final damages tally may be a bit higher as the company found a discrepancy in the jury's verdict. Specifically, the Galaxy S II was found to be in infringement of the text prediction property, but no damages were assigned. Jurors are scheduled to meet on Monday to resolve the issue.

As seen below, a large chunk of Apple's award came from Samsung's Galaxy S III, which cost the company $52.4 million on infringement of the '647 patent alone. The Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch -- Sprint's version of the smartphone -- generated $14.2 million on infringement of the '647 and '172 patents, while all accused Galaxy S II models amounted to a collective $31.1 million.

For Samsung, the jury found Apple's iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5 and fourth- and fifth-generation iPod touch devices in infringement of one patent. Damages for most models sat in the $20,000 range, with the iPhone 5 and fourth-gen iPod touch accounting for a respective $41,514 and $40,597 of Samsung's $158,400 award.

«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 94
    tastowetastowe Posts: 108member
    I don't like about samsung attitude with iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPhone 5. So the iPhone 4, iPhone 4s, iPhone 5 has an iOS 7.1.1 version now dumbass samsung and google. The iPod touch 4th gen and iPhone 3GS has an iOS 6 version. So **** you google and samsung.
  • Reply 2 of 94
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    What an ugly fucking form. Using a row of parenthesis as a divider? Really? Was this done using a typewriter from the 1950s?

    I feel bad for Jurors having to fill out this confusing piece of shit form.
  • Reply 3 of 94
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    so samsung won...even though they lost...
  • Reply 4 of 94
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Now that the results of the second patent trial in California are in I, for one, am glad to see (judging from the pitiful amount that Apple has been awarded) that the judge and jurors did not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by that uninnovative company that brought the GUI, the mouse, the modern personal computer (along with colour and style), the iPod, the iTunes Store, Apple Retail Stores, the online App Store, the iPhone, the MacBook Air, the iPad, the Mac Pro, and the world's most insecure and unreliable operating system, to the masses.

     

    After finally having proven, not only their innocence, but that Korea, in general, is able to draw from a well of innovation that is incredibly deep, I can only assume that both Samsung Executive Management and their legal team will be taking some sorely deserved time off at the Lotte World Amusement Park in Seoul.

     

    Good on you guys!

     

    Keep up the hard work!

     

     

     

     

  • Reply 5 of 94
    lantznlantzn Posts: 240member
    @GTR
    Nice try, we see what you did there, you tried to twist the truth into your favor just like that thieving, stealing, lying company Samsung.

    That 3 juries in who have awarded Apple millions from the master copycat Samsung.
    Hopefully they agree that it was willful like in the previous case and increase the damages. Maybe Samsung will get the hint you can't get away with robbing IP.
  • Reply 6 of 94
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 527member
    Who said "crime does not pay"?

    They will be dancing in the streets of Korea with this damages award. The patent system might as well be scrapped.
  • Reply 7 of 94
    water coolerwater cooler Posts: 150member
    This will build up a “habitual" thief and priming for another lawsuit... Does three strikes you are out law apply to this jerks?
  • Reply 8 of 94
    spanadingspanading Posts: 74member
    GTR - Did everyone get you were being sarcastic? I'm not clear from the comments ? Actually I think Samsung execs need to go to Disney for their break, I hear their home grown entertainment parks are running out of ideas. ;)
  • Reply 9 of 94
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tcasey View Post



    so samsung won...even though they lost...

     

    Their strategy would have worked even if Apple was awarded the $2B. Everyone knows they copied Apple. So Samsung knew they will lose. This is why this time their strategy was to devalue Apple patents.

  • Reply 10 of 94
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    Oh, I actually find that little bridge over the water before the castle really pretty.

    Apart from that, Apple has won, but not really. I don't want to comment on judgements. I just wish Samsung would learn at least a little from all this.
  • Reply 11 of 94
    imemberimember Posts: 247member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tcasey View Post



    so samsung won...even though they lost...

    All u need to know that Samsung intentionally copied Apple patents

  • Reply 12 of 94
    asterionasterion Posts: 112member

    In a market worth hundreds of billions, what does a hundred million fine matter? Could this realistically be termed a 'deterrent against infringement'? I can't see how Samsung's "wilful" copying doesn't make financial sense.

     

    And the negative publicity of 'losing' will, I'm sure, be combatted by some deft PR footwork by Samsung. I can imagine the spin of 'vindication' that they will put on this verdict.

     

    Without serious penalties for infringement—involving meaningful sanctions that significantly impact a company's operations—the concept of patent protection is obsolete.

     

    I don't know how this can be addressed, but the current 'system' seems akin to being slapped with a $50 fine for attempted murder.

  • Reply 13 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asterion View Post

     

    In a market worth hundreds of billions, what does a hundred million fine matter? Could this realistically be termed a 'deterrent against infringement'? I can't see how Samsung's "wilful" copying doesn't make financial sense.

     

    And the negative publicity of 'losing' will, I'm sure, be combatted by some deft PR footwork by Samsung. I can imagine the spin of 'vindication' that they will put on this verdict.

     

    Without serious penalties for infringement—involving meaningful sanctions that significantly impact a company's operations—the concept of patent protection is obsolete.

     

    I don't know how this can be addressed, but the current 'system' seems akin to being slapped with a $50 fine for attempted murder.


    I think you and lot of people here are misunderstanding what was at trial here.

     

    I understand the strong emotions about Samsung copying Apple etc etc. The Galaxy S (original), even Google told Samsung they need to differentiate more... BUT that was already dealt with in Apple v Samsung trial number 1!  This trial is Apple v Samsung #2 and you need to look at specifics of what is on trial. It's not a did Samsung copy all of Apple trial here.. it's very specific.

     

    Out of the 5 patents on trial from Apple, the 647 patent "Quick Links" is what won the most $ for Apple.

    The amusing part is the Quick Links accused code is actually part of Android; Samsung didn't even copy this part at all, it is standard install from Android. Should Samsung be punished for using standard Google code?

     

    Anyway, let's say for arguments sake the answer is Yes, Samsung should be punished, they shouldn't have used it - this Quick Links patent has an easy workaround which even Judge Posner mentioned "embed the server code in the app". Using this workaround, the exact same functionality will still exist on the device and the patent won't be infringed one bit! 

     

    So please, separate emotions about scamsung/shamsung/whatever from facts about this case - being the patent is very easy to workaround and getting $100mill for that is an outstanding result considering... (appeals likely to reduce this though, as judges are more savvy than lay person juries on this.. judge posner but one example).

     

    Have a good day.

  • Reply 14 of 94
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    I think you and lot of people here are misunderstanding what was at trial here.
    Out of the 5 patents on trial from Apple, the 647 patent "Quick Links" is what won the most $ for Apple.
    The amusing part is the Quick Links accused code is actually part of Android; Samsung didn't even copy this part at all, it is standard install from Android. 

    I'm not certain the "Quick links" feature as used by Samsung is not modified from stock Android. As most here were aware Google has an indemnity clause in its contract with them, as they appear to have with (all?) other Android licensees. Per their obligation Google agreed to accept responsibility for specific patent claims from Apple against Android features. The two applying to presumably stock Android had to do with background synchronization and universal search. The jury found that Samsung’s products didn’t infringe on those two patents, which vindicates Google. Yet they did not agree to indemnify Samsung for Quick Links, a sign that Samsung's version may not be stock and probably isn't.
  • Reply 15 of 94
    zabazaba Posts: 226member
    Does Samsung have to pay Apples legal bill which is probably equivalent to the amount they recieve in damages?
  • Reply 16 of 94
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    zaba wrote: »
    Does Samsung have to pay Apples legal bill which is probably equivalent to the amount they recieve in damages?

    A couple of SCOTUS decisions from a few days ago would direct Judge Koh to at least consider it. But iIMO probably no. Both had legitimate legal arguments supporting them and both were ultimately ruled to be infringers.
  • Reply 17 of 94
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    Well done Jury, with that sized fine you've just sanctioned Samsung to continue stealing.
  • Reply 18 of 94
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    A couple of SCOTUS decisions from a few days ago would direct Judge Koh to at least consider it. But iIMO probably no. Both had legitimate legal arguments supporting them and both were ultimately ruled to be infringers.

    $119M > $158K. Clearly the jury felt Samsung was the bigger infringer. They also said Samsung willfully infringed, I'm not aware they said the same about the one infringement they dinged Apple for.
  • Reply 19 of 94
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    saarek wrote: »
    Well done Jury, with that sized fine you've just sanctioned Samsung to continue stealing.
    Are there any phones Samsung is currently selling that are infringing on any of these patents?
  • Reply 20 of 94
    revenantrevenant Posts: 621member
    so... stop filing patents and just sit back and integrate [read copy] into your product what ideas that do well for other companies products. worst case scenario, you loose a day's, or two day's pay.
Sign In or Register to comment.