Jury finds Samsung owes Apple another $290 million
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Jury finds Samsung owes Apple another $290 million

A jury has found that Samsung owes Apple another $290 million for infringing Apple’s smartphone patents, bringing the total damages to around $900 million

In August last year, a jury at the same district court in San Jose decided that Samsung had infringed five utility and design patents relating to the iPhone and awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages. But Judge Lucy Koh found that part of the award had been improperly calculated and reduced the total by $450 million.

Today’s verdict came at the end of a retrial solely focused on determining damages based on lost profits and royalties, as Samsung’s infringement of the patents was established in the previous jury trial. Apple requested an additional $380 million in damages, while Samsung argued that it only owed another $52 million.

Samsung attorney Bill Price asked Koh to declare a mistrial because of what Price described as “racist” comments by a lawyer representing Apple, but Koh refused to do so.

Samsung made about $3.5 billion from the infringing products, which included the Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Showcase, Fascinate, Vibrant and Mesmerize.

A separate trial will take place in March next year in relation to newer phone models, such as the Galaxy 4 and Note 2, and a counterclaim regarding Apple’s iPhone 5.

In a separate case on Monday, the Federal Circuit ordered a California district judge to reconsider a December 2012 ruling refusing to ban certain Samsung products found to infringe on Apple’s patents relating to mobile devices.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Justin Davidson and Stanley Ng of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss what China’s recent Ultraman ruling does and doesn’t say about who is responsible when an AI system infringes copyright
Former in-house counsel reveal how consultancy work helped them win new business and how they cut through the stigma surrounding the job title
In-house counsel discuss the law firm billing practices that will win them over and the ones that drive them away
If the deal goes through, one group will manage more than 50% of patent filings in Australia and employ more than a quarter of patent attorneys in Australia and New Zealand
Siegmund Gutman, former chair of the life sciences patent group at Proskauer, is among a group of 10 lawyers to join Mintz Levin
A patent dispute between two manufacturing companies has shown that teething problems with the UPC’s case management system have not abated
Lawyers weigh in on the USPTO’s request for comment on the effects of AI on prior art analysis and obviousness determinations
A vast majority of corporates – especially smaller businesses – rely on a trusted referral when instructing external counsel, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Gift this article