Jury finds Samsung owes Apple another $290 million

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article