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

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

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article