What the Apple v Samsung verdict says about US jury trials

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

What the Apple v Samsung verdict says about US jury trials

Following a $1 billion verdict for Apple on Friday, it is clear that brand reputation and the gut instincts of ordinary consumers are crucial to winning patent cases before US juries

Much of the verdict undoubtedly turned on brand reputation and perception, as well as the jury’s collective instinct, said Kevin Boully of Persuasion Strategies. “It’s going to come down to a consensus on their gut feeling about who’s in the right,” said Boully.

But US juries are also very patent friendly, even when it means they might have to pay more for new technology. “Two-thirds of the jury-eligible public believe that patents help competition,” Boully added.

Juries in Silicon Valley are also particularly IP-savvy, said Ronald Beaton of Trial Graphix. “The longer you live in [Silicon] Valley, the more you understand how important it is to protect innovation. It gets into your head.”

In this case, the jury foreman Velvin R Hogan was a 67-year old former engineer who owns a US patent. He was interviewed on Bloomberg television after the verdict.

Apple’s brand reputation as an innovation leader, coupled with possible unconscious bias against foreign companies, meant Samsung was probably doomed from the start. “Bias against foreign companies lurks beneath the surface,” said Boully. “It’s latent but you know it works on their motivations and would motivate them to raise pro-Apple arguments.”

In Korea, a court recently found that Apple and Samsung jointly infringed each other on some of the same technology that was at issue in the US case. Both companies were ordered to pay small amounts of damages.

But in the US, the jury’s verdict has sent a strong message to Apple’s competitors.

“This is a message that American jurors are not going to let flat copying happen, even if it helps their pocketbooks,” said Boully.

Check back with Managing IP for continuing analysis of this case.

You can also visit our dedicated page for additional background on this topic.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article