Design Article
Samsung's damage payments to Apple slashed
Dylan McGrath
3/1/2013 6:51 PM EST
SAN FRANCISCO—A U.S. federal judge Friday (March 1) cut the $1.05 billion award Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. had been ordered to pay Apple Inc. by more than 40 percent.
According to a report by the Reuters news service, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California in San Jose set a new trial date to determine damages. According to a report by Investor's Business Daily, Koh's ruling reduced the damages to around $599 million.
Koh also denied a request by Apple to increase the damage award. "Because the court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, the court hereby orders a new trial on damages," Koh wrote in a 27-page opinion.
Koh did not set a new trial date, but encouraged Apple and Samsung to appeal the decision before a new date is set.
In a high-profile trial between the longtime collaborators in San Jose last year, Apple scored a significant legal victory when the jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $1.05 billion plus a verdict of willful infringement on many counts. Apple had been seeking as much as $2.71 billion in damages.
The nine-person jury found that many Samsung phones violated most of Apple's two design and three utility patents. However, the jury found that Samsung's tablets do not infringe Apple's iPad design patent.
Related stories:
According to a report by the Reuters news service, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California in San Jose set a new trial date to determine damages. According to a report by Investor's Business Daily, Koh's ruling reduced the damages to around $599 million.
Koh also denied a request by Apple to increase the damage award. "Because the court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, the court hereby orders a new trial on damages," Koh wrote in a 27-page opinion. Koh did not set a new trial date, but encouraged Apple and Samsung to appeal the decision before a new date is set.
In a high-profile trial between the longtime collaborators in San Jose last year, Apple scored a significant legal victory when the jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $1.05 billion plus a verdict of willful infringement on many counts. Apple had been seeking as much as $2.71 billion in damages.
The nine-person jury found that many Samsung phones violated most of Apple's two design and three utility patents. However, the jury found that Samsung's tablets do not infringe Apple's iPad design patent.
Related stories:
- After Apple win, Droids should feel afraid
- Apple awarded $1.05 billion in Samsung case
- Apple, Samsung fire salvos as case closes
- Slideshow: The jury's job in Apple vs. Samsung
- Apple vs. Samsung jury hears 84 instructions
- Patent system on trial in Apple, Samsung case
- Apple claims Samsung views patent disclosures as 'stupid'
- Judge scolds Apple, Samsung as decision nears
- Bonbons and bombshells from the latest testimony
- The hits keep coming at Apple vs. Samsung
- Inside Samsung: It's a hard place to work
- EE Says Apple design patents not valid
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
daleste
3/1/2013 11:13 PM EST
Wow, a lose of 451 million dollars. That seems like a lot of money. Maybe I'm just not as rich as Samsung and Apple.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
3/1/2013 11:44 PM EST
Wow, a whole new trial on damages is a possibility? An impermissible legal theory found this late in the game? Man, this is going to be one for the books.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
3/2/2013 9:19 AM EST
Why did it take so many months for the presiding judge to identify an "impermissible legal theory" on which the damages were based?
Rick is right, this is really one for the books.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
3/2/2013 4:39 PM EST
What a circus. The minute it was reported that the jury were instructed NOT to consider prior art, if this related to products only sold outside the US, my conclusion was that the trial was tainted. The whole absurd affair should be thrown out. Such a waste of money only the legal profession could love.
Sign in to Reply
Robotics Developer
3/2/2013 5:42 PM EST
When there is that much money, impact, legal precedent and media attention it can't help but be an interesting trial/outcome.. I wonder what the impact on Samsung's products will be, does anyone know what this will result in?
Sign in to Reply
mrmichael
3/3/2013 10:04 AM EST
The article says the fine is $599 billion; if that's true, that's 600 times more!
Sign in to Reply
peter.clarke
3/4/2013 6:45 AM EST
@MrMichael
Thanks for pointing out the error.
I have made the correction in copy.
Sign in to Reply
selinz
3/4/2013 12:53 PM EST
Apparently the jury didn't miscalculate.
"Because the court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury..."
So the amount of the damages could reasonably go up as well as go down. They fact that she lowered the amount seems not relevant if a new jury is simply going to recalculate.
Sign in to Reply
MarcoPolo13
3/4/2013 3:52 PM EST
The legal analysis I read shortly after the close pointed out that the jury had deferred in a large part to one of their members who was in the process of defending his own patents. This fellow said several things about the deliberation to the media only days after the trial all of which violated the judges instructions. One of those rules was for the jury not to seek punitive damages. He said "Samsung should be punished for their infringements".
Sign in to Reply
daleste
3/4/2013 9:14 PM EST
Interesting. Sabotaged by a juror that wishes for a similar outcome for his own case.
Sign in to Reply
Neo1
3/5/2013 2:15 AM EST
The numbers aside this is a fighters take all market for the lawyers employed from both sides. Let their tribe flourish..
Sign in to Reply