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:
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".
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.
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?
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.
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.