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.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.