SAN JOSE, Calif. — Jurors here awarded Apple a fraction of the patent infringement damages it sought from Samsung, failing to hurt the Korean company or slow down the Android juggernaut, analysts said.
The verdict in the second Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case here gives both sides reason to claim victory publicly and feel defeat privately.
Apple can claim it won by far the most damages ($119.6 million) and proved the most instances of infringement. However, it reaped little more than 5% of the $2.191 billion in the damages it sought -- far less than the $1.05 billion awarded in its first case here 18 months ago -- and the jury found no infringement on two of its five patents in the case.
Samsung was awarded damages for Apple infringing on one of its patents, but it got an even smaller fraction ($158,400) of the total ($6 million) it sought, and a fraction of the amount awarded to Apple. It was the first decision in the two cases of Apple infringing on a Samsung patent.
A few shoes have yet to fall in the case. Judge Lucy H. Koh will be asked to grant an injunction against Samsung selling infringing mobile devices in the US. That's not widely expected, and in any case, Samsung's latest models (such as the Galaxy S5) were not at issue in the trial.
Jurors found Samsung guilty of willful infringement on the '721 patent, on which it awarded just $750,648 in damages. The decision gives Judge Koh the option of increasing those damages up to threefold.
On Monday, jurors will be dismissed and will get an opportunity to talk publicly about their thinking behind the verdict. It's anyone's guess what the four men and four women on the jury will do.
Before they are let go, they will be asked why they assessed no damages for one Samsung smartphone they decided had infringed -- an apparent mistake caught by Apple's attorneys.
The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing on three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing on one of its patents. The full verdict form is below.
@Magnus Thordarson: that's so true. I think Samsung $800/hr lawyers basically said Apple's patent applies to only physical keyboard and offered no other convincing defense. Judge Koh didn't buy that and granted a summary judgement on that.
As for the quicklink claim construction that extended the trial by one day, Judge Koh really leaned on Apple's claim construction and that prevented what Samsung's lawyers were allowed to present to the jury.
Hopefully all these issues can be addressed in the court of appeals for the federal cirtcuit with more experienced, less partial judges.
GSMD wrote: Maybe if you you retired your judges at 65, you may get a more forward thinking court. I frankly have no clue as to how your situation came about.
USA Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President of the USA and confirmed by the Senate. To see how our situation came about, simply look at who was president when each justice was selected. Presidents come and go, but Supreme Court justices can implement a president's policies for decades after.
Regarding age, the USA has seen many justices become more liberal the longer they've served. I suspect that it's because decisions that seemed simple when they got started became more complex as they heard more cases and saw that the whole truth is rarely compatible with rigid thinking.
A mate of mine was using slide to unlock on our Applicon GDS II physical layout system back in 1981.
For those of you too young to remember, the Applicon layout system used a stylus and a pad for entering commands. The character recognition sofware was rather primitive so most commands where relatively simple strokes. Users would define their own mapping of strokes to commands. The most common ones where diagonal strokes for selecting vertices (top right to bottom left), the reverse for deselecting. Vertical down stroke for move. Horizontal left to right for copy etc etc. And in the case of my mate a horizontal right to left stroke to unlock a locked workstation (if his set of commands was still loaded).
The Applicon system was a considerably in advance in terms of productivity in skille hands compared to many systems which followed it.
There was a time when I held the US constitution and the US supreme court in the highest regard. The federalist paper was one of my favorite things to read back in high school. But after the gulf war, the US Supreme court seems to have take a turn for the worse. The balance has disapperead. I still like your constitution, just do not agree with the regressive interpretation of it.
The judicial process in the US is smoother and and takes less time. But the judgements of late leave a lot to be desired. After all you are losing your fundamental rights by the day while we are gaining more by the day !
We just waived the death penalty for the people who assasinated our former Prime Minister. They may even be released since life imprisonment is only 25 years with good behaviour. The reason given by the court was that 10+ years on the death row is cruel and unusual punishment and the rights of the convicts were violated. You can look at similar cases in the US and judge for yourself.
We also got a whole lot of our western mountains designated as a protected area by the court. I could go on and on.
You tell me which court is more forward looking and in tune with the 21st century.
Wrt the patent law, this means the court is intellectually able to balance the interests of all parties and arrive at a reasonable judgement. It is not held hostage solely to the principles of commercial law. So yes with respect to patent and IP law our system is much better.
Maybe if you you retired your judges at 65, you may get a more forward thinking court. I frankly have no clue as to how your situation came about. I am dismayed that a standard bearer of judicial thought should deteriorate to these levels.
You seem to be misreading my comments. IP protection in India is excellent and it is very cheap to file a ptent , defend and win an injunction. It just costs USD500 to file patent. And judgement is quick since you have dedicated patent courts. So unlike the US, the small invendor has it good here. And it is far easier to get a patent injuction in India.
So please do not confuse lack of IP protection with SW patenting issues which is an entirely different matter.
But you seem to have some philosophical affinity towards SW patents which most of the world does not recognize (as a matter of fact the US law does not allow it either, it is just the subordinate judiciary that messed it up in this area). By your position, you should not outsource to NZ or a lot of European countries for that matter !
But yes, if you outsource to India, your SW alogorithm is not protected since SW is not patentable. But we do have very strong copyright laws so your code is protected. There are also specific provsions for IC mask layouts to ensure IP protection for the IC industry.
I hope you understand the distinction I making here. In fact as per the Indian IT act, some of these copyrigt infrigements attract criminal provsions. I have had a couple of friends who nearly got arrested becuase their company accused them of stealing an open source GPL'ed driver for an TI Omap. They had to avoid arrest by filing anticipatory bail and prove in court that the code was open source and not copyrighted to the company. Notices were also issues to TI and Intel in this case. So before you cast aspersions on a properly thought out SW IP protection regime, please do spend time in comprehending the issues.
I wonder how much Apple paid to settle its anti-trust violation, see New York time commentary:
"If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail? That's the provocative question being debated in antitrust circles in the wake of revelations that Mr. Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, who is deeply revered in Silicon Valley, was the driving force in a conspiracy to prevent competitors from poaching employees... Mr. Jobs "was a walking antitrust violation," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and an expert in antitrust law. "I'm simply astounded by the risks he seemed willing to take." -- New York Times: Steve Jobs Defied Convention, and Perhaps the Law.
Yes, it is all in strategy...there is an interesting view that Samsung should had been shut down years ago for illegal patent practices:
"According to various court records and people who have worked with Samsung, ignoring competitors' patents is not uncommon for the Korean company. And once it's caught it launches into the same sort of tactics used in the Apple case: countersue, delay, lose, delay, appeal, and then, when defeat is approaching, settle. "They never met a patent they didn't think they might like to use, no matter who it belongs to," says Sam Baxter, a patent lawyer who once handled a case for Samsung. "I represented [the Swedish telecommunications company] Ericsson, and they couldn't lie if their lives depended on it, and I represented Samsung and they couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it." -- Vanity Fair:The Great Smartphone War."
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.