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.
@fmotta one of my friends decided to stop being an excellent engineer for a living
About 30 years ago I worked with a young guy new-hire who admitted the only reason he got an engineering degree was so that he could then take law and get rich suing large corporations over engineering patents.
After 6 months of producing absolutely nothing he got canned - no loss. But he probably made a 'fine' lawyer.
I'm not at all surprised that the slide-to-unlock feature has been used before. What astounds me is that it is patentable - it seems farily obvious. The real innovation I see in "slide-to-unlock" is it's use as an economic weapon.
With all these suits going on for mega billion dollars one of my friends decided to stop being an excellent engineer for a living and reap the rewards of others greed and stupidity and now works in a well placed firm making money from the greed of the patent suit train. He called this the "dotCom" of this century. There are times I feel I should have gone that way and just argue others' opinion for a living rather than be productive.
@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.
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.
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.