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.
>> Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent on presenting photos and videos.
That is very unfortunatel that Apple copies others and yet have the boldness to be making this noise. This has nothing to do with infringement. They want Samsung out so they can sell iPhone for $2,000 per unit
>> The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing one of its patents.
It is the same parity you see in the banking industry where European banks are hit more than U.S. banks on these penalties by U.S. regulators. What is $158k for Apple? I know the jurors knew Samsung is not American.
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."
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.
>> "If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail?
That was sensational journalism. Apple is a corp and not Steve Jobs. The highest penalty is fine Apple. There is no point of Jobs going to jail as Apple is not a one man business. That is why people incorporate!
I'm too lazy to check out the other patents, but certainly Apple didn't invent autocorrection? I don't understand how these apparent oversights continue to be allowed in these Apple v Samsung lawsuits.
>Haven't the jurors been using word processors for the past decades?
Even if any particular juror knows for a fact that this feature was invented by someone other than the parties to the lawsuit, they cannot find the patent invalid if evidence in that regard has not been presented in court during the trial. So when there is an 'oversight' of this sort, it is really the lawyers' fault. I thought the Samsung laywers did not bring convincing evidence in their own defense on this one and was therefore not surprised by the outcome.
One can argue similarly as you do about what Apple calls quick-links and wonder when Apple invented embedded links. Similarly on that one, Samsung did not present that angle in their defense and were not convincing.
I covered parts of the trial for EETimes and I can only say the attorneys' lack of understanding of the technology boggled the mind.
@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.
>> Ventura was so good word processing software, many of current Microsoft MS Words lags behind in many features and ease of using it
That is actually true except that Ventura lagged behind in the metric that matter - finding how to get people to buy the software. As I have noted in the past, it is not just technology that wins. You need to have a business development strategy. Microsoft was excellent in that than other competitors.
>> Haven't the jurors been using word processors for the past decades?
Jurors are expected to be "experts" to understand things they have no expertise in. I think all comes down to the theatritical performances of attorneys. Both Samsung and Apple invented "nothing". The people that invented things have all died and most died poor with nothing. They include Pythogaras, Euclid etc. None patented their models
Great thank you for enlightening us that intellectual property protection in India is at many times no better than in China and appears at the whim of the state. now I know not to outsource software development there or anything where IP protection is important.
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'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.
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.
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.
@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.
Considering that the jury was from the heart of America's Silicon Valley, I must say I was surprised the jury didn't consider it their patriotic duty to severely punish Korean Samsung. The chances are most of them owned Android phones. I guess the Samsung lawyers learned from the previous trial not to select hard core Silicon Valley employees, one of whom who turned out to be jury foreman at the last trial.
It never ceases to amaze me how blind justice actually is. We technical people can readily see the blind lawyers leading the blind judges in interpreting what these blind people actually believe is "expert testimony", usually coming from an ivory tower acedemic who has published the most papers. Non-PhDs need not apply.
I did not expect this case to end this way, expected jury to be hard on the side of Samsung. But after reading this article I think the jury was fair. But generally those who have achieved and gained a lot in this case are the lawyers from both sides; this is why I am suggesting that these patent cases should be handled by engineer lawyers since they will understand them in the engineering perspective.
@anan.yaligar: this jury actually did an amazing job especially considering that while judge Koh allowed Apple's lawyer to portraty the USPTO as an invincible institution to the jury, she forbade Samsung's lawyers from telling the jury that the USPTO screwed up and had to invalidate some of Apple's patents which caused Apple to withdraw from the trial right before it began.
Or that Samsung's lawyers were prevented from explaining why Apple's patents royalties were unreasonable and that, in another on-going case involving Motorola, Apple is asking only $0.60 for the same exact datalink patent vs Apple's average asking price $8/patent in this particular case.
>> this is why I am suggesting that these patent cases should be handled by engineer lawyers since they will understand them in the engineering perspective.
I can assure you that most of the lawyers or those in their team have backgrounds relevant to the technologies being disputed. Law in America is a second calling. Most times, IP attorneys have technical first degrees and then they go to Law School.
>> ! Thankfully the Indian system has multiple safeguards (in theory) to avoid this problem.
You need to consider that some of the revolutionary ideas on earth had been rejected by peer review. The constructs of juror is that if you cannot make your case against a novice, you have no chance before pros. That means, let your argument be so simple that any sane person may make sense of it.
>> Last year a patent was forefully filed with my name on it! No amou t of protest would prevent my univ. from filing it.
I can loan you my name, please. I want patents because that is money. I have no interest in creating technologies if they will not make my life and those of my family members better through wealth creation,