The jury's verdict came in at 2:30 p.m. local time Friday. Judge Lucy H. Koh
had the verdict form consisting of 33 multi-part questions read into the
record at about 4 p.m. local time. Both sides then reviewed the
verdict for any possible errors.
Jurors had to answer each charge
of infringement for each accused device. In the case of accusations
against Samsung, charges were brought against both the parent company in
Korea and two U.S. subsidiaries.
In the majority of cases, the
jury found most of the alleged Samsung phones violated Apple's two
design and three utility patents. They also found in most cases
inducement to infringe and willfulness.
The strength of the
jury's decision for Apple and against Samsung could weigh heavily on any
decision to set punitive damages based on the findings of willfulness, a
determination the judge will make later.
After reviewing the complex decision. Judge
Koh found two errors. The jury awarded about $219,000 in damages for
infringement involving the Galaxy Tab LTE even though it found that the
device did not infringe Apple's patents. In addition, it found the
Samsung Intercept handset did not infringe but cited it in inducement, a
Judge Koh pointed out the errors to the
jury and instructed them to continue deliberations to resolve the $2.5 million
question. After a short deliberation, the jury determined neither device infringed and eliminated the associated damages.
The legal confusion speaks to the complexity of the
case covering more than a dozen products, four corporate entities and
ten patents. See excerpts from the jury verdict form here.
That or withhold or increase the costs to them of key display technology. Don't know how their flexible displays will work out or if they hold key patents to those but if they do it's conceivable Apple could soon be the only phone without a lower power/ thinner/ flexible display. That could really hurt. :(
I am surprised by the amount! I wonder what the long term effect of this will be on cellphone and smartphone designs? 33 multi-part questions, that must have been a nightmare for the jury, I hope that they got paid well..
I don't believe the SIII was on trial in this case (it wasn't available when the charges were filed).
This may change with future lawsuits, of course. For now the worst thing for Samsung is that consumers might get the idea that their phones are nothing but ripoffs. Nevermind the fact that the only patents they were found guilty of infringing are trivial UI elements; that's not easily understood by the average consumer. Simply the idea that something is a "copy" automatically conveys the idea of inferiority.
Anyways, I hope the next headline isn't "Enraged Samsung employee starts fire at 32nm fab".