The jury in the landmark Apple -Samsung trial ruled mostly in favor of Apple, including awarding Apple $1,049,343,540 in damages. Samsung, on the other hand, was granted a total of $0 in damages.
Here’s a quick rundown of how the jury came down on both of the companies. Remember, there are plenty of devices at play here — on Samsung’s side alone, there’s the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Exhibit, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Gem, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Replenish, Vibrant, plus every carrier’s version of the Galaxy S II.
- The jury found no infringement by Apple on any of Samsung’s utility patents.
- The jury found that Samsung infringed on patents for ‘381 “bounce back” scrolling functionality on all devices.
- On the ‘915 patent, relating to one finger to scroll, two to pinch and zoom navigation, all but three Samsung devices (Ace, Intercept and Replenish) infringed.
- For Apple’s ‘163 patent (tap to zoom) all Samsung devices except Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant infringed.
The jury then answered a question about inducement, regarding whether Samsung made its U.S. arms infringe: yes for the ‘381 “bounce back” patent on all devices, yes for ‘915 “one finger scrolling” for all devices except Replenish and yes for ‘163 “tap to zoom” for all except Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G.
One of the biggest questions answered by the jury was if Samsung was willful in its infringement, which is where the major damages came into play. The largest damages came from the prepaid Galaxy Prevail (over $57 million).
The jury originally awarded Apple $1,051,855,000 in damages, but Judge Koh sent the jurors back to deliberate over two discrepancies that resulted in Apple being awarded $2.20 million in damages. Apple argued that based on the nuanced language of the jurors’ instructions, both decisions should be allowed to stand. The jurors overturned their previous “yes” answer to question 4 regarding the 915 patent and the Intercept device. The changed ruling for two devices saves Samsung $2.2 million in damages.
The dense trial involved more than a dozen different patents, over 30 allegedly infringing devices and wide-ranging claims on design ownership; both sides argued their cases and defended themselves concurrently, all while enraging federal judge Lucy Koh.
Apple began with a full-fledged assault, hurling numerous trademark claims, design and technical patent claims and more; after judge Koh ordered Apple to pare it down, the company has focused on a few key patents, the simplicity of its design and working to prove a pattern of copying by Samsung. Apple’s total monetary demand was $2.525 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung claimed that Apple’s iPhone and iPad were infringement and demanded $14.40 per device sold.
The decision comes with large-ranging implications, as it sets precedent for future patent law cases and will inevitably bring more lawsuits. Apple is already locked in a legal battle with HTC and could go after others.
The verdict came in shockingly quickly, as the jury was only in deliberation for three days. The jury worked one hour late yesterday and reached a decision at 2:35 PT today. Over 700 individual decisions had to be made by members of the jury, which does not come from particularly technical backgrounds, on their complex worksheets.
It has been expected since the beginning of this trial that both companies would file appeals regardless of the verdict, so it would be shortsighted to assume that this is the end. Both companies are now discussing post-trial motions and arguing over how much time Samsung should be given to prepare.
Here are the statements from both companies.
First, Apple PR head Katie Cotton:
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.
Then, the Samsung PR team:
“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”
Chris Velazco contributed to this story.