Apple v. Samsung, part deux: The verdict is in

Apple v. Samsung, part deux: The verdict is in

Summary: Who is going home a winner from the San Jose federal courthouse, and who is just going home? Turns out there is no easy answer.

SHARE:
legaltechgraval

After weeks of deliberation (not to mention years of litigation and a previous trial), the verdict is in for the second round of Apple v. Samsung.

The eight person jury, which lost two people within the first few days of the trial, came back with a verdict late on Friday afternoon at the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California.

Once again, Samsung was found to have infringed upon Apple's mobile technology patents -- but not all of them.

For starters, the jury found that the Samsung Galaxy Nexus did infringe upon Apple's '647 patent (i.e. the "quick links" patent), but none of the Galaxy devices were found to infringe upon the '959 universal search patent.

(A full rundown on the mixed bag of results can be found in the live coverage over on our sister site CNET.)

To recall, the two mobile tech giants met back up again in federal court in San Jose at the beginning of April to commence on a redo of their 2012 trial.

Some of the devices in question (i.e. iPhone 5, Galaxy S3) in this case are different. But most arguments on both sides remain the same, with a few twists.

Not only has Samsung further drummed on that Apple is really just using the Korean tech giant as a scapegoat in its battle against Android's maker, Google, but Cupertino also wants a bigger pay day at the end of all of this by asking for more than $2.191 billion in damages.

Things became even more interesting (if not messy) last week upon closing arguments when it was revealed Google is actually handling some of Samsung's legal fees in this case.

Furthermore, Motorola Mobility, the beleaguered phone maker that Google picked up a few years ago and is selling off in parts to Lenovo this year, also started to figure its way into this web.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington disagreed with a ruling from the Northern District of Illinois over the interpretation of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647, a.k.a. the aforementioned quick links patent.

Apple has accused both Motorola and Samsung of infringing upon this particular patent. The reversal suggested the iPhone maker could actually pursue patent claims that had previously been tossed aside -- an idea that obviously sparked the ire of Judge Lucy Koh, who has been presiding over Apple v. Samsung for the last few years.

To nix some of the confusion that occurred after the last time in August 2012, Koh scheduled a 30-minute recess to take place immediately after the foreman, a former IBM executive, read the verdict to scan for anyinconsistencies (i.e. mathematical mistakes in damages).

Apple attorneys will likely be even more keen to check that verdict form. Although they were hoping for a payday windfall of more than $2 billion, the jury only awarded just over $119.6 million in damages.

In a twist, the jury found that Apple infringed upon one of Samsung's mobile patents, calling for Apple to pay approximately $158,400 in damages of its own.

Topics: Legal, Apple, Mobility, Patents, Samsung

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

77 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Interestingly the same

    It just goes to show there are no real clear answers. This leads the premise that the system itself is flawed.
    rhonin
    • Disagree

      The jury said Samsung, you did something, but 2B? Apple, you're crazy. And you did something, so Samsung here's something for you.

      I may prefer one company's products, but that doesn't mean they are always good guys or even always aggrieved.

      All systems are flawed, so this verdict doesn't prove the flaws of this system any more than any other action does.
      DannyO_0x98
      • It's a Mixed Verdict Just the Same!

        Neither won anything really and both lost. But I think consumers lost the most. Because are ultimately the ones footing the bill for this Thermonuclear War, that was originally aimed at Google Android. But since we already found out from the Oracle vs Google Trial that Google makes no real money off Android directly, Apple couldn't squeeze blood out of a Google turnip. So they went after the fattest pocketed phone maker using Android instead!

        So I agree..... this case neither fixed anything or prove either is more guilty than the other. They are both equally capable of being called "Copyist" and having the other scream back at them for an eternity..... "I know you are, but what am I"! ;-P .......getting worst than two kindergarteners going at each other in grade school feud!!! lol....
        KronJohn
        • Correct

          This is just shakedown racket propped up by the US justice system.
          otaddy
        • No, the San José court lost the most

          It dealt the death blow to its own credibility as an independent arbiter by claiming there was a willful violation of "Slide to unlock" when the principle had been declared painfully obvious extensions of prior invention by courts around the planet.
          hydroxide
          • yup.

            They said the neo wasn't prior art because it wasn't the screen you were sliding on.. but how can the neo not make slide to unlock blindingly obvious when the screen is the only thing left you can swipe on.
            frankieh
      • apple had better be careful.

        Samsung has been forced to go nuts with new patents now.. they are patenting 3 times the number that apple are now.. and thanks to apple and microsoft, it's unlikely that Samsung or anyone else will offer them as standards patients anymore. Only a matter of time before Apple has to add something to iOS to keep up with the others.. hell they have done so lots of times already, like the notification pulldown, they've just been lucky that Google are not as patent trigger happy as Apple.

        still.. 120 million is nothing to samsung.. and apple had to pay a token too.. perhaps they will all give up the courtroom competition and concentrate on innovation.
        frankieh
  • Reasonable verdict.

    It may get a 3x but it might, more importantly, get these clowns to sit down and sign a cross licensing agreement.
    Bruizer
    • Agreed.

      Blatantly stealing the ideas and infringing upon patents does no one but the lawyers any good.
      athynz
      • I know right?

        After all, it's a good thing that neither of them were blatantly copying each other.

        Both Apple and Samsung should take this as a sign that this patent BS isn't doing anyone any good.

        A cross-license agreement is definitely the best call here.
        ForeverCookie
      • Both are doing apparently! :D

        Here's the game called in an elementary schoolyard fight; "You're a Copyist!" the other answers "I know you are, but what am I". "Your a Copyist" and this exchange won't end till both are out of business in a 100yrs!

        So yeah only ones gaining are the lawyers and the runaway legal system we actual tax paying citizens are the real losers!!! .........they need to put both CEO's in a room with boxing gloves on. Let them go at it and knock each other out, like they need to do in some Wars between countries these days. Whichever one doesn't come out bleeding...... wins!
        KronJohn
        • I doubt either really care about the lawsuits that much.

          it's just an expense of business so far for Samsung.. their mobile division is making plenty of cash and is profitable regardless... for apple it's probably a PR thing.. to keep people thinking they are an innovator when they've not done anything innovative since 2010. (assuming you don't consider price fixing book selling to sting customers) IF the lawsuits are a division to apple, that division has made enough profit to be kept running, so I'd be expecting more lawsuits.. sadly.
          frankieh
    • Nah

      What this shows is that Apple no longer has the same influence it did two years ago.

      The settlement is about a fifth of what they were originally awarded and honestly, the original Galaxy S made a fortune by resembling the iPhone 3G(s).

      Truth is, it now encourages somebody else to do the same thing as the rewards are greater than the risks.

      Do you still doubt that Apple is following the same course it was on 20 years ago?
      slickjim
      • Resemble?

        The Samsung Galaxy S does not even remotely resemble the iPhone 3G and the Galaxy is in fact a FAR better looking phone. iPhones are probably the blandest phones available on the market.
        traxxion
  • Apple lost.

    Good. These Apple lawsuits are about limiting competition. PERIOD. Consumers won this round.
    SunFire23
    • Did you misread this?

      Apple won. Samsung was found guilty of infringing upon 2 of Apple's patents in this particular trial. The first one Samsung was also found guilty and was ordered to pay over 1 billion dollars to Apple.

      "Once again, Samsung was found to have infringed upon Apple's mobile technology patents -- but not all of them."
      athynz
      • 5%

        They got something like 5% of what they were seeking..... I wouldn't call that a victory.
        SovereignTechnology
      • Did you read?

        The jurors found both Apple and Sammy infringed on each other. Sammy was ordered to pay about $100 million, just about what it acknowledged it owed Apple, not $2 billion. The first lawsuit took place few miles diwn from Apple HQ
        jeansblues
        • Umm

          It was the same Korean judge this time around... Doesn't matter where it too place.
          slickjim
          • Judge Lucy Koh is a U.S. citizen, by birth

            It would be correct to state that Judge Koh is of Korean descent and is, therefore, Korean-American.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_H._Koh
            Rabid Howler Monkey