Judge rejects damages appeal, Samsung didn't 'wilfully' infringe Apple patents

Judge rejects damages appeal, Samsung didn't 'wilfully' infringe Apple patents

Summary: A US judge has ruled that Samsung did not "wilfully" infringe on Apple-owned patents, turning the iPad maker's bid for extra damages in to dust.

SHARE:
legal-justice apple samsung appeal damages patent dispute

In a post-trial ruling, a US judge has ruled that Apple's damage claim of $1.05 billion stands as Samsung did not "wilfully" infringe on the tech giant's patents.

It might have taken a while, but we're there. The post-trial ruling is complete, and in the high profile case of Apple v. Samsung, Californian Judge Lucy Koh has foiled Apple's attempt to squeeze more than $1.05 billion out of the rival smartphone and tablet maker.

Awarded last year after a legal battle spanning across country and courtrooms worldwide, both sides took issue with the decision--Apple clawed for more damages, and Samsung argued that the jury was unfair and that some of the patents originally awarded to the Cupertino, California-based company were inappropriate in the first place.

All in all, Apple wanted an additional $500 million, whereas Samsung appealed in an attempt to take millions off the bill.

This week's ruling, which pulls the rug out from under the feet of Apple's arguments for more than $1.05 billion, has overruled the jury's decision in August that Samsung happily copied Apple's designs and used their patents "wilfully". The original ruling gave the iPad and iPhone maker leverage to argue for more money, and could have resulted in a damages claim of over $3 billion, according to the 32-page filing.

Judge Lucy Koh wrote that there was not "sufficiently strong" evidence that Samsung had caused Apple harm through anti-competitive behavior, and that the jury's calculation of damages cost was reasonable. If Apple wanted to claim more in financial restitution, the tech giant would have to prove "by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent," rather than simply relying on singular case studies. Due to this, Koh accepted Samsung's defence that the patent infringement took place because the South Korean firm did not believe the patents were valid in the first place.

Despite the ruling that Samsung did not "wilfully" infringe on Apple patents, it is still maintained that the firm infringed on Apple's inventions. The Californian judge has also denied both parties a new trial.

Apple and Samsung are not only fighting each other in courtrooms across the globe, but are going toe-to-toe in order to try and rake in more market share in an expanding mobile device industry. Recently, Samsung became the world's largest spender on semiconductors--including processors and memory--used in mobile devices, and is estimated to have spent almost $24 billion on chips in 2012. Together, Apple and Samsung have spent $45.3 billion.

Topics: Apple, Samsung, Smartphones, Tablets

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

Talkback

39 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It is pure coincidence, indeed

    Apple: Think different.

    Samsung: Same sh*t!
    DDERSSS
    • Though, seriously, at least judge did not lower $1.05 fine and denied ...

      ... Samsung's request for new trial.
      DDERSSS
      • The appeal's still running

        It was only apple's excessive claims for increased damages that have been scuppered. Samsung is still appealing the decision and as it stands, the relevant patents are still being reviewed. Some have even been put up for cancellation.

        So samsung didn't get a new trial, it was stretch. What they do have is a perfect opportunity to have the damages reduced and patents wiped out for ever. Any comment DRESS? I see you've carefully sidestepped the fact that the appeal is ongoing and the damages are more than likely to reduce.
        Little Old Man
        • Little

          So exactly how little are you? Because you do appear to have a certain syndrome.
          observer1959
          • Really small

            Borrower size if you want specifics, child borrower not adult.
            Little Old Man
        • Samsung requests were considered and denied, too

          The subject.
          DDERSSS
    • Is it pure coincidence that now that Apple has lost so much market value

      that they now feel they need even more money from Samsung?
      William Farrel
      • What?

        That was filed before the recent, temporary, downtrend. Pay attention.
        comp_indiana
        • Just go with it, have some fun

          life's too short.
          William Farrel
    • Uh, not just a coincidence at all

      The judge said Samsung acted as it did because it believed the patents weren't valid - i.e. rectangles with rounded corners, etc.
      dencarlson
      • Wrong

        Guess again. And there was a lot more to this than the dimensions (which were also copied). Anything to make it look like an iPad or iPhone, that's the SamDroid motto...
        comp_indiana
        • But you don't matter

          because you're not the judge or anything to do with the case.
          So thanks for the differing opinion but no one cares.
          Little Old Man
    • Copying

      Nobody DARES copy such INNOVATION as rounded corners and gets away with it!
      HackerJ
    • Re: It is pure coincidence, indeed

      Compare the Iphone to the LG Prada. "Coincidence"?
      ldo17
      • iPhone was designed before Prada, and there are distinct features

        ...
        DDERSSS
        • Rounded Corners

          Etch-A-Sketch also had rounded corners and a screen. I guess that they also copied Apple, 30 years before Apple was founded.
          YetAnotherBob
  • Can't resist

    So, this is a call to danbi, dress and the rest; what were you saying about damages sure to be increased? This must be a real disappointment to you, the fact you were totally and utterly wrong. Now, let's see how much gets knocked off after they've invalidated some of the patents involved.
    Little Old Man
    • No, they didn't say that

      Can't you read?
      comp_indiana
      • Late to the party

        much? Do some research, check out the articles at the time of the verdict and not long after.

        Oh yes they did say that, loudly and proudly. It's the reason they're not commenting on this now. It's not that they got it wrong, it happens, it's that they said without any doubt, without even considering that the judge might think differently to them, that the damages would be increased.

        So again, thanks for the comments but on this, you know nothing.
        Little Old Man
        • Re: the reason not commenting

          By the way, Little Old Man, some of us use their spare time for different things. We come here only when we are too bored, because you die-hard fans provide so much entertainment. :)

          I have no memory of saying damages will increase. Although I do not hide my opinion, that Samsung is an copycat. Not only in the area of mobile tech. So in this regard, you can have me on record: if they are fined more, they do deserve it!

          Of course, as you told the other poster, everyone else except you knows nothing. Cheers :)
          danbi