New trial for Apple v. Samsung possible as judge slashes damages

New trial for Apple v. Samsung possible as judge slashes damages

Summary: A new trial in the case of Apple v. Samsung is back on the table as the presiding judge slashes Apple's award winnings by nearly half.


Apple v. Samsung is far from over following two major developments in a federal courthouse on Friday.

For starters, Judge Lucy Koh reduced Apple's $1.05 billion award winnings handed down by the jury last August by approximately $450.5 million.

See also on CNET:
Apple vs. Samsung: Judge orders new trial on some damages
New Apple-Samsung: List of products left in, out of damages award

That's tied to the second piece of news coming out of the U.S. District Court in San Jose, which is that Koh reportedly ordered that Samsung should get a new trial on infringement claims for several smartphones -- specifically the Galaxy Prevail.

Here's more from Bloomberg:

Apple is entitled to additional damages for sales of infringing products that weren’t considered by the jury, Koh ruled, saying she intends to calculate the amount beginning on Aug. 25, the day after the jury reached its verdict. As the case has been appealed, Koh said she would delay considering evidence of actual post-verdict sales and pre-judgment interest until the appeals are completed.

Speaking of appeals, Koh also stipulated to both parties that they'll have to try the appeals court process first before getting a new trial.

Nevertheless, Foss Patents' Florian Mueller explained in a blog post as to why a new trial would be necessary:

The $450 million amount corresponds to 14 Samsung products, with respect to which a new damages trial must be held because the court cannot make the adjustments it deems necessary for legal reasons: the jury set only one damages figure per product, but half a dozen different intellectual property rights were found infringed, resulting in a lack of clarity as to what portion of a per-product damages figure is attributable to a given intellectual property right.

The legal war between Apple and Samsung (among other Google Android ecosystem partners) crosses multiple borders and courtrooms worldwide.

But the U.S. case that went to trial last summer has arguably been the largest in a multitude of ways (i.e. patent claims, alleged damages, most followed in the media, etc.).

To recall, the trial concluded on August 24 when the jury came back faster than expected after just under three days of deliberation with a verdict hugely in favor of Apple.

However, that short time frame coupled with the fact that none of the jurors issued questions to the court during the deliberation process (which constrasted sharply with the plethora of questions from the Oracle v. Google jury previously) had many wondering if the jury gave the verdict proceedings enough thought.

UPDATE: Here's a copy of the ruling:

Apple v. Samsung Damages by CNET News

Topics: Legal, Apple, Patents, Samsung, Smartphones

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Kudos Samsung

    Wow, all those apple fanboys who were throwing around that $1 billion number sure do look like fools today.
    • Chuckle

      Then again, that could be the tally for the legal represntatives......
      • Where have you been lately, Rhonin?

        Enjoy the moment.

        Then again, Samsung just hired the U.K judge (that presided over another high profile Apple - Samsung trial) to act as an "expert advisor" in future Apple-Samsung litigation. Perhaps Judge Koh might find herself on Samsung's payroll in the near future as well. Or maybe not. It's not uncommon for jury settlement awards to be adjusted during the appeal process.

        That still does not alter the fact that Samsung was found guilty by a jury instead of innocent by a "judge" which accepted a Samsung "job" soon after his verdict was rendered.
        • What are you implying?

          "by a "judge" which accepted a Samsung "job" soon after his verdict was rendered."

          What does that have to do with anything? What are you implying?
          • Oh, I was just having some fun. Just like you were, Todd. Grin.

            But I will say this on the record. It is my opinion (and it will always be my opinion) that a verdict rendered by a jury has a better chance are being a fair and just verdict than a verdict arrived by a single person. Wouldn't you agree to that premise?
          • I wouldn't agree

            "a verdict rendered by a jury has a better chance are being a fair and just verdict than a verdict arrived by a single person"

            No, because you aren't comparing 12 people to 1 person, you are comparing 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty to 1 person who has at minimum a college education.

            100 people with 90 IQs would never come up with anything like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Neither would 1,000 or 1,000,000. It doesn't work that way.

            Do I believe that the average judge is more intelligent than the average juror? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe that jury trials are about removing important facts so that stupid people will side with you? Yes. Stupid people will rule for the side that was able to present the most simple argument. This will often NOT be the most accurate argument.

            After seeing my peers on this earth, the LAST thing I would ever want is a trial by my peers, especially a group of my peers too stupid to get out of jury duty.
          • An honest answer. But it's based upon your perception of the world

            which is an observation that I do not share at the moment.

            As for me, I would always choose a jury trial. I would hire the best lawyers to represent me or my interests (if possible) and take my chances with a jury that was agreed upon in pre-trial selection. A selection process, by the way, that is designed to root out the inadequacies that you described.

            You see, I prefer that a Judge remain just a judge rather than act as "Judge, Jury and Executioner". I'll take my chances with highly educated, experienced and degreed lawyers that will present my case in the best possible manner to not just one person with that single person's built in biases but to (in this case) twelve persons. If twelve persons with all their individual biases can arrive a a single verdict than I will take my chances with that outcome rather than the verdict of any singular "Saintly - highly educated - Super Guy" who just happens to wear a robe.
          • Just happens to wear a robe?

            That's like saying that you refuse to accept legal advice from someone who happens to have a law degree.

            "I'll take my chances with highly educated, experienced and degreed lawyers that will present my case in the best possible manner"

            So here's the thing: the best possible manner to present a case to a jury is NOT to present the facts and let the jury decide. The best way to present a case to stupid people is to ignore all the facts that would be too difficult for them to understand and instead rely on simplistic arguments that only stupid people would fall for. The verdict is not based on all the facts. The side that wins is the side that happens to have facts that can most easily be spun so they can be understood by stupid people.

            In other words, jury trials are rigged to favor the side that has the simplest facts, NOT the best facts. If your side has 5 simple facts and 95 complicated facts that support your case but the other side has 10 simple facts and no complicated facts, the 10 simple facts side will win, even though they clearly have fewer facts backing their arguments.

            In the end though, it is a good thing that an intelligent judge has looked at what the jury concluded and said "you guys are all idiots". Expect things to get even worse for apple as this continues. So far, only the judges have ruled correctly. The only case that was a travesty from beginning to the present was the jury case in the US. Let's hope that the end of this case sees some sanity and that apple loses everything.
          • re: only the judges ruled correctly

            It is usually easier to bribe one person, than twelve. Not because of he amount, but because the chance one corrupt individual will talk are negligible, compared to twelve random, never bribed to the moment individuals.

            Think about this toddy and not let your hatred for Apple make you look like fool "who cannot get out of juri duty". Good luck.

            By the way, yes, I am saying most judges are corrupt, one way or another.
          • If most judges are corrupt...

            Why not just settle it properly outside the court with reasonable conditions/agreement like what some companies are doing? Why sue company left and right and try to ban their products?

            Maybe any individual or corporation or any organization with big pile of money can leverage on corrupt judges and have a favourable decision?
          • Very serious accusation

            The suggestion that the UK judge is corrupt is an extremely serious accusation that you have not provided any evidence for.

            Acting as an expert witness may (to the ignorant) have the appearance of being paid to represent a company, but that is not how it works from a legal standpoint or an ethical standpoint.

            Whereas it is conceivable that a consultant of limited means and expectations could derive some modest income from being an expert witness (such as Florian Mueller), it can only be viewed as an enormous inconvenience for someone of that stature of a Lord Justice.

            Being an expert witness has legal limitations. The witness does not advocate for any cause. He or she answers questions from both sides based on their expertise in the subject matter. Nothing more or less.

            Perhaps in the US legal system it is more likely for judges to be corrupt - I cannot say. You seem to elect a lot more people in the justice system than other jursidictions do, which might actually exacerbate the problem (district attorneys). There are very few cases in the first world where there are any indications of corruption of the judges themselves.
          • "Too stupid to get out of jury duty"???

            There are so many things wrong with this statement...

            Who do you believe IS qualified to judge you, Toddy? You clearly believe yourself to be above a mere jury.
          • Judge Toddy?

            It would have to be twelve guys wearing jeans and black mock-turtlenecks! LOL!
          • your peers

            The Microsoft die hards? ;)
          • This argument sounds like something I've read before!

            "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something."

            "Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?"
          • Democracy

            Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
          • Except that...

            ...there's not a country on the planet where wolves outnumber sheep.
            John L. Ries
          • I think you have that backwards...

            There's not a country on the planet where the sheep outnumber the wolves.

            The problem is more that the wolves have convinced the sheep that they are wolves and so are playing on a "level" playing field.
          • They don't have to outnumber them in a country...

            ...just at the supper table.
          • Who decides? The one who follows the "Golden Rule". Grin.

            Of course, he that has the gold makes the rules.

            But getting back to your argument's constructs, what would YOU wish for - A million person consensus to decide your fate or a single person chosen from random. If you don't like random chance than how about your fate determined by single person who was NOT chosen from random nor elected by those same million persons. But a person who assumed autocratic power thru supreme self motivated interests. (Or, in other words, by the Golden Rule)

            My old HS civics teacher once impressed upon our class that the fairest and most efficient form of government was a government administered by a benevolent dictator. (Can't fault that hypothesis - even after all these years)

            However, not too many benevolent dictators have been around during my lifetime. So, I submit mankind has determined that the democratic assumption regarding wisdom it true far more often than not.