The verdict is in: Samsung vs. Apple

The verdict is in: Samsung vs. Apple

Summary: After 3 weeks of testimony and 3 days of deliberation, the jury in the Samsung vs. Apple patent trial has reached a verdict. And the winner is...



In one of the most anticipated patent trials in recent memory, Samsung and Apple have been facing off against each other in a San Jose courtroom for weeks. Possible damages of up to $2.5 billion and a halt on sales of several popular models of Samsung devices were at stake. Now it's all over. The result?

Apple won, big time.

Court officials announced the jury reached a verdict at 2:35pm Pacific time. Lawyers from both sides were called in, as well as a mob of reporters. Tensions were high as the complex verdict was read:

Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung: A battle over billions

Re: Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co LT, Samsung America Inc, Samsung Telecomm LLC. (A "Yes" means the jury found infringement, and a "No" means they didn't.)

Utility patents infringed?

For claim 19 of the '381 patent (bounce-back or rubberbanding): Answer for all is Yes. This includes the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Captivate, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Prevail, S4G, SII, Tab, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Vibrant.

For claim 8 of '915 patent (distinguishing between one-finger scroll and two-finger zoom): Yes on all except Intercept and Replenish.

For claim 50 of '163 patent (double-tap to zoom): Kind of a mixed bag: Yes for many and No for many.

Design patents infringed?

For design patent D'677 (rounded rectangle,  edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel, horizontal speaker for phone): Yes for all but Galaxy Ace.

For design patent D'087 (home button, rounded corners, front edge border for phone): Yes for S i9000, S 4G, and Vibrant. No for everything else.

For design patent D'305 (grid icon layout, icon dock at bottom): Yes for all.

For design patent D'889 (rounded rectangle, edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel for tablet): No for all.

For the infringed patents, did Samsung willfully and knowingly infringe?

Yes for all except D'087.

Proven invalid?

Not a single one was proven invalid.

Trade dress is protectable and "famous"?

Registered iPhone Trade Dress: Yes
Unregistered iPhone 3 Trade Dress: Yes
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress: No
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress: No

Trade dress has been "diluted"?

Registered iPhone Trade Dress: Yes to some, but mostly No
Unregistered iPhone 3 Trade Dress: Yes to some, but mostly No
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress: No
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress: No

Damages to Apple from Samsung:

$1.05 billion in total damages.

Samsung was also suing Apple for patent infringement. They didn't fare as well.

Samsung utility patents infringed:

NO on all counts. However the jury did not rule that any of these patents were invalid.

Damages to Samsung from Apple:

$0. Ouch.

There were several questions about the UMTS standard and Samsung's use of patents in it. Essentially the jury ruled completely in Apple's favor on this issue.

Did Samsung fail to license "essential" patents on FRAND terms?


Has Apple broken Sherman anti-trust by UMTS?


Did Samsung monopolize markets related to UMTS?

No (corrected)

Is Samsung bared from enforcing the following patents against Apple?

(because Apple uses Intel chips and Intel already paid Samsng for the license)

'516 patent (limiting power to reduce interference): Yes

'941 patent (packet transmission): Yes

Samsung reacts:

Samsung issued a statement after the verdict:

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.

Apple reacts:

Apple, naturally, is happy with the results. Here's their statement:

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 trial 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.


The jury has handed Samsung a near complete and utter defeat. It's hard to imagine a better result for Apple.

The only silver lining in the verdict, if there is any, is that the jury did not find infringement of design patent D'889 . That's the one that covers tablets shaped like a rounded rectangle, with a thin bezel, edge-to-edge glass, and minimal extras. It's odd that they didn't strike it down as invalid, but neither did they say Samsung infringed it.

Also, the judge has left Samsung plenty of grounds for appeal. She seriously limited the amount of time given to both sides for cross-examination, and rejected Samsung's attempt to get examples of prior art entered into evidence. The precedent is already set, however, and Apple is likely to use it to go after other Android phone makers.

Total bill for Samsung: $1.05 billion. If upheld on appeal it will the the largest patent award of all time.

Total bill for Apple: $0. Not counting legal fees, of course.

The next step is that Apple will seek an injunction in order to get infringing Samsung products taken off the shelves. A hearing for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for September 20th. A permanent injunction could come later.

Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung: A battle over billions

Related articles:

Topics: Patents, Android, Apple, iOS, Samsung

Ed Burnette

About Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette is a software industry veteran with more than 25 years of experience as a programmer, author, and speaker. He has written numerous technical articles and books, most recently "Hello, Android: Introducing Google's Mobile Development Platform" from the Pragmatic Programmers.

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
  • Just remember, the verdict doesn't count

    Kenosha77a and I agree that courts aren't perfect and if a court finds for one side that it doesn't actually prove that side was right because it could be that the court made a bad decision.

    Kenosha77a and I will be responding to anyone who suggests that a verdict that favors Apple proves that Samsung slavishly copied Samsung. It doesn't.
    • Thanks, but No Thanks

      I think the verdict means that nine people looking at the evidence presented and applying the law as explained to them have agreed that one party has prevailed over in a dispute between the parties, both of whom had good and bad arguments.

      Maybe the evidence that Samsung couldn't present will be a reversible (or remanding) issue. Maybe there was a problem with the instructions, like lines of code, the more the more likely.

      As we learned from Oracle v. Google, there are Rule 50 motions through which the parties may ask the Judge to overrule the verdict, if the Judge believes the verdict was not consistent with the evidence or the law.

      Frankly, I don't think neither of you would have much to add beyond partisan sniping. We move to assessing damages and there will be an appeal decision in 18 months. Will Samsung and Apple be injuncted while appeals will be pending? Don't answer, you don't know. Meanwhile, whether you two are united are opposed as you spin the results, I'll pass, thank you very much.
    • Verdicts count, Todd. But I argued that due process included the rights to

      an appeal. This case is not over yet unless Samsung chooses NOT to appeal. If they don't appeal (not hardly likely) than this verdict stands and it means something.

      Come on, Todd. I never said verdict don't count. I said sometimes they are wrong and are subsequently over ruled afterwords. But I never said verdicts don't count.

      At least quote me correctly, OK good buddy. Grin.
    • I suppose it's better proof than a press conference

      I am minded to believe juries a lot more than I believe the legal departments of successful companies, or their CEOs.

      I'll take the outcome, however, as more evidence that the patent system is broken. But I doubt anything will be done about it until the pain is significantly worse than it is now.
      John L. Ries
  • The US Is Already The Last Market To Get New Android Products

    Just for example, here in little old backwater NZ we got the Galaxy SIII in our stores about a week before it was available in the US.

    The more draconian a patent regime the US tries to enforce, the more it will encourage companies to go elsewhere.
  • History

    It was Mr. Gates famous letter to 'The Homebrew Computer Club' that set the course for defense of intellectual property. Apple is due its share.
  • A Great Day

    A great day for all those who admire and respect the true spirit of creativity, innovation and invention. Anyone who says this decision will hamper innovation and creativity needs to get whacked with a clue stick, hard. This decision tells the soulless, creatively challenged executives at Samsung and other copycat device manufacturers to begin listening to their own creative designers and engineers, challenge them to come up with something new and better, instead of sending down lists of things to copy.
    • "At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into mak

      ing the best products on earth" so, from where did i hear "good artists copy, great artists steal"?
      other *
  • Bad news for US consumers, potentially great news for the rest of the world

    The good news for Samsung is that they're already so popular worldwide that they can offload any phone designs banned in the US in many other markets with relative ease. I don't know why Apple persisted with this lawsuit because, quite frankly, it's already too late to stop that juggernaut. The bad news for Samsung...and Apple? It potentially creates an opening in the market for Google's Motorola. Nice going, Apple...

    Of course, these patents are all ridiculous to begin with. I expect there are going to be many appeals on the horizon. This is just round one and Apple was always going to win this round...what else can you expect from a jury picked from Silicon Valley, home of the Apple worshipers?
    • Id much rather be a PROFIT juggernaut.. Than a volume one:)

      I still don't see the value or reward for being the vo.ume leader do you? What does Samsung or Google get for this market leadership? What is the reward for achieving this? What does Apple loose out on by not having it?

      Pagan jim
      James Quinn
      • I'd prefer to be volume leader...

        Volume leaders have a better track record when it comes to longterm longevity. Profit juggernauts are notoriously unstable. They're financial bubbles that eventually go pop one way or another.
        • So you claim I'd like however to see examples of said.

          Pagan jim
          James Quinn
        • Tell that to Dell, HP and other hardware volume leaders of pasts.

          that's currently struggling. After running themselves and their brand to the ground pushing out junk-piles. Dell CEO mentioned in 1997 when Apple was struggling that they should shut the company down and give the money back to the shareholders. Apple's now worth 31 times Dell's market value. The #1 PC maker (and volume leader) wanted out of the PC market a few months ago, and are currently struggling.

          HTC struggling. LG struggling. Many other Android manufacturers chasing Samsung in the volume game are struggling.

          Meanwhile Apple is the most valuable company. iPhone business alone larger than all of Microsoft. Google makes more from Apple's iPhone than they do Android's army of phones. Apple releases one phone every year, one iPad ever year, and they're pulling in the most money. Seems like Samsung release a thousand every year.
          • Most valuable company.. Blah blah..

            "iPhone business alone larger than all of Microsoft."

            And Apple zealots don't see the problem here. The iPhone and iPad make up the lion's share of Apple's profits. If *ANYTHING* happens to either line, Apple will burn through its cash reserves in record time because they have *NOTHING* to offset the difference. If people realize there's no point in standing in line for a new iDevice every year and Apple's sales tank, your precious "most profitable" title will rapidly disappear.

            It's amazing how people fail to comprehend this fact. If I were an investor, I wouldn't TOUCH Apple. It has too much invested in too few product lines, both of which are linked to the same supply chain.

            Pride goes before the fall and one day in the future we're all going to look back and laugh at the hubris that was Apple, just as we look back at the hubris that was Sony and the hubris that was Microsoft of the 1990's.
  • Win for Microsoft

    Let's be honest, these oems sold out microsoft for Google. Now, with Microsoft charges patent licenses on one end and apple going out to ban the phones, it kind of pushes everyone back to the Microsoft vs Apple camp. It gets more interesting as both companies now dominate different landscapes. I would say HTC, LG etc are all next. At one billion a pop you can imagine how this is going to play out.
    I'm not sure if this applies to any of the new phones though.
    Not good for anyone when there are fewer phones on the market. The remaining players don't have to listen to anyone as much because you have no place to go.
  • Bollocks

    Isn't this a bit like Ford taking Chrysler to court because their cars have four wheels. The whole pile of bollocks should be thrown out. The judge should take a leaf out of the South Korean judge's book and ban the whole lot from everywhere.
    • "Isn't this a bit like Ford taking Chrysler to court.."

      Um, no, it isn't at all like that.
      • Yeah, it is.

        What other design would you suggest than a flat, black slab with icons?
        • Like stubright, you don't understand...

          it's not just about a rounded rectangle. That's an overly simplistic view believed in by people who's irrational hatred of Apple leads them to choose to remain ignorant of the actual concepts and issues involved in this case, and instead choose to publicly display their ignorance.
        • Any other design

          'Flat, black slab with icons'....

          Are you honestly so simplistic that that, in your mind, is what has been protected here?

          If that was the test, every single phone and tablet out right now would be infringing.

          That isn't the case. It's not that their device is black, or flat, or has icons, it's that their devices are the same colours, style, shape, layout, share many duplicate icons, arranged in precisely the same way with 5 rows of icons, 4 icons in each row, with the bottom row a 'springboard' with a different colour background, and that their devices use many of the software techniques that Apple created and patented when it developed iOS (such as bounce back) and also that Samsung did all of the above intentionally.

          Windows mobile phones are good examples of how any originality can mean you escape court cases like this.