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.)
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.