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

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.
Written by Charlie Osborne, Contributing Writer
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.

Editorial standards