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.
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.
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) gave the verdict proceedings enough thought.
UPDATE: Here's a copy of the ruling: