The verdict is in: Samsung vs. Apple

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...
Written by Ed Burnette, Contributor



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:

Editorial standards