Jury Finds Largely in Favor of Apple in Apple vs. Samsung Trial, Awards More than $1

[sparkyscott21]

After three days of deliberations, the jury reached a unanimous verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung trial. The jury found largely for Apple, ruling that Samsung had willfully infringed on both Apple patents and trade dress for the iPhone -- though notably the jury found in favor of Samsung on questions regarding its tablets. The jury found that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion in damages for willfully infringing on Apple's intellectual property.

Apple's stock price rose to an all-time high, more than $675 per share, in after-hours trading following the verdict.

The three-week trial has resulted in interesting testimony and evidence from both sides, including looks at early iPhone and iPad prototypes, Apple and Samsung mobile device sales numbers in the U.S., and an internal Samsung memo that examined what the company needed to change in its Galaxy line of smartphones to compete with the iPhone.

The 9-person jury was asked to fill out a 20-page jury form with more than 700 questions across 33 groups. They were required to come to a unanimous decision on each question and court-watchers didn't expect a verdict until at least next week.

The following is our liveblog as the verdict was written:

The jury was asked to fill out a form covering 33 separate questions regarding patents, trade dress, and antitrust.

On the first claim, regarding the '381 "bounce back" patent, the jury finds Samsung guilty on all counts. Samsung infringed on Apple's patent on a wide variety of products.

On Apple's "pinch and zoom" '915 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on all but three products.

For the "double-tap to zoom" '163 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on a wide number of products, but not all.

The jury found that Samsung took actions that it knew or should have known were infringing across the '381, '915, and '163 patents on most, though not on all, counts.

For the '677 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the front of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on most devices, but again, not all.

For the D'087 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the back of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on some devices, but not all.

For the '305 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPhone's home screen, the jury found that Samsung infringed across most devices.

For the D'889 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPad's appearance, the jury found that Samsung's tablets do not infringe -- one of the first victories for Samsung.

On the question of whether Samsung Korea knew or should have known it was inducing US subsidiaries to infringe on the D'677, D'087, D'305 and/or D'889 patents, the jury found in favor of Apple across a wide number of phones and patents, though not on the '889 patent regarding the iPad. These two questions are significant for Apple to receive damages.

On the question of whether Samsung's infringement was willful, the jury again found for Apple on a number of patents and devices.

Finally, the jury ruled that all of Apple's patents are valid.

Regarding trade dress, Apple has proven that its unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress was protectable, and the jury found that a number of Samsung phone models violated Apple's trade dress, though not all of them.

Overall, the jury is finding for Apple on most counts.

Regarding damages, the jury finds that Apple should be awarded $1,051,855,000 in damages for willfully violating Apple's patents and trade dress.

Next up are Samsung's claims against Apple.

The jury has found for Apple regarding its alleged infringement of Samsung's utility patents on every claim, however Apple did not prove they were invalid. The jury did not award Samsung any damages.

Finally, Apple did not prove that Samsung violated antitrust obligations regarding its FRAND patents.

Apple did prove that Samsung is barred from enforcing its '516 and '941 patents.


Update: CNet provides a nice breakdown of patents and the devices found to infringe.

8-24-12

Source

[Ads]

[sparkyscott21]

Fearing the fury of your boss after a really crappy performance isn’t unique to any profession. No one wants to make the big kahuna angry, and see them go nuts. Samsung’s executives tried to take the “maybe the chairman won’t be so mad if we wait a few days to tell him the bad news” approach. It didn’t work.

Last Friday, Samsung received the verdict that Apple won the patent lawsuit in the U.S., but top executives at the company waited four days before telling the company chairman Lee Kun-hee the bad news because they were afraid how he might react. Apparently, he freaked out a bit.

The Korea Times reports that after he heard the bad news Samsung’s highest ranking executive officer, got pretty upset, and had to be calmed down.

“The chairman calmed down and slightly closed his eyes after he was briefed. But he didn’t say anything further.”

What he did and said before he had to be calmed down is anyone’s guess. What do you think the Chairman said to his executive team? Maybe he threw ninja-stars at them, I dunno. I just wish I was in that meeting to witness the verbal lashing he probably gave them.

8-31-12

Source

[sparkyscott21]

Following the $1 billion verdict in the Samsung vs. Apple case, Samsung has been attempting to get the courts to investigate juror Velvin Hogan. It claimed Hogan “concealed information” about his past history with Seagate, a company Samsung is now a shareholder in. CNET reported Federal District Judge Lucy Koh will consider Samsung’s claims in a hearing set for Dec. 6. At the heart of the allegations is whether Hogan disclosed that his former employee Seagate had previously sued him:

As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company’s lawyers knew about the jury foreman…Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn’t disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a “substantial strategic relationship.” The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.

The Register reported today that Apple called Samsung’s argument a “convoluted theory,” adding it was Samsung responsibilities to interview jurors members during jury selection:

Samsung’s theory fails on the merits because the decades-old Seagate dispute has nothing to do with this case and would not have supported challenge for cause, and Samsung has not shown that Mr. Hogan’s responses were “dishonest” and “material,” as Supreme Court precedent requires.

11-9-12

9to5mac.com

[AppleFanapple]

This does not surprise me one bit. Have you seen Samsung's products?? They are almost identical!!!! It's ridiculous to think they could even get away with it.