5 Things to Know about $290 million Apple verdict
A jury on Thursday ordered Samsung Electronics to pay Apple $290 million for copying features of the iPhone and iPad. That was in addition to $640 million the South Korea-based Samsung already owed Apple from a previous trial. Samsung plans to appeal the $930 million in damages in a San Jose federal courthouse that is a 15-minute drive from Apple's Cupertino headquarters.
In 2011, Apple filed a lawsuit in San Jose accusing Samsung of "patent infringement," essentially stealing technology Apple invented to make Samsung devices. A jury last year awarded Apple $1.05 billion after finding 26 Samsung devices infringed Apple's patents. A judge later tossed out $450 million and concluded the jury miscalculated damages on 13 devices. The latest jury was tasked only with recalculating new damages and awarded Apple $290 million.
Apple's case boiled down to five patents. Three covered features: on-screen navigation, "pinch-to-zoom" and the "bounce-back effect." The other patents covered the shape of the iPhone and on-screen icons.
Samsung argues that some of Apple's patents are invalid and that it didn't infringe those that are valid. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office is currently questioning the validity of Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent. On Wednesday, the office told Apple that its defense of the patent wasn't persuasive and asked the company to submit more evidence supporting the patent.
Samsung plans to make post-trial arguments to the judge asking her to reject the jury's verdict. If that fails, Samsung will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District in Washington, D.C. It already has appealed the first verdict to the appeals court. If it loses there, Samsung is expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
The global fight
The San Jose case is far from the only legal dispute between the world's two biggest smartphone makers. The companies are battling for supremacy in the $300 billion smartphone market around the globe. Lawsuits and other legal actions have been filed by both companies in Germany, England, France, South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, Australia and elsewhere with mixed results. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose has urged both companies to settle their differences. But the two parties appear far apart and intent on continuing to pay attorneys tens of millions of dollars to defend their turf.