x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Home
  • News
  • Judge Koh completes $930 million damage award to Apple, but company loses bid for Samsung injunction

Judge Koh completes $930 million damage award to Apple, but company loses bid for Samsung injunction

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags:

Judge Koh completes $930 million damage award to Apple, but company loses bid for Samsung injunction
With a flick of a pen, Judge Lucy Koh finalized the $929.8 million damage award to Apple due from Samsung, related to the first epic patent trial between the two tech rivals. Back in August 2012, Apple won a $1.05 billion jury award which was reduced when Judge Koh agreed that there were some inconsistencies between the jury's decision and the dollar amount awarded to Apple. Koh vacated $450 million of the verdict, and held a new trial to determine how much of that $450 million Apple was entitled to. That jury came in with a $290 million verdict, leaving Korean based Samsung owing Apple the $929.8 million awarded.

While that might be good news for Apple, Judge Koh did deny Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung. And with both sides failing to reach an agreement on key patent issues after court ordered mediation did not work, both tech giants are expected to meet in Judge Koh's courtroom at the end of the month for the sequel to the first trial.

Expected to capture the same media attention as the first trial, the second patent trial includes much more relevant devices from Samsung including the still popular Samsung Galaxy S III. Even though it is now two generations old, the handset is still offered by many pre-paid carriers. Because the upcoming trial features more recent models, legal experts agree that any damages awarded could be higher than the amount the jury agreed on in the first trial.

source: WSJ

27 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 06 Mar 2014, 05:43 3

1. papss (unregistered)


Ouch! That is a huge amount to pay

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 06:04 4

4. tedkord (Posts: 4243; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


It will be much smaller by the time is final.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 07:20 5

7. Finalflash (Posts: 1407; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)


But the real question how is that trial still valid when half the patents used in it were invalidated?

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 07:31 10

8. wiiandds (Posts: 60; Member since: 15 Mar 2013)


agreed, but they dont care, apple cheats, apples wins, i think it has something do with its a US company?

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 12:05 6

14. vincelongman (Posts: 928; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)


Apple lost everywhere except the US.
In the UK they even had to post on their site that Samsung didn't copy them.
I guess biased US courts are why

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 12:57 1

16. sgodsell (Posts: 862; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)


Apple is even sitting with 3 million iPhone 5c's in their inventory. That explains a lot. I guess they will use the money to write off some of those iPhone 5cs.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 12:56 5

15. sgodsell (Posts: 862; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)


What kills me is Apple wants to add models like the Galaxy S2, S3, S4, Note line and more. All of which look and function nothing like an iPhone. In fact Apple is suppose to be releasing new iPhones that will be the size of Samsungs S4 and S5. Well I have had iPhones in the past but never again.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 17:52 2

20. Ashoaib (Posts: 1186; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)


Its valid bcoz US company is getting the benefit...

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 05:49 1

2. Epicness1o1 (Posts: 200; Member since: 30 May 2013)


Lol that money I cant count that :D

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 05:54 9

3. _Bone_ (Posts: 2103; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)


Net worth of free press Samsung got from Apple's public trial: ~$10B
Samsung cost for this: ~1B
That's 900% return rate, epic win for Samsung.

Apple made Samsung famous. Oh yes! :)

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 07:07 2

5. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5519; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


For Sammy, the $ is just a cost of doing business. No injunction, so no big thang.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 10:07 1

11. iqjumpuw (Posts: 21; Member since: 09 Nov 2013)


Free press? It was mostly negative press. Something Samsung would have loved to have them buried. I don't think Samsung settled with Apple because they really thought they had a chance. If they won, it would have been a tremendous free press for them. Well worth the trial cost. Samsung gambled and lost. It's unfortunate because Apple had the home court advantage. Whether you're an Apple fan or not, you can't deny that the US court system favored a US company.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 11:44 2

13. PBXtech (Posts: 966; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)


It was free press. Case in point, sales of the Galaxy Nexus jumped after it was reported that Apple was going to ban Samsung from selling it. Even though SS was on the losing end of the case, it brought about a curiosity of their equipment and sales jumped from the exposure. Exposure is exposure, regardless of why.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 13:02

17. sgodsell (Posts: 862; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)


Why is Apple adding phones like the Galaxy S2, S3, S4, and the note lineup to the phones they want banned? When they look and function nothing like an iPhone.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 17:23 3

19. silencer271 (Posts: 149; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)


Apple thinks if its a smart phone its copying them

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 22:47

25. roscuthiii (Posts: 1785; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)


There is a famous quote I'll paraphrase here because I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head:

The only bad press is when they get your name wrong.

For a large portion of consumers, all this did was equate to one of those shopping comparison tools you'd see on a tech product site.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 07:09

6. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)


So confused with this case and her judgments....if she agreed to the financial award....how come there will be no injunction?

Its like on one hand she agrees Samsung copied, and yet it seems like she disagrees with the no injunction.

At times in these trials and others with other companies injunctions took place. I just dont get it.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 07:53 3

9. _Bone_ (Posts: 2103; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)


Because when you are caught speeding just above the allowed maximum, you pay a fine but can drive on, and Samsung's infringement of insignificant patents was viewed as such. If you are caught speeding 100mph over the maximum however, crashing mailboxes and sh*t, that's when you're in deep trouble and banned off the road. Samsung's rows of icons don't belong to the latter category.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 11:39

12. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)


Good analogy. Thanks.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 17:52

21. darkkjedii (Posts: 10053; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Why don't you go ask her yourself.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 08:44 1

10. itsdeepak4u2000 (Posts: 2282; Member since: 03 Nov 2012)


Poor Sammy. Good that Apple loses the bid for Samsung injunction.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 14:16 1

18. darkkjedii (Posts: 10053; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


TIMMERRRR hook your long lost nephew up with a few mill, I'm good for it yo.

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 18:14 1

22. networkdood (Posts: 6244; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)


APPLE'S new marketing slogan - WE CANNOT BEAT THE COMPETITION, BUT WE SURE CAN SUE THEM!

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 19:15

23. darkkjedii (Posts: 10053; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Dumb post dude. Samsung mobile is apple inspired in ways, and original in ways

posted on 06 Mar 2014, 19:31

24. darkkjedii (Posts: 10053; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)


Good decision to deny the injunction.

posted on 07 Mar 2014, 00:57

26. Planterz (Posts: 523; Member since: 30 Apr 2012)


Why does Judge Koh always look like she's pissed off in these artist renderings?

posted on 07 Mar 2014, 03:44

27. techguyone (Posts: 93; Member since: 18 May 2013)


She probably is, wouldn't you be if you had to sit through all that.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories