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
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



1. papss unregistered

Ouch! That is a huge amount to pay

4. tedkord

Posts: 17408; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

It will be much smaller by the time is final.

7. Finalflash

Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013

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

8. wiiandds

Posts: 64; Member since: Mar 15, 2013

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

14. vincelongman

Posts: 5720; Member since: Feb 10, 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

16. sgodsell

Posts: 7430; Member since: Mar 16, 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.

15. sgodsell

Posts: 7430; Member since: Mar 16, 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.

20. Ashoaib

Posts: 3297; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

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

2. Epicness1o1

Posts: 308; Member since: May 30, 2013

Lol that money I cant count that :D

3. _Bone_

Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 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! :)

5. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

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

11. iqjumpuw

Posts: 62; Member since: Nov 09, 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.

13. PBXtech

Posts: 1032; Member since: Oct 21, 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.

17. sgodsell

Posts: 7430; Member since: Mar 16, 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.

19. silencer271

Posts: 254; Member since: Apr 05, 2013

Apple thinks if its a smart phone its copying them

25. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 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.

6. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 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.

9. _Bone_

Posts: 2155; Member since: Oct 29, 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.

12. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Good analogy. Thanks.

21. darkkjedii

Posts: 31281; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

Why don't you go ask her yourself.

10. itsdeepak4u2000

Posts: 3718; Member since: Nov 03, 2012

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

18. darkkjedii

Posts: 31281; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

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

22. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010


23. darkkjedii

Posts: 31281; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

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

24. darkkjedii

Posts: 31281; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

Good decision to deny the injunction.

26. Planterz

Posts: 2120; Member since: Apr 30, 2012

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

27. techguyone

Posts: 214; Member since: May 18, 2013

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

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.