Following several days of deliberations in the Apple vs. Samsung trial, the jury reached verdicts on a number of design and utility patent infringement allegations brought against Samsung by Apple, finding numerous violations by Samsung. The jury also found that Apple possessed certain trade dress rights in the iPhone—namely, that certain elements of iPhone designs were famous and protectable—and were diluted by some of Samsung’s products. Other asserted iPhone and iPad trade dress rights were not found to be famous or protectable.
The jury was specifically asked to determine whether Samsung had infringed a number of different Apple patents across a wide collection of different Samsung devices, and given a questionnaire to answer “yes” or “no” for each Apple patent on each Samsung device. While not every Samsung device was found to have infringed all of Apple’s patents, multiple Samsung devices were found to be infringing on one or more patents. Moreover, a number of Samsung’s infringements were determined to be willful—not accidental—subjecting the company to higher penalties. The jury also said that Samsung had failed to demonstrate that Apple’s patents were invalid, a possible defense, and found that Apple had not violated a number of Samsung patents, contrary to claims by Samsung.
Reports varied on whether Apple had also prevailed on an antitrust claim against Samsung. According to an initial report by CNET, the jury found that Samsung had unlawfully monopolized markets related to the UMTS standard, while finding that Apple had not violated antitrust laws on UMTS.
Although an early report suggested that Samsung would be liable for roughly $2.5-billion in damages for infringements in various products, the judge clarified that total damages assessed against Samsung were in the $1.05-billion range, and due to the large number of infringing Samsung products, the numbers apparently had to be re-checked after the verdict was read. As Apple was not found responsible for any violations of Samsung patents, no damages were assessed against the Cupertino company.
