$119M smartphone patent award from Samsung falls short for Apple
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California jury late Friday awarded Apple $119 million — far less than it demanded — in a patent battle with Samsung over alleged copying of smartphone features, and the jury made the victory even smaller by finding that Apple illegally used one of Samsung's patents.
The verdict was a far cry from the $2.2 billion Apple sought and the $930 million it won in a 2012 trial making similar patent infringement claims against older Samsung products, most of which are no longer for sale in the United States.
The jury found that Apple had infringed on one of Samsung's patents in making the iPhone 4 and 5. Jurors awarded Samsung $158,400, trimming that amount from the original $119.62 million verdict. Samsung had sought $6 million.
“Though this verdict is large by normal standards, it is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple,” Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love said. “This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case.”
The award may be adjusted slightly in favor of Apple. Jurors were ordered to return to court on Monday to continue deliberations on a minor matter that could result in a higher award for Apple. Because the jury is still empaneled, jurors were prevented from talking publicly about the case.
Samsung spokesman Lauren Restuccia declined to comment, but Apple declared victory.
“Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. “We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- House demands details of Taliban detainees swap for Bergdahl
- Study a surprise: Commercial bees unfazed by pesticides
- Florida fraternity members spit on disabled veterans at retreat
- Footage of protesters walking on flag sparks strife at Georgia university
- Hostility at VA lingers, panel told
- Unhappiness over plan to unfreeze billions in oil revenue for Iran threatens nuclear bill in Senate
- Magma chamber spied under Yellowstone volcano
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- Researcher denied access to flight after tweet pokes United Airlines security
- 15 buffalo that escaped from farm killed in upstate N.Y.