SAN FRANCISCO - (Mealeys) After three
days of deliberations, a California federal jury on Friday awarded Apple Inc.
$1,049,343,540 in its high-stakes lawsuit with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
deeming the software giant's patents both valid and infringed (Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 11-1846, N.D. Calif.; See 8/20/12, Page
(Amended verdict available. Document #16-120904-007V.)
Jurors empanelled before U.S.
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California also sided with Apple
on the question of the plaintiff's registered trade dress, finding that Samsung
copied and ultimately diluted the look and feel of Apple's popular iPhone with
Samsung products like the Galaxy Prevail and Nexus S 4G.
By contrast, Samsung's
counterclaims of patent infringement failed to sway the nine-member jury, which
rejected each count levied at Apple by its South Korean competitor.
Although Apple emerged from
the three-week trial the clear victor, it indicated in filings before Judge Koh
that it would seek $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung, which it had called
"one of the principal imitators" of "innovative technology" in an April 2011
complaint. According to Apple, Samsung and two of its American
subsidiaries (Samsung, collectively) infringed eight utility patents and seven
design patents. Apple additionally claimed that Samsung is liable for
trade dress infringement in connection with its product packaging and trademark
infringement related to various icons "used in the user interface in the
iPhone, iPod touch and iPad products."
Samsung filed counterclaims alleging that Apple infringed 12 of its patents,
including some related to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard
(UMTS). Apple filed answering counterclaims alleging that Samsung
violated both federal and California
antitrust laws and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
which is the state's unfair competition law. Apple alleges that Samsung
defrauded the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, one of the
standard-setting organizations that set the UMTS standards, by inducing it to
adopt Samsung's "declared-essential patents" and then later refusing to license
them under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms" (FRAND terms).
Following various pretrial
rulings, the case presented to the jury was whittled down to seven Apple
patents and five Samsung patents, along with Apple's allegations of trade dress
infringement and antitrust violations. Trial began July 31 and ended with
closing arguments Aug. 21; jurors began their deliberations Aug. 22.
Zoom, Bounce Features
According to the verdict, all
19 Samsung products accused of infringing claim 19 of Apple's U.S. patent No.
7,469,381 do, in fact, infringe. The claim relates to a "bounce-back" or
"rubber-banding" feature, whereby a user scrolling through a series of images
will bounce back upon reaching the last image. Regarding claim 8 of
patent No. 7,844,915 - which relates to a pinch-to-zoom feature - jurors found
that although Samsung's Galaxy Ace, Intercept and Replenish devices do not
infringe, 21 other Samsung products do.
Furthermore, the Droid
Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Mesmerize and 16 other Samsung devices infringe the
"double tap" feature embodied in claim 50 of Apple's U.S. patent No. 7,864,163,
jurors held. Additionally, the jury concluded that Samsung should have
known it was inducing infringement by others with regard to all accused
products and the '381, '915 and '163 patents and that Samsung's infringement of
the same three utility patents was willful.
The jury reached similar
findings of liability with regard to Apple's asserted design patents D'677,
D'087 and D'305 and D'889, which relate to the front face of an electronic
device, the ornamental design of a smartphone and the use of rounded square
All seven Apple patents at
issue in the case were upheld as valid.
Sherman, Lanham Acts
Turning to Apple's Lanham Act
claims, jurors deemed Apple's registered trade dress valid, famous and diluted
by Samsung products like the Galaxy S, Fascinate and Vibrant.
Furthermore, Samsung's infringement of Apple's registered trade dress was
willful, the jury later found.
Samsung prevailed with regard
to Apple's unregistered trade dress for the iPad and "combination" iPhone
designs, however, with jurors finding that the claimed features are not
entitled to protection. In other success for Samsung, a fourth Apple design
patent - D'889 - was deemed noninfringed by accused Samsung products Galaxy Tab
10.1 WiFi and Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G Lite. Additionally, while the jury
rejected Samsung's claim of infringement by Apple, it upheld the validity of
Samsung's patents while also rejecting Apple's claim that the defendant
violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing certain technology
markets related to the UMTS standard.
In assessing damages, the
jury's award ranged from a high of $143,539,179 for Samsung's Fascinate product
to a low of $833,076 for Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1. Just five of 28 total
accused products did not result in an award for Apple, according to an amended
In a statement, Samsung
called the jury's findings a "loss for the American consumer" and warned that
"this is not the final word in this case."
"It is unfortunate that
patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles
with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung
and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know
what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. . . .
Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer," Samsung
Apple is represented by
Harold J. McElhinny, Michael A. Jacobs and Richard S.J. Hung of Morrison &
Foerster in San Francisco, William F. Lee of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr in Boston and Mark D. Selwyn of Wilmer Cutler in Palo Alto, Calif.
Charles K. Verhoeven of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Sullivan in San
Francisco, Kevin P.B. Johnson and Victoria F. Maroulis of Quinn Emanuel in Redwood Shores, Calif.,
and Michael T. Zeller of Quinn Emanuel in Los
Angeles represent Samsung.
[Editor's Note: Lexis
subscribers may download the document using the link above. The document(s) are
also available at www.mealeysonline.com or by calling the
Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.]
Mealey's is now
available in eBook format!
Sign in with your Lexis.com ID to access Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications.
Click here to order Patent Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications.
View the LexisNexis
Catalog of Legal and Professional Publications
here for a list of available LexisNexis eBooks.
Click here to learn more about
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.