Skip to main content

Filed under:

Apple vs. Samsung: the verdict

Share this story

After a surprisingly short time, the jury in the Apple v. Samsung case has sent word that it's reached a verdict. The jury ruled overwhelmingly in favor of Apple, and awarded the company more than a billion dollars in damages. It's hard to see an upside for Samsung in all of this, but keep checking here for all our coverage of the case.

  • Adi Robertson

    May 18, 2015

    Adi Robertson

    Court will reduce Apple's $930 million win in Samsung patent case

    Apple and Samsung's patent infringement battle isn't over, and in the latest ruling, neither side has gotten exactly what it wanted. In a filing posted today, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that Samsung had copied specific design patents in Apple's iPhone. But the court decided that Samsung wasn't infringing on Apple's overall trade dress — the look and feel of its phones. This means that while the damages Apple was granted for patent infringement will stand, the company's overall $930 million award will be downsized.

    The court's analysis hinged on the idea that trade dress had to be based on aesthetic decisions meant to make something visually distinctive, and that rules protecting it have to be balanced with "a fundamental right to compete through imitation of a competitor’s product." While Apple argued that the iPhone's rounded rectangle shape and rows of square apps were designed to give it a particular look that fit Apple's brand, the court cited Apple's previous claims that the shape was also easier to use. The same went for its app icons, which were attractive but also meant to make the iPhone more intuitive.

    Read Article >
  • Greg Sandoval

    Oct 4, 2013

    Greg Sandoval

    Phil Schiller, Scott Forstall listed to testify in Apple vs Samsung patent retrial

    court house
    court house

    Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide marketing, is one of the marquee executives on the list of witnesses to testify at the retrial to determine a portion of the damages that Samsung must pay for violating iPhone and iPad patents, according to court documents.

    Also on the list is Scott Forstall, the former Apple executive who left the company last year after being blamed for the glitchy launch of Apple Maps. The retrial is only the latest chapter in one of consumer-tech's most bitter legal cases, one that has seen two of its biggest players battle it out in courts across the globe. The parties must list all of their possible witnesses, so there's a chance Schiller and Forstall won't take the stand, but given the huge amount of money involved and Apple's strong stance about principles, it's hard to imagine the company won't use its biggest names at the retrial.

    Read Article >
  • Adi Robertson

    Aug 9, 2013

    Adi Robertson

    Apple to judges: not banning Samsung products would be a 'fundamental change' in patent law

    Apple v. Samsung trial sketch
    Apple v. Samsung trial sketch

    Long after Apple's victory over Samsung in a patent suit, the two companies met again today in court as a panel of judges decides whether to issue a sales ban on over two dozen Samsung devices. These phones and tablets were found to use features and designs patented by Apple, but so far, that decision has only resulted in a major fine for Samsung — in December, Judge Lucy Koh found that damages were enough for Apple to recoup its losses, so an out-and-out ban wasn't warranted. Now, Apple has brought its case to the Federal Court of Appeals, which is set to make what could be a near-final call on the issue.

    Apple's requested ban doesn't mean much in the short term. Of the 26 phones and tablets it listed, 23 have been discontinued, and Samsung has worked to design around Apple's patents in the remaining three. Samsung, meanwhile, says the ban would have little impact on its design process. So why does this case matter on either side? For its part, Apple hopes that getting an injunction will make it easier to bring cases against newer products. Taking a quick dig at Samsung's design process, Apple attorney William Lee said that a new Samsung device might be almost identical to an old, banned one. "What they're saying to you is 'the product with this name is off the market," he said.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Mar 1, 2013

    Bryan Bishop

    Apple's award in Samsung trial chopped to $598 million from over $1 billion

    Apple Store 5th Avenue STOCK
    Apple Store 5th Avenue STOCK

    Judge Lucy Koh has just delivered a serious blow to Cupertino in the Apple v. Samsung legal saga, cutting the damages awarded to the company down to $598,908,892 — and ordering a new trial to determine the remaining balance. In an order this morning, Koh stated that "the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award," and as such was reducing the original $1.049 billion awarded to Apple in the trial's August verdict. Koh ordered that a new trial take place to determine new damages for the amount she cut — $450,514,650, to be precise — but said that she encouraged both sides to go through the appeals process before proceeding straight to a new trial.

    Koh found two main errors in the way the jury calculated the damages awarded to Apple. They used Samsung's profits to determine the amount the company owed for infringing some of Apple's utility patents — a practice only appropriate when calculating damages owed when design patents have been infringed. They also erred when calculating the time period Apple should be awarded damages for. Koh explains that Apple was only due damages for product sales that occurred after Cupertino informed Samsung of its belief that the violations were taking place.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Jan 30, 2013

    Bryan Bishop

    Judge rules that Samsung did not infringe Apple patents willfully

    Samsung logo
    Samsung logo

    Tonight one of the big outstanding issues in the Apple vs. Samsung case came to a close when Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Samsung's infringement of Apple patents was not in fact willful. At issue are the seven design and utility patents that the jury found Samsung had infringed in a $1.049 billion win for Apple last August. The jury had decided that Samsung's infringement in five of the instances had in fact been willful — a finding that could have led to a ballooning of the damages Samsung would be instructed to pay. As part of the post-verdict proceedings, Samsung's legal team asked Koh to consider whether this should be challenged. Judge Koh agreed.

    As Koh writes in the ruling, for an ultimate finding of willfulness to hold Apple needed to prove that there was an "objectively high likelihood that its [Samsung's] actions constituted infringement of a valid patent." Samsung had argued that it had reason to believe Apple's patents were invalid — so that even if Samsung had infringed, it couldn't be found to have done so willfully. Koh found Samsung's arguments reasonable enough to rule out an overall finding of willful infringement. In other words, she believed Samsung went into the whole situation with a reasonable belief that it wasn't in the wrong.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Dec 18, 2012

    Bryan Bishop

    Apple denied permanent sales ban on infringing Samsung products

    galaxy s ii
    galaxy s ii

    In a court filing this evening, Judge Lucy Koh has denied Apple's request for a permanent sales ban on 26 Samsung products found to have infringed its patents in a jury verdict this past August. Writing that "this Court has already performed significant irreparable harm analysis in this case," Koh concluded that Apple didn't establish the case for a permanent injunction on Samsung's products. Apple needed to prove that the infringing features were what were directly driving "consumer demand for the accused product" in order to obtain the ban, but that bar was too high.

    Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation. Without a causal nexus, this Court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction."The ruling isn't a surprise, and means that the case will continue on its current trajectory — especially considering Koh also denied Samsung's request for a new trial based on the jury foreman's alleged misconduct. Apple had also requested additional damages of over a half-billion dollars on top of the $1.049 billion Samsung had already lost, but Koh said that that "enhancement request" would be addressed in another order. 

    Read Article >
  • Nilay Patel

    Dec 7, 2012

    Nilay Patel

    Samsung argues jury foreman was 'deliberately dishonest' in Apple trial

    siri and s voice
    siri and s voice

    By Nilay Patel and Matt Macari

    Apple and Samsung returned to Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom today to argue over potential sales bans, recalculated damages, and whether the actions of the jury foreman are reason for Apple's $1.049 billion verdict to be thrown out altogether. "It's déjà vu all over again," said the court reporter as she walked in — the two companies are at the beginning stages of what will almost certainly be a long appeals process.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Oct 20, 2012

    Bryan Bishop

    Apple rebuts juror misconduct claims, says Samsung dropped the ball

    Apple Samsung verdict reading sketch
    Apple Samsung verdict reading sketch

    Earlier this month Samsung accused the jury foreman in the Apple v. Samsung trial of misconduct, arguing that Apple's $1.049 billion win should be thrown out in favor of a new trial. Now Apple has filed its response with the court, saying that Samsung had its shot to investigate foreman Velvin Hogan during jury selection — and that it's too late to complain now.

    One of the main issues is that during jury selection Hogan was asked if he'd been involved in any lawsuits. He did mention one, but failed to disclose a breach of contract case from 1993 between him and his former employer, Seagate. Last year, Samsung became the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. According to Samsung's legal team, that fact — along with the strong feelings about patent rights that Hogan expressed to this publication and others — indicate that he could have been biased against the company.

    Read Article >
  • Amar Toor

    Sep 22, 2012

    Amar Toor

    Apple requests additional $707 million in damages, permanent US sales ban on 29 Samsung devices

    Apple vs Samsung stock
    Apple vs Samsung stock

    In a motion filed late Friday, Apple asked Judge Lucy Koh to add an additional $707 million to the $1.049 billion in damages awarded by a jury in last month's ruling against Samsung. The company also requested a permanent ban on US sales of 26 Samsung smartphones and three of its tablets. Samsung, meanwhile, argued for a new trial and said that, "at a minimum," the awarded damages should be reduced by $35 million.

    In its motion, Apple requested an extra $400 million for design infringement, $135 million for infringement of its utility patents, $121 million in supplemental damages, and $50 million in prejudgment interest. The company also argued that Samsung willfully infringed upon its patents in an attempt to gain market share. "The initial success gained through the sale of these six cloned products was the springboard for the second-generation Galaxy S II line of products as well as numerous other infringing smartphones," Apple said in its filing.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Aug 31, 2012

    Bryan Bishop

    Apple v. Samsung jury foreman: only the 'court of popular opinion' can change the patent system

    Apple v. Samsung jury hands in the verdict
    Apple v. Samsung jury hands in the verdict

    When the Apple v. Samsung jury handed in its $1.049 bilion verdict last week, the man that delivered the form itself was jury foreman Velvin Hogan. We recently spoke with the 67-year-old engineer, who described his time participating in the trial as a personal high point — while also cautioning that those who were unhappy with the US patent system should look to public debate to change the situation, not a jury.

    "Except for my family, it was the high spot of my career," Hogan said about the trial. "You might even say my life." A holder of a patent on video compression himself, he said he recognized that the case represented a "landmark decision," and that he was pleased he'd been selected "because I wanted to be satisfied from my own perspective that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

    Read Article >
  • Chris Welch

    Aug 28, 2012

    Chris Welch

    Samsung working with US carriers to update phones facing injunction

    Galaxy S II Skyrocket AT&T
    Galaxy S II Skyrocket AT&T

    Samsung is actively speaking with US carriers about removing infringing features from the eight handsets Apple is seeking injunctions against, reports The Wall Street Journal. Of course, the company first plans to plead its case to Judge Lucy Koh in the hopes of preventing sales from being halted, but it's clear Samsung is also preparing for a worst case scenario in which Apple's requests are granted.

    Read Article >
  • Nathan Ingraham

    Aug 28, 2012

    Nathan Ingraham

    Apple vs. Samsung jury foreman: 'the evidence was overwhelming'

    Apple v. Samsung jury hands in the verdict
    Apple v. Samsung jury hands in the verdict

    Since the Apple vs. Samsung trial ended with a jury verdict last Friday, we've started to hear from the jurors on how they rendered their decision so quickly. Now, Bloomberg TV has just run an extensive 15-minute interview with jury foreman Velvin R. Hogan, a 67 year-old engineer who holds patents of his own.

    From the interview, it's immediately obvious that Hogan was a driving force behind the verdict's rapid turnaround. In describing the process the jury used to render a verdict, Hogan says they were initially "at a stalemate" because "some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution process." This was on the first day, after which Hogan said he had "an a-ha moment" in which he decided "I could defend this if it was my patent." From there, Hogan laid out his story for the jury and then the group proceeded to go "patent by patent, claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us."

    Read Article >
  • Matt Macari

    Aug 27, 2012

    Matt Macari

    Apple identifies which Samsung products it will try to ban in US

    S2 t-mobile
    S2 t-mobile

    With the trial stage just completed last Friday, Apple wasted no time filing a notice with the court identifying which Samsung products it will now seek to have banned in the US. Despite having received a finding of infringement from the jury on most of the 28 products in play in the case, it looks like Apple is only going after an injunction on eight of them — all smartphones. That's not terribly surprising given the fact that many of the products in the case are no longer available in the US. The eight Samsung devices are:

    Apple's filing specifically associates the devices with the patents each was found to infringe according to the jury. You can see from the chart below that, save the Galaxy Prevail, each of the identified devices was found to infringe on Apple's design-related intellectual property (design patents and trade dress). The Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G and the Galaxy S Showcase are the only ones listed that escaped infringement of Apple's more technical utility patents. With infringement already established, and assuming Judge Koh doesn't disrupt the jury verdict, Apple must convince the court that it will be irreparably harmed if these handsets are not banned in the country. It's easier to make this argument after a positive jury verdict, but an injunction is by no means a foregone conclusion. However, Apple did apparently appreciate the benefits of picking its battles here, rather than just going after each and every product found to infringe. It's easier for Apple to establish irreparable harm when the focus of the injunction is on products it may actually compete against in the market.

    Read Article >
  • Dan Seifert

    Aug 27, 2012

    Dan Seifert

    Samsung memo to employees: 'disappointed' by verdict

    Samsung logo galaxy
    Samsung logo galaxy

    Samsung took quite the blow in its case against Apple last week when the jury awarded nearly every decision in Apple's favor. In addition to the public statement Samsung released after the decision was announced, the Korean company quickly issued an internal memo to its employees. Unsurprisingly, Samsung reiterates its stance that it does not agree with the jury's decision, and that it feels "that the consumers and the market will side with those who prioritize innovation over litigation."

    Apple has long used Samsung components in its products, and Samsung is quick to point this out in the top of its memo to employees. Of note, it states that Apple "had been one of our most important customers," implying that the two companies might not be working together anymore. We find that a bit hard to believe, as Samsung components are found in nearly every device Apple makes, but the statement is there nonetheless.

    Read Article >
  • Matt Macari

    Aug 27, 2012

    Matt Macari

    Apple, Samsung gear up for fight on triple damages, injunctions, and 'no reasonable jury'

    Apple v. Samsung trial sketch
    Apple v. Samsung trial sketch

    There's no doubt Apple walked out of the San Jose courtroom Friday afternoon the undisputed winner according to the jury in the Apple v. Samsung case, but there are still many details to work out as the trial process wraps up. We're not even close to appeals yet, although those will absolutely come later. There's still a lot to do in Judge Koh's courtroom over the next few weeks.

    Today will mark the beginning of a new chapter in the case: a brutal stretch of legal briefings and in-court debates, where both Samsung and Apple will break down and scrutinize a large number of those 700 individual questions tackled by the jury. And we know how much these attorneys like to file papers with the court — there were around 2000 formal objections filed just for the trial stage of the case. Obviously, Samsung will have far more to complain about, but you can rest assured that Apple will lodge several challenges of its own.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Aug 27, 2012

    Bryan Bishop

    Google responds to Apple v. Samsung verdict: most claims 'don't relate' to 'core Android'

    Google Nexus logo (STOCK)
    Google Nexus logo (STOCK)

    In the wake of Friday's $1.049 billion jury verdict, Apple and Samsung quickly released statements to the press — but one company that remained conspicuously silent was Google. The company has now provided us with a response to the decision, stating that "The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims."

    Google stops well short of adopting Samsung's own strident language, however. In fact, it appears to keep the matter at arm's length, saying that the claims involved "don't relate to the core Android operating system" — though to be fair, the company does specify that all mobile industry players "are building upon ideas that have been around for decades."

    Read Article >
  • Andrew Webster

    Aug 25, 2012

    Andrew Webster

    Apple vs. Samsung juror: 'it was clear there was infringement' (update)

    original iPhone
    original iPhone

    Now that the jury has made its decision in the Apple vs. Samsung trial, some members of the nine-person jury have spoken out about why they decided in favor of Apple. According to juror Manuel Ilagan, it was clear after the first day of deliberations that the jury was mostly in agreement. Speaking to CNet, Ilagan cited specific pieces of evidence that helped sway the decision Apple's way, including internal Samsung emails. "The e-mails that went back and forth from Samsung execs about the Apple features that they should incorporate into their devices was pretty damning to me," he explained. "It was clear there was infringement," he added.

    According to Ilagan, jury foreman Velvin Hogan helped make the decision process easier for the jury, imparting his wisdom as a patent owner. "After that it was easier." He says that the jury were "debating heavily" on the first day of deliberation — in particular when it came to the bounce back and pinch-to-zoom patents. He also pointed out that the jury didn't have a hometown bias in favor of Apple, saying that "we were going by the judges instructions on how we should go about it and we stuck to that. We weren't thinking Apple or Samsung." And while the deliberation was surprisingly short, Ilagan insists that the decision wasn't rushed. "We weren't impatient," he explained. "We wanted to do the right thing, and not skip any evidence. I think we were thorough."

    Read Article >
  • Brendan Murphy

    Aug 25, 2012

    Brendan Murphy

    The Vergecast Special Edition 04: Apple vs. Samsung - August 24th, 2012

    vergecast special edition: samsung vs. apple
    vergecast special edition: samsung vs. apple

    The Vergecast returns on a Friday night to report the news of the Apple vs. Samsung verdict live as it happens and give the in-depth analysis you need to make sense of it all. On tonight's episode, Joshua Topolsky is joined by a team of Verge correspondents to go page by page through the jury's decision, and discuss the implications and next steps for Apple and Samsung. For even more coverage on this controversial verdict visit our StoryStream.

    Read Article >
  • Dieter Bohn

    Aug 25, 2012

    Dieter Bohn

    Apple vs. Samsung: the jury's final verdict form shows the breadth of Apple's win

    yes checkbox
    yes checkbox

    The jury's final verdict form has been released in the Apple vs. Samsung case, and as you can see above it's a sea of "y" for "yes, it infringes" marks on a wide swath of Samsung's phones. Samsung did manage to avoid losing when it came to some of the patents put against its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, but it didn't win with any of the patents it asserted against Apple. The damages from the case were adjusted slightly, as this form contained some errors that the jury let into the initial ruling, including damages for the iPad patents (which it found didn't infringe) as well as some cases where it said Samsung had induced infringements on patents when, in fact, the jury found it hadn't infringed on them at all.

    After the changes, the damages came to $1,049,343,540 owed to Apple, zero to Samsung. While we're sure Apple won't spit on the cash, the real action is yet to come, as the next stage in the trial will address injunctions against Samsung's infringing devices.

    Read Article >
  • Dieter Bohn

    Aug 25, 2012

    Dieter Bohn

    The next step in Apple vs. Samsung: injunction hearing on September 20th

    The Apple vs. Samsung trial continues now that the verdict has come down. After the jury returned with some corrections to its initial verdict to resolve some of the inconsistencies in its findings, it was excused from the courtroom and Judge Lucy Koh discussed the next stage in the trial with both sides: a preliminary hearing on injunctions based on the verdict. Given that many of Samsung's phones were found to infringe on Apple's patents and that many of them are still for sale today, it's possible that we could see sales bans as a result of the next hearings.

    The plan is to require Apple to file its requests by August 27th, Samsung to respond within two weeks, and then the actual hearing on September 20th. Koh said that she would like to give the "maximum time to Samsung," which was pushing for a later hearing — though Koh's own scheduling conflicts (and likely her consistent push to keep the trial moving along quick) kept it sooner.

    Read Article >
  • Dieter Bohn

    Aug 25, 2012

    Dieter Bohn

    Apple CEO Tim Cook: verdict is 'a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right'

    Apple vs Samsung stock
    Apple vs Samsung stock

    After Samsung reacted to the Apple vs Samsung verdict, Apple has also chimed in with a statement to the New York Times that predictably expresses happiness over the Jury's verdict. Citing the "mountain of evidence" it presented against Samsung, the company went so far as to say that it shows the "stealing isn't right."

    Update: 9to5 Mac obtained a leaked memo from Apple CEO Tim Cook to employees with much the same sentiment, and even many of the same exact words:

    Read Article >
  • Tom Warren

    Aug 25, 2012

    Tom Warren

    Microsoft employees react to Samsung vs. Apple verdict, 'Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now'

    Windows Phone tiles
    Windows Phone tiles

    Microsoft's Bill Cox, senior director of Windows Phone marketing communications, has reacted to the Samsung vs. Apple verdict today. Moments after the jury awarded $1.049 billion in damages to Apple for Samsung's violation of various software, hardware design patents, and trade-dress dilution, Cox tweeted that "Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now."

    Samsung failed to win any damages from its Apple patent counter-suit after the jury determined that no monetary damages are owed for its claims. Samsung had claimed that Apple violated five patents with the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and others. Today's verdict is a big win for Apple, although the damages are a relatively small price for Samsung to pay for its huge Android market share — despite the fact the verdict will likely shape the future use of Android by Samsung on its devices.

    Read Article >
  • Bryan Bishop

    Aug 25, 2012

    Bryan Bishop

    Samsung: today's verdict 'a loss for the American consumer'

    Samsung logo
    Samsung logo

    Samsung has already issued a statement commenting on its devastating loss in its legal tussle with Apple. The company pulls no punches, calling back to the stirring language it used in its closing arguments. We're reproducing it in its entirety below.

    Read Article >
  • Nilay Patel

    Aug 25, 2012

    Nilay Patel

    Apple decisively wins Samsung trial: what it means

    Samsung Copying Apple
    Samsung Copying Apple

    After two and a half days of deliberations, the Apple vs. Samsung jury returned a decisive verdict in Apple's favor today — holding that Samsung owes Apple $1.049 billion for copying Apple's intellectual property. Specifically, the jury found that all three of Apple's software patents on the iOS user interface were valid and infringed by a long list of Samsung devices, that Apple design patents were valid and infringed by several Samsung phones, and that Apple's trade dress on the iPhone and iPhone 3G were diluted by several Samsung phones as well.

    On the other hand, Samsung lost every part of its case against Apple — the jury ruled that none of the Apple devices in the case infringe Samsung's patents, including patents that are part of the 3G networking standard. The only major decisions that went to Samsung were related to the iPad — the jury didn't think Samsung's tablets copied the iPad's design.

    Read Article >
  • Scott Lowe

    Aug 24, 2012

    Scott Lowe

    Samsung awarded no damages in Apple patent counter-suit

    apple samsung jury feature lead
    apple samsung jury feature lead

    After awarding Apple $1.049 billion in damages for Samsung's infringements upon its patents, the jury has determined that no monetary damages are owed to Samsung for its counter-suit claims. During the course of the trial, Samsung claimed that Apple had violated five of its utility patents, specifically patents '516, '941, '711, '893, and '460. Apple's iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2 (3G), and fourth-generation iPod touch, Samsung alleged, had infringed upon specific aspects of the otherwise overarching patents, which covered 3G communication standards, email transmission methodology, switching between photo and gallery modes, and background music playback functionality.

    Read Article >