Samsung loses again to Apple in U.S. patent jury trial; ordered to pay $119.6 million

Another jury in San Jose, California has rendered a verdict in a second patent trial between Samsung and Apple. CNET reports that the eight members of the jury found that Samsung's devices violated two of Apple's patents and ordered the company to pay $119.6 million to the team in Cupertino, California.

That's still far less than the $2.6 billion penalty that Apple asked the jury to consider at the beginning of the trial a few weeks ago. It's also less than the over $1 billion penalty Samsung was ordered to pay Apple in a separate patent court fight in 2012.

Specifically, the jury found that all of the Samsung devices that Apple listed in its case violated its 647 "quick links" patent, while some of them infringed on its 72 "slide to unlock" patent. The jury also decided that Apple had infringed on Samsung's 449 "photo and video organization" patent. It ordered that Apple pay Samsung just $158,400 for its infringement.

In a statement about today's decision, Apple said:

Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. 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.

Documents presented by Apple during the trial later leaked online which showed that the company was aware it was not doing enough to meet consumer or wireless carriers demands in terms

Source: CNET | Gavel image via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia "World of Entertainment" campaign giving free games and store credit to new Lumia owners [Update]

Next Story

Microsoft releases new look for Bing Android app

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Some of the patents Samsung won, if it had been reversed and been Apple patents, it would have been millions not a paltry 150 thousand. It's weird Apple gets away with so much and MS gets the shaft from courts in the US and abroad. Oh well, guess it's a case of Apple is American as pie and can do no wrong... should I chant "usa usa usa rah rah rah?" Cest la Vie.

"Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found."

As far as I'm aware. The US is on apples side with this (witch is no surprise giving the US interest involved) As well as the IP happy conveyor belt known as Germany. Hardly a global consensus.

SharpGreen said,
So I guess I should go patent a rounded square now, and make millions off sue people for using it.

Apple already did it.. In addition they are now suing YOU!

Wow. Just, wow. I won't deny that Apple has made incredibly good products which are easy to use, flexible, etc..., but seriously? How is "slide to unlock" considered a patent? I like Apple just as much as the next guy, but they need to learn to be a little bit nicer, and actually try to innovate once in a while instead of releasing the same product over and over again with few changes. Get off your high horse, Apple, and make something new again.

Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. 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.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but according to the jury, Apple also willfully stole Samsung's ideas if we've using Apple's logic.

I'm not for or against either side. The patent system is clearly broken when it comes to software.

The biggest loser here is Apple - the amount awarded is humiliating compared to what they asked for (and probably barely covers the amount spent on the trial).

Patent or no patent, Samsung made billions off their original strategy of cloning the iPhone in every way, shape and form possible.

Enron said,
Patent or no patent, Samsung made billions off their original strategy of cloning the iPhone in every way, shape and form possible.

I wonder how many billions Apple made off of cloning Xerox's PARC GUI? I don't think many companies in the software industry can claim the moral high ground when it comes to copying others. After all, most of the concepts in software come from established ideas in other fields.

simplezz said,

I wonder how many billions Apple made off of cloning Xerox's PARC GUI? I don't think many companies in the software industry can claim the moral high ground when it comes to copying others. After all, most of the concepts in software come from established ideas in other fields.

Apple licensed Xerox GUI, quite different.

bigmehdi said,
So instead to slide to unlock phone in the future, we'll have to shake it, or rub your face on it, or whatever.

It just illustrates how ridiculous software patents have become.

I wish these trials don't just look at did x invalidate y's patent, but in fact is y's patent even remotely valid.

Pretty sure bolts on doors had slide to unlock down long before Apple existed.

yakumo said,
I wish these trials don't just look at did x invalidate y's patent, but in fact is y's patent even remotely valid.

This. Juries go in with the assumption that the patents themselves are valid, when it many cases they aren't.

yakumo said,

Pretty sure bolts on doors had slide to unlock down long before Apple existed.

Stick mobile in the description and the USPO deems it a new concept, no matter how obvious :(

Samsung ordered to pay 119 million
Apple ordered to pay Hundred thousand.. Sounds like Samsung lost to me!

Although its all ridiculous sideshow. Remember when Microsoft's Browser ballot had a bug, Failing to display competitors browsers. They were fined like 800million lol

I compare everything to that silly Fine MSFT got now, that was just outlandish

Yeah the boots come down hard on Microsoft at the slightest error, yet people doing seriously bad business practices get either nothing, or effectively nothing. Gotta love the legal systems.

dingl_ said,
Although its all ridiculous sideshow. Remember when Microsoft's Browser ballot had a bug, Failing to display competitors browsers. They were fined like 800million lol

Yawn. Microsoft was fined for violating a legally binding EC agreement for 14 months - it certified to the EC that it was in compliance when it was not. If it had complied with the ruling it would have been fined precisely zero dollars. Microsoft was grossly negligent in complying with its legal obligations.

dtboos said,
Yeah the boots come down hard on Microsoft at the slightest error, yet people doing seriously bad business practices get either nothing, or effectively nothing. Gotta love the legal systems.

Please tell me you're joking? The reason for the browser ballot was because Microsoft had applied illegal pressure on OEMs to force them not to install competing browsers, distorting competition in the market. The issue is not a mistake with the browser ballot - the browser ballot was simply Microsoft's suggestion as a punishment for its abusive business practices. In the 90s and early 00s Microsoft was extremely anti-competitive in its business practices - it was fined numerous times by the US government as well.

The EC takes a very strong stance against anticompetitive business practices.

Does Apple install Chrome on any of its devices(Mac-iPad-iPhone..) or display any kind of list? nope.

Does Google display third-party browsers for install on a Clean/vanilla Android setup? nope

anti-competitive is not allowing competing dominant products to be installed on a rival platform, kind of like Google not developing apps for Windowsphone or Windows8.1. that's anti competitive. Microsoft never stopped any alternative browser from being developed for or installed on its OS and because the majority at the time were content with what they were given that is not illegal, not in my eyes. I was using both IE and Netscape Navigator.. being a nerd I was well aware of the choice. do you think those regular joes, non-tech savvy users out there using Android tablets are aware Firefox exists on that platform? nope

Edited by dingl_, May 4 2014, 12:56pm :

Browsers built for your own platform is the norm today.. Microsoft just happened to be well ahead of the game and subsequently punished for it

dingl_ said,
Does Google display third-party browsers for install on a Clean/vanilla Android setup? nope

Why would it? The browser ballot was a punitive measure suggested by Microsoft to avoid a fine for anticompetitive business practices.

dingl_ said,
anti-competitive is not allowing competing dominant products to be installed on a rival platform, kind of like Google not developing apps for Windowsphone or Windows8.1. that's anti competitive.

Companies can choose which platforms they want to support. Not supporting a platform isn't anticompetitive - it's just not giving it a competitive advantage. Further, WP only has a 3% market share and isn't supported by a lot of developers. The government shouldn't be dictating which platforms companies should or shouldn't support.

It's anticompetitive when a dominant platform owner imposes restrictions that prevent other company from competing fairly in the marketplace, as Microsoft was doing. Microsoft abused its market dominance to illegally and unfairly disadvantage the competition.

dingl_ said,
Microsoft never stopped any alternative browser from being developed for or installed on its OS and because the majority at the time were content with what they were given that is not illegal, not in my eyes.

Microsoft applied illegal pressure on OEMs to prevent them installing competing browsers, amongst other things.