U.S. jury awards Apple $539 million in Samsung patent retrial

6

(Reuters) – After practically 5 days of deliberations, a U.S. jury on Thursday mentioned Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) ought to pay $539 million to Apple Inc (AAPL.O) for copying patented smartphone options, in line with courtroom paperwork, bringing a years-long feud between the expertise corporations into its ultimate phases.

Silhouette of cellular person is seen subsequent to a display screen projection of Apple brand on this image illustration taken March 28, 2018. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The world’s prime smartphone rivals have been in courtroom over patents since 2011, when Apple filed a lawsuit alleging Samsung’s smartphones and tablets “slavishly” copied its merchandise. Samsung was discovered liable in a 2012 trial, however a disagreement over the quantity to be paid led to the present retrial over damages the place arguments ended on Could 18.

Samsung beforehand paid Apple $399 million to compensate Apple for infringement of a few of the patents at concern within the case. The jury has been deliberating the case since final week.

Due to that credit score, if the decision is upheld on enchantment it would lead to Samsung making an extra fee to Apple of practically $140 million.

In a press release, Apple mentioned it was happy that the members of the jury “agree that Samsung ought to pay for copying our merchandise.”

FILE PHOTO: The brand of Samsung Electronics is seen at its workplace constructing in Seoul, South Korea, March 23, 2018. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji/File Photograph

“We consider deeply within the worth of design,” Apple mentioned in its assertion. “This case has all the time been about greater than cash.”

Samsung didn’t instantly say whether or not it deliberate to enchantment the decision however mentioned it was retaining “all choices” to contest it.

“At this time’s choice flies within the face of a unanimous Supreme Court docket ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages,” Samsung mentioned in a press release. “We’ll take into account all choices to acquire an final result that doesn’t hinder creativity and truthful competitors for all corporations and shoppers.”

The brand new jury verdict adopted a trial in San Jose, California, earlier than Decide Lucy Koh that targeted on how a lot Samsung ought to pay for infringing Apple patents protecting points of the iPhone’s design. The jury awarded Apple $533.three million for Samsung’s violation of so-called design patents and $5.three million for the violation of so-called utility patents.

Apple this yr informed jurors it was entitled to $1 billion in earnings Samsung created from promoting infringing telephones, saying the iPhone’s design was essential to their success.

Samsung sought to restrict damages to about $28 million, saying it ought to solely pay for earnings attributable to the parts of its telephones that infringed Apple patents.

Jurors within the earlier trial awarded $1.05 billion to Apple, which was later diminished.

Samsung paid $548 million to Apple in December 2015, together with $399 million for infringement of a few of the patents at concern on this week’s trial.

Apple’s case towards Samsung raised the query of whether or not the entire earnings from a product that infringes a design patent needs to be awarded if the patent applies solely to a part of the product, mentioned Sarah Burstein, a professor of patent regulation on the College of Oklahoma.

The decision seems to be a compromise between Apple and Samsung’s positions and doesn’t provide a lot readability on that query, mentioned Burstein, who predicted Samsung would enchantment it to the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“This choice simply means we’re going to have extra uncertainty,” Burstein mentioned. “Sensible tech trade gamers are ready to see what the Federal Circuit does. This is only one jury making use of one take a look at.”

Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco and Jan Wolfe in New York; Modifying by Lisa Shumaker

Source link

Comments are closed.