Apple-Samsung Jury Reaffirms $120 Million Patent Verdict

The jury deciding Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co.’s trial over smartphone technology left intact the $120 million it awarded the iPhone maker May 2 after further review of the verdict.

Jurors spent more than two hours deliberating today after U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, directed them to review a possible error in their May 2 verdict. The jury recalculated damages for as many as four Samsung phones found to infringe Apple patents and arrived at the same grand total as three days ago.

The verdict in the second U.S. trial between the world’s top two smartphone makers sets the stage for each company to seek a judge’s order banning U.S. sales of some older devices found to infringe its patents.

Apple, which sought as much as $2.2 billion in damages, won infringement findings on three of its five patents at issue in the case. Jurors also found that Apple infringed one of two Samsung patents at issue and awarded $158,000 in damages to the maker of Galaxy smartphones.

The jury of four women and four men heard almost four weeks of evidence in the same courtroom where the first trial was held two years ago. The second case revolved around whether Samsung used features in Google Inc.’s Android operating system that copied the iPhone maker’s technology.

Smartphone Makers

The world’s top two smartphone makers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees on battles across four continents to dominate a market that was valued at $338.2 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Samsung had 31 percent of industry revenue, compared with 15 percent for Apple, whose share of the market has shrunk as the touch-screen interface has become more commonplace and Samsung, LG Electronics (066570) Inc. and Lenovo Group Ltd. have introduced lower-cost alternatives.

“We agree with the jury’s decision to reject Apple’s grossly exaggerated damages claim,” Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung said today in a statement. “Although we are disappointed by the finding of infringement, we are vindicated that for the second time in the U.S., Apple has been found to infringe Samsung’s patents.”

While Samsung’s claims against Apple were rejected by the jury in the 2012 trial, Samsung won an import ban from the International Trade Commission on some versions of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2, only to have it vetoed in August by President Barack Obama’s administration.

$930 Million

Apple was awarded $930 million in the first trial. In that case, which involved earlier models of smartphones and tablets, Apple’s request for an order barring sales of infringing Samsung phones was rejected by Koh. Apple has said the ban was more important to it than monetary damages.

In the second trial, Apple claimed 10 Samsung devices, including the Galaxy S3, infringe five of its patents. The patents cover a range of user-interface designs for the iOS software that powers iPhones and iPads.

Samsung contended that five Apple devices, including the iPhone 5 and versions of the iPod, infringe two of its patents. Samsung sought $6.2 million in damages.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, said May 2 that the jury’s verdict “reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products.”

The verdict is the eighth-largest jury award in the U.S. this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It’s the fourth-largest jury award in a patent case this year.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (005930), 12-cv-00630, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in federal court in San Jose, California, at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net Peter Blumberg, David Glovin

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.