Jury orders Samsung to pay US$1 billion in damages to Apple
By Chris Wood
August 24, 2012
The jury in a landmark intellectual property lawsuit has ruled that Samsung should pay Apple over US$1 billion in damages. After nearly 22 hours of deliberation, the jury found that Samsung willingly infringed upon Apple's patents with a number of its devices. Apple was not found to have infringed upon any of the South Korean firm's patents.
Apple had initially claimed a total of $2.5 billion in damages, with Samsung seeking $519 million. After considering a full 700 questions regarding the claims of the two technology giants, the nine-person jury concluded that Samsung had indeed infringed upon its rival's intellectual property in six patents. The final damages figure agreed upon by the jury is $1,051,855,000.
The time that it took to make a decision on the case came as a surprise to many, with the jury deliberating for just under 22 hours following the three week trial. Not only was Samsung's claim that Apple's intellectual properties were invalid rejected, but it was ruled that the South Korean firm willingly infringed upon Apple's patents. The majority of key decisions went in Apple's favor, with the jury ruling that all but three of the products in question infringed upon Cupertino's pinch-to-zoom technology.
Samsung had also claimed that Apple had infringed upon several of its own patents, and though the iPhone creator was unable prove any of those patents invalid, they were not found to have infringed upon any.
Though not all of the decisions went in Apple's favor, the ruling can be seen as a significant blow to the South Korean firm, a company that is widely regarded as Apple's key competitor in the smartphone and tablet industries. However, based on previous cases, it's likely that Samsung will appeal the ruling, meaning that the ongoing dispute is far from over.
The news comes after a South Korean court ruled yesterday that both Apple and Samsung have infringed upon each others' patents, following which a limited ban was placed upon national sales of the products involved in the country. Similar lawsuits are ongoing in the U.K., Germany and Australia.