Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

<b><i>BREAKING NEWS:</b></i> Apple Wins Big in Trial Against Samsung

By Scott Graham
August 27, 2012

If the verdict Apple obtained on Aug. 24 against Samsung in their smartphone and tablet trial isn't chopped down in post-trial motions or on appeal, it will stand as the largest patent verdict in history.

But the big question on the mind of a couple of patent experts who've been following the case is whether U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will issue a permanent injunction against Samsung, and if so how severe it will be.

Professors Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School and Brian Love of Santa Clara University School of Law see a permanent injunction as likely. 'Keep in mind, a preliminary injunction is in place,' Lemley said of Koh's order blocking U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet. 'It would be quite surprising if she didn't enter an injunction at all. The question is how broad an injunction' ' in particular, whether it will cover only the Samsung products identified by Apple, or current and future similar products.

Love said he would expect a permanent injunction and 'probably more likely than not' an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit staying it pending an appeal.

The nine-member federal court jury sitting in San Jose rendered a verdict after just two-and-a-half days of deliberations. The four-week trial featured attorneys from Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Apple, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for Samsung.

The jury found that Samsung infringed most of the patents Apple sued over, and its trade dress on the iPhone and iPad, and did so willfully. It completely rejected Samsung's cross claims for infringement.

The jury awarded $1.05 billion. Koh ordered jurors to resume deliberations over some minor inconsistencies in the 20-page verdict form. After revisiting it, they had only reduced the award by $2.4 million, putting the figure at just under $1.05 billion, according to press reports.

'Given the willful infringement, it's more likely than not the damages award will increase, up to three times' the jury's award, Love said, noting that will be within Koh's discretion.

'It's not an across-the-board victory for Apple,' Love said, 'but it's very close.'

Apple has a second suit pending against Samsung. Koh currently has trial in that case set for March 2014.


Scott Graham The Recorder The Intellectual Property Strategist

If the verdict Apple obtained on Aug. 24 against Samsung in their smartphone and tablet trial isn't chopped down in post-trial motions or on appeal, it will stand as the largest patent verdict in history.

But the big question on the mind of a couple of patent experts who've been following the case is whether U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will issue a permanent injunction against Samsung, and if so how severe it will be.

Professors Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School and Brian Love of Santa Clara University School of Law see a permanent injunction as likely. 'Keep in mind, a preliminary injunction is in place,' Lemley said of Koh's order blocking U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet. 'It would be quite surprising if she didn't enter an injunction at all. The question is how broad an injunction' ' in particular, whether it will cover only the Samsung products identified by Apple, or current and future similar products.

Love said he would expect a permanent injunction and 'probably more likely than not' an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit staying it pending an appeal.

The nine-member federal court jury sitting in San Jose rendered a verdict after just two-and-a-half days of deliberations. The four-week trial featured attorneys from Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for Apple, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for Samsung.

The jury found that Samsung infringed most of the patents Apple sued over, and its trade dress on the iPhone and iPad, and did so willfully. It completely rejected Samsung's cross claims for infringement.

The jury awarded $1.05 billion. Koh ordered jurors to resume deliberations over some minor inconsistencies in the 20-page verdict form. After revisiting it, they had only reduced the award by $2.4 million, putting the figure at just under $1.05 billion, according to press reports.

'Given the willful infringement, it's more likely than not the damages award will increase, up to three times' the jury's award, Love said, noting that will be within Koh's discretion.

'It's not an across-the-board victory for Apple,' Love said, 'but it's very close.'

Apple has a second suit pending against Samsung. Koh currently has trial in that case set for March 2014.


Scott Graham The Recorder The Intellectual Property Strategist

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.