"I wish Samsung could have come up with more evidence to support its case," forewoman Colleen Allen told reporters outside the courthouse following the verdict. The 36-year-old from Aromas, Calif., works as a nurse in a community hospital. She formerly served as a combat medic in the US military.
An eight-person jury on Thursdayslightly less than the $380 million Apple had requested but much more than the $52 million Samsung wanted to pay.
The new damages award brings the total owed to Apple to about $930 million.
Apple applauded the decision and said the "case has always been about more than patents and money." It's about rewarding innovation and hard work, it said. Samsung, meanwhile, said it's "disappointed" by the jury's decision and that it will continue to appeal the recent rulings against the company.
Barry Goldman-Hall, a fellow juror, echoed Allen's comments and said it felt like the jury received much more evidence from Apple than from Samsung.
"We were left wondering why we hadn't gotten information from Samsung," said Goldman-Hall, a 60-year-old therapist from San Jose. "We didn't have much to counter [Apple's argument] with."
Jurors were so divided on one issue -- how much Samsung made in profits from the infringing devices -- that they almost declared a hung jury, Allen said. She said they expected to continue deliberations through Friday or Monday but ultimately reached consensus on the profits issue after one juror pointed out that they were chosen for their "common sense."
That meant they could use their own reasoning to determine that Samsung incurred certain operating expenses for the copycat devices, she said. However, Samsung didn't prove precisely what those expenses were, so the jury split the difference of Samsung's and Apple's estimates for expenses.
In the other two damages calculation categories -- reasonable royalties and Apple's lost profits -- the jurors agreed with Apple's calculations.
Apple arrived at the $380 million amount based on lost profits of about $114 million, Samsung's profits of about $231 million, and reasonable royalties of approximately $35 million. Samsung said Apple shouldn't receive any money for lost profits, $52.7 million for Samsung's profits, and royalties of only $28,452 because the patents have limitations.
Ultimately, the jury wanted to send a message that it values and protects intellectual property, Goldman-Hall said.
"We felt like that was the message of this trial -- that this was about patent inventors and patent holders and that our decision had implications for that process in this world and that was valuable," he said. "We heard in court that Samsung and IBM are the biggest patent holders on the face of the earth...This is important to them, as well."
A retrial to determine the additional damages Samsung owes Apple kicked off November 12 with jury selection, followed by opening arguments the following day. Witnesses who took the stand included Phil Schiller, Apple's head of marketing; and several expert witnesses who calculated the total damages owed.
For most, the damages retrial was a case of "Groundhog Day." No new revelations emerged during the testimony, and most witnesses also took the stand during the last trial more than a year ago. Apple's witnesses argued Samsung's copycat devices hurt the company, while Samsung argued that people seek out its devices more for their differences than similarities to Apple gadgets.
Not at issue in this case was whether Samsung infringed Apple's patents. The judge instructed the jury that a previous jury already decided Samsung infringed, and that they shouldn't revisit that issue. The sole consideration in the retrial was money -- just how much Samsung owes Apple for infringing its patents.
The jury of six women and two men reached the decision in Apple's favor after deliberating since midday Tuesday. Wednesday, the jury requested more information about how to determine Apple's lost profits, but most other questions related to office supplies -- they needed calculators and highlighters -- and lunch -- they got pretty sick of the catered sourdough sandwiches.
Most jurors expressed some tech savviness, but one woman professed to having no cell phones in her home. Allen noted one man on the jury owns only a flip phone, but he plans to buy a smartphone next week. He plans to buy a Sony device, she said.