With a verdict that landed almost entirely in Apple's favor, you'd think we'd be all wrapped up with the trial between Apple and Samsung that concluded in August.
You'd be wrong.
There's still quite a bit up in the air, some of which will be sorted out as the two companies return to a Northern California district court tomorrow afternoon for a hearing.
On the docket are a number of issues that have been the focus of more than 200 court filings since the late August jury verdict, which left. That includes whether that amount should be changed, if Apple can get some of Samsung's infringing devices banned, and if Samsung can vie for a retrial based on what it says was misconduct by the jury foreman.
Here's a quick rundown of what's at stake:
You might not remember the specific patents at issue between these two tech giants, but you probably remember how much Samsung's on the hook for when it comes to damages, something that could be adjusted.
Apple originally wanted Samsung to pay $2.75 billion in damages for allegedly infringing on its patents, but got $1.05 billion instead. In a September legal filing, Apple. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh has the power to lower or even increase this tally.
Following the verdict, Apple filed paperwork to get a that were found to infringe various patents. These are not Samsung's latest and greatest smartphones by any means, but they're still on sale -- making them a viable target to be kept off store shelves.
Newer devices from both companies, including Samsung's Galaxy S3, S3 Mini, and the Galaxy Note 2, along with Apple's iPhone 5 and iPad Mini in a separate spat between the two companies, due to go to trial in 2014.
Both of the above items could be irrelevant if Samsung gets its wish for a redo on the entire trial.
In an October filing, Samsung took issue with Velvin Hogan, the jury foreman in the case. Hogan appeared in a number of media interviews following the trial and commented on what went on behind the scenes. Samsung said Hogan failed to bring up the fact that he had a legal spat with Seagate in 1993 (of which Samsung owns a piece), which in turn tainted his objectivity.
Will Judge Koh buy? In an order last month, she said she would " " or whether Hogan "concealed information" during the jury selection process, something she oversaw.
Some of these issues may not be all wrapped up by the end of the day, with decisions to follow after. CNET will be on the scene to bring you the news, so stay tuned.