Want CNET to notify you of price drops and the latest stories?

Jury awards Apple more than $1B, finds Samsung infringed

Verdict overwhelmingly favors Apple, in landmark patent decision likely to reverberate throughout tech industry.

Josh Lowensohn Former Senior Writer
Josh Lowensohn joined CNET in 2006 and now covers Apple. Before that, Josh wrote about everything from new Web start-ups, to remote-controlled robots that watch your house. Prior to joining CNET, Josh covered breaking video game news, as well as reviewing game software. His current console favorite is the Xbox 360.
Josh Lowensohn
4 min read
Judge Koh during the reading of the verdict. Vicki Behringer

Complete coverage: Apple v. Samsung, a battle over billions

Corrected at 6:35 p.m. PT

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- It wasn't even close.

After 21 hours of deliberation, a nine-person jury has sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung Electronics. The jury also awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages.

Apple had originally sought $2.75 billion in damages, and though it wasn't unanimous on all counts, the verdict was overwhelmingly in Apple's favor. Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, did not receive a nickel. (Refer to jury document at the end of this story.)

The scorecard highlights:

  • Jury found Samsung infringement of Apple utility, design patents for some (though not all) products.
  • Jury found willful infringement on five of six patents.
  • Jury upheld Apple utility, design patents.
  • Jury upheld Apple trade dress '983.
  • Jury found Samsung "diluted" Apple's registered iPhone, iPhone 3, and "Combination iPhone" trade dress on some products, not on others.
  • Jury found no Apple infringement of Samsung utility patents.
  • Jury found Samsung did not violate antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to the UMTS standard.
  • Damages owed by Samsung: $1.05 billion ($1,049,393,540 to be exact)

Watch this: Apple's patent win and what it means for you

The jury informed the court at 2:35 p.m. that it had reached a verdict, which was read in front of District Judge Lucy H. Koh as soon as the parties were assembled. The speed of the verdict apparently came as a surprise: One of Apple's lawyers walked into the courtroom wearing a polo shirt and jeans, so clearly he wasn't expecting this today.

The trial, which stretched more than three weeks, was characterized by a bewildering and massive trove of evidence that unveiled some of each companies' biggest secrets. By any measure, this was a complex case that presented jurors with page after page of technical minutiae. To reach their decision, jurors had to work through a 20-page document that required them to discern which devices from the two companies infringed on which patents -- a daunting task considering Apple had accused nearly two dozen of Samsung's devices of violating patents.

For Apple, information revealed during the trial included prototypes of iPhone and iPad designs that never saw the light of day, as well as highly detailed financial data that went far beyond what the company typically makes public. There were also e-mails between executives, one of which included mention of high interest in a smaller version of the iPad.

For Samsung, it was a series of damning internal documents, many of which showed that the company looked to Apple's devices for cues when designing its software icons and general features. One such internal report contained numerous side-by-side slides in which the company put a prerelease version of its initial Galaxy smartphone next to the iPhone and offered suggestions on how to make the Galaxy more similar to the Apple device.

Historians may want to note that all this took place as Tim Cook celebrated his first anniversary as CEO.

Samsung released the following statement after the verdict was delivered:

Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

And Apple had this to say:

We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right.

Though the verdict marks a final decision in this trial, there are still a few things in the air when it comes to the aftermath. Apple needs to file a chart that identifies the products it wants to keep off store shelves (the above ruling should give you some idea) -- paperwork that's due by Monday. There's also a hearing set for September 20 to discuss those potential bans.

Amended Verdict Apple Samsung

Apple v. Samsung: the verdict is in! Photos from the federal courthouse (pictures)

See all photos

Corrected at 6:35 p.m. PT: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated one jury finding. Samsung did not violate antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to its UMTS standard, the jury found.

Update, 9:52 p.m. PT: Swaps in amended verdict filing, and notes September 20 hearing on sales bans.