Apple, Samsung win some,

lose some in patent case

A jury tells Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million
for infringing some of its patents, while Apple
owes Samsung $158,400 for infringing one of
the Korean company's patents.
by Shara Tibken
@sharatibken / May 2, 20144:58 PM PDT
Mobile

May 2, 20144:58 PM PDT

by Shara Tibken
@sharatibken

o
o
o

Reading the verdict. Vicki Behringer

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a
mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case,
determining that both companies were guilty in some aspects but
not guilty in others.
The jury found all of Samsung's accused gadgets infringed Apple's
'647 "quick links" patent but that none infringed the '959 "universal
search" patent or the '414 "background sync" patent. Results were
mixed for the '721 "slide to unlock" patent, with some Samsung

devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others

found not to. Judge Lucy Koh, in a pretrial judgement, had already
ruled that Samsung infringed the '172 "automatic word correction"
patent, and the jury simply calculated damages.
The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for Samsung's
infringement, much less than the $2.2 billion it had requested.
Apple v. Samsung 2014: The infringing devices...

1 - 5 of 13
NextPrev
Meanwhile, the jury also determined that Apple infringed Samsung's
'449 patent for photo and video organization in folders and awarded
the Korean company $158,400. Samsung had accused Apple of
infringing two patents and asked for damages of about $6.2 million.
The jury will return Monday at 9 a.m. to reconsider one of the
damages figures. It awarded Apple no damages for one version of
the Galaxy S2, but Apple believes it should be awarded some money
for Samsung's infringement of the '172 patent.
Asked for a response to today's events, a Samsung spokesperson
said, "It is inappropriate to comment while the jury is still
deliberating."
Apple said in a statement that it's "grateful to the jury and court for
their service."
"Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already
found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our
products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into
beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their
lives to designing and delivering for our customers."
Apple v. Samsung - completed jury form
The jury reached its verdict shortly before 4:30 p.m. PT Friday, the
end of the third full day of deliberations. The verdict was read to the
court about half an hour later.
The results of the trial are less clear cut than the previous patentinfringement case and damages retrial that netted Apple about $930
million. However, the results likely will be viewed as a victory for
Samsung. The damages amount owed to Apple fall far below the
company's request, and Samsung wasn't found to infringe all of
Apple's patents. In addition, Apple was found to infringe one of
Samsung's patents, something that didn't occur in the previous trial.

"This outcome feels like a defensive victory for Samsung, but not a
particularly shocking one," said Brian Love, assistant professor at
the Santa Clara University School of Law. "With Google directly
involved in developing the allegedly infringing software, Apple's
claims that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone never rang true."
Chart: Guilty gadgets

Apple v. Samsung 2014 infringed devices scorecard

Almost two years after Apple and Samsung faced off in a messy
patent dispute, the smartphone and tablet rivals returned to the
same courtroom here to battle once again over patents before Judge
Koh. Apple argued that Samsung infringed on five of its patents for
the iPhone, its biggest moneymaker, and that Apple was due $2.2
billion for that infringement. Samsung wanted about $6.2 million
from Apple for infringing two of its software patents, and it argued
that even if it did infringe all of Apple's patents, it should have to
pay only $38.4 million.
While the companies asked for damages, the case is about more
than money. What's really at stake is the market for mobile devices.
Apple now gets two-thirds of its sales from the iPhone and iPad;
South Korea-based Samsung is the world's largest maker of
smartphones; and both want to keep dominating the market. So far,
Apple is ahead when it comes to litigation in the US. Samsung has
been ordered to pay the company about $930 million in damages.
The two companies presented their closing arguments Tuesday. The
case was then handed to the jury of four men and four women
shortly before 3 p.m. PT that day. The jury was made up of tech
novices such as a police officer and a retired teacher. Only one
member, a former IBM software executive, had experience in
technology, while another works in renewable energy.
In the case, Apple and Samsung accused each other of copying
features used in their popular smartphones and tablets. The trial
involved different patents and newer devices than the ones disputed
at trial in August 2012 and in a damages retrial in November 2013.
For instance, the new trial involved the iPhone 5 , released in

September 2012, and Samsung's Galaxy S3 , which also debuted in

2012.
Most Samsung features that Apple said infringe are items that are a
part of Android, Google's mobile operating system that powers
Samsung's devices. All patents except one, called "slide to unlock,"
are built into Android, Samsung said. Apple has argued the patent
infringement trial has nothing to do with Android. However,
Samsung called Apple's suit an and said that Google had invented
certain features before Apple patented them. It came out during the
trial that Google has been helping Samsung fund its defense against
a couple of Apple's patent claims because of a "Mobile Application
Distribution Agreement" for Samsung to use Google's apps.
Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its
own phones or tablets. Instead, Apple has sued companies that sell
physical devices using Android, a rival to Apple's iOS mobile
operating system. In particular, Apple believes Samsung has
followed a strategy to copy its products and then undercut Apple's
pricing.
The monthlong trial, which kicked off March 31 with jury selection,
included about 52 hours of testimony, three hours of opening
arguments, and four hours of closings. It covered everything from
the invention of the technology at issue in the case to what
damages should total. Apple argued throughout the trial that its
case was about Samsung, not Google, and that Samsung copied
Apple out of desperation. Samsung, meanwhile, argued that Apple's
suit was about hurting competition and Android.
See also

Apple v. Samsung: All you need to know about latest patent

trial (FAQ)

Jury asks for more info in Apple v. Samsung -- including what

Steve Jobs directed

Samsung: You can't copy iPhone features if iPhones don't use

them

Apple makes final pitch in patent infringement case against

Samsung

Google agreed to pony up for Samsung's defense against

Apple
An appeals court ruling April 25 in Apple's related patentinfringement suit against Motorola threw a wrench in the Apple v.
Samsung case, extending the duration of the trial by one day to give
the parties one additional hour each -- on top of the 25 apiece they
already had -- to present more evidence. The US Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld a ruling by Judge A. Posner of
the Northern District of Illinois that determined a specific
interpretation of Apple's '647 "quick links" patent. Koh had allowed
the patent, particularly the use of an analyzer server, to be
interpreted in a way in the current trial that differed from Posner's
accepted meaning, so she allowed Samsung and Apple to address
the patent Monday.
There were seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by
Apple and two by Samsung. Apple accused Samsung of infringing US
patents Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and
8,074,172. All relate to software features, such as quick links for
'647, universal search for '959, background syncing for '414, slideto-unlock for '721, and automatic word correction for '172. Overall,
Apple argued that the patents enable ease of use and make a user
interface more engaging.
Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents
Nos. 6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung
purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization
functionality. The '239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers
video transmission functionality and could have implications for
Apple's use of FaceTime.

<span itemprop="image" itemscope

itemtype="https://schema.org/ImageObject"><img
src="https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/7l8Ch9qzlhAXfb8Aimb_7IkodZ
o=/970x0/2014/04/10/adc5fd4b-053e-43a5-b7dd0a92983ac45f/20140407192957.jpg" class=""
alt="20140407192957.jpg" height="0" width="970"><meta
itemprop="url"
content="https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/7l8Ch9qzlhAXfb8Aimb_7I
kodZo=/970x0/2014/04/10/adc5fd4b-053e-43a5-b7dd0a92983ac45f/20140407192957.jpg"><meta itemprop="height"
content="0"><meta itemprop="width"
content="970"></span>Apple and Samsung spent the past month
battling over patents in a San Jose, Calif., court. Shara Tibken/CNET
The Samsung gadgets that Apple said infringe are the Admire,
Galaxy Nexus , Galaxy Note , Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S II, Galaxy SII
Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy SII Skyrocket, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1,
and the Stratosphere. Samsung, meanwhile, said the iPhone 4 ,
iPhone 4S , iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth generation), and iPod Touch
(fourth generation) all infringe. Samsung initially accused the iPad
2 , iPad 3, iPad 4, and iPad Mini of infringing its '239 patent, but it
later dropped those claims. That also reduced the amount Samsung
wanted in damages to $6.2 million from its originally requested $6.8
million.
The trial contained testimony by numerous technical and damages
experts, as well as people who invented the technology at issue in
the case.
The first day of arguments featured testimony by Phil Schiller,
Apple's head of marketing. Other witnesses who have testified for
Apple include Greg Christie, an Apple engineer who invented the
slide-to-unlock iPhone feature; Thomas Deniau, a France-based
Apple engineer who helped develop the company's quick link
technology; and Justin Denison, chief strategy officer of Samsung
Telecommunications America. Denison's testimony came via a
deposition video.
The crux of Apple's case came with two expert witnesses, John
Hauser, the Kirin professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of
Management; and Christopher Vellturo, an economist and principal
at consultancy Quantitative Economic Solutions. Hauser conducted a
conjoint study that determined Apple's patented features made
Samsung's devices more appealing, while Vellturo determined the
amount of damages Apple should be due for Samsung's
infringement: $2.191 billion.

Related links

Samsung: Apple 'vastly overstated' scope of patents

Samsung: Apple's case 'is an attack on Android'

Apple: Samsung patent case is not about Google

Apple says Samsung copied iPhone after suffering 'crisis of

design'

Tech novices set to determine the fate of Apple v. Samsung

Samsung, which launched its defense April 11 after Apple rested its
case, called several Google engineers to the stand to testify about
the early days of Android and technology they created before Apple
received its patents. Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google vice president of
engineering for Android, said his company never copied iPhone
features for Android. Other Google Android engineers, Bjorn Bringert
and Dianne Hackborn, also testified about features of the operating
system.
High-ranking Samsung executives, including former Samsung
Telecommunications America CEO Dale Sohn and STA Chief
Marketing Officer Todd Pendleton, also took the stand during the
monthlong trial. The two executives testified about Samsung's
marketing push for the Galaxy S2 and other devices, saying a shift in
the Korean company's sales and marketing efforts -- not copying
Apple -- boosted its position in the smartphone market.
The latter half of the trial largely featured experts hired by Samsung
to dispute the validity of Apple's patents and to argue that Samsung
didn't infringe. David Reibstein, chaired professor of marketing at
the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, refuted
Apple expert Hauser's testimony from earlier in the trial. Judith
Chevalier, a professor of economics and finance at the Yale
University School of Management who was hired by Samsung, said
her analysis determined that a reasonable royalty for Samsung's
assumed infringement would be $1.75 per device, or $38.4 million
overall. Apple had argued it deserved $40 per device for
infringement as well as lost profits for a total of $2.191 billion.
After presenting its defense, Samsung on April 21 launched its own
infringement suit against Apple. Dan Schonfeld, a professor of
computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, testified

that Apple infringed the '239 patent in its iPhone through the use of
FaceTime and a feature for attaching video to messages and mail.
And Ken Parulski, another expert who was part of the Kodak team
that developed the world's first color digital camera, testified that
Apple infringed another Samsung patent for organizing video and
photos in folders.
James Storer, a professor of computer science at Brandeis University
hired by Apple as an expert witness, then testified April 22 that
Apple didn't infringe Samsung's patents. The company then called
witnesses such as Apple engineers Tim Millet and Roberto Garcia to
testify about the creation of technology used in iPhones and iPads.
Millet serves as senior director of platform architecture at Apple,
helping create the processors that power iOS devices. Garcia,
meanwhile talked about the creation of the FaceTime technology
that has been accused of infringing a Samsung patent