Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

New Damages Trial in Apple v. Samsung Set for November

Samsung and Apple will be heading back to court in November for a partial retrial, reports FOSS Patents. The trial follows judge Lucy Koh's March ruling that struck $450 million from the $1 billion in damages that were awarded to Apple last August, on the premise that the original damages may have been miscalculated by the jury.

According to Koh, the original jury may not have had a clear understanding of the patent issues, which resulted in a lump sum award that did not distinguish between patent violations, making it impossible for the court to determine which part of the damages were applicable to each patent.

NewImage43

Scheduled for November 12, the new trial could result in an award that favors either Apple or Samsung, depending on whether the amount is more or less than the original $450 million. The trial will be limited to the same evidence used in the original trial, which means neither Samsung nor Apple can introduce new information.
The new damages trial will take place on November 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, 2013. Eight jurors will be selected, and for the purposes of their new damages verdict, the first jury's infringement findings will be law of the case, as the court rejected Samsung's argument that a new trial also has to re-evaluate liability issues.
Though a trial will determine how much (or more) of the $450 million Samsung is required to pay, Samsung is still responsible for the remaining $600 million from the original jury decision. Apple will also request both interest and supplemental damage, which could cost Samsung even more.
Apple wants prejudgment interest and supplemental damages (damages covering the period between the jury trial and the final ruling), and it's undoubtedly entitled to both, but the court won't determine the amount (which won't be substantial compared to the overall set of issues in this case) until after the appeal from a final ruling following the second trial.
Samsung requested a stay on the case in order to reexamine two Apple patents on rubber-banding and pinch-to-zoom that have since been preliminarily invalidated, but the request was denied. Koh did say, however, that a final ruling from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could change her mind.

The two companies also have a separate 12-day trial scheduled in March of 2014 to investigate additional patent infringement claims.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

16 months ago
Does anyone care anymore?
Rating: 19 Votes
16 months ago
Samsung is risking another billion. Good. Love them to get what the copycat deserves.
Rating: 11 Votes
16 months ago

Samsung is risking another billion. Good. Love them to get what the copycat deserves.


Well, they're not, and Judge Koh has already decided that the $1 billion was excessive.
Rating: 10 Votes
16 months ago
Hey, as long as the companies can multi-task and get out some new tech. They can sue each other until kingdom come.
Rating: 7 Votes
16 months ago

Does anyone care anymore?


I certainly don't
Rating: 5 Votes
16 months ago

New Damages Trial in Apple v. Samsung Set for November

1st world problems.
Rating: 4 Votes
16 months ago
Hmm.. slow news day.
Rating: 4 Votes
16 months ago
Adriaaaaaaaaan!
Rating: 3 Votes
16 months ago
Mamma mia, here we go again!
Rating: 3 Votes
16 months ago

Stockholders "pay for it" by losing profits. They are not a source of income to a company.

the statements are not inconsistent.


Dude, if stockholders are not a source of income to a company, no company would ever issue them in the first place, nor would there be IPOs. Stockholders are not an ongoing source of income, granted. But to say that stockholders pay for legal costs via lost profits is begging the question of where those profits come from. To lose profits, a company must already have them. Those profits are generated through sales revenue (i.e. you and I), not stockholders.

And legal fees, like all other expenses, come out of revenue. Apple Legal does not print its own money supply.
Rating: 2 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]