After only two and a half days of deliberations, the jury has reached a verdict in the Apple vs. Samsung trial, finding Samsung infringing on Apple’s patents. Samsung will have to pay Apple $1,051,855,000. That’s one billion, with a “B”.
In after-hours trading, Apple’s stock is up over 6%.
Gleaned From TNW:
In the case of all of Samsung product infringing on Apples software design patent ‘381, the “bounce back” action, the jury ruled for Apple.
The jury ruled for Apple in most, but not all of Samsung’s products for infringing on Apple’s software patent ’915, a zooming and scrollingpatent. Three devices, including the Intercept and Replenish were exempt.
The jury ruled in favor of Apple on the ’163 patent (double tap to zoom), ruling that Samsung infringed on all but 8 phones and tablets.
On the question: “Did Samsung (the Korean company) induce its U.S. counterpart into infringing the patents in Qs 1-3?” The answer was: “Yes, with some exceptions.”
The ’381 patent: All Samsung devices were found for inducement.
The ’915 patent: All Samsung devices but the Replenish were found for inducement.
That last question refers to damages. Did Samsung willfully copy the software design of Apple’s devices?
Infringement of the D’677 patent, covering the front face of the iPhone: Samsung was found to infringe on all devices aside from the Ace.
Infringement of the D’087 patent, on the back of the iPhone: All Samsung devices aside from the S 4G and Vibrant only.
The D’305 patent: All Samsung devices were found to infringe. That’s the design of Apple’s iOS icons. The jury also felt that Samsung should have known that the icons were being copied.
Samsung failed to prove any of Apple’s patents were invalid.
Samsung got a slight break with the ’889 patent for the iPad’s design, neither Galaxy Tab models were found to be willful infringement. That covers the one for “clean front, edge-to-edge glass, thin bezel, thin outer border, and rounded corners of a tablet”.
Samsung did, however, get nailed on many other devices for intent. All patents but D’087 and D’889 were proven to be willfully infringed by Samsung.
Samsung could not prove that the ’893 trade dress on the iPhone 3G was not protectable, but Apple could only secure the 3G as protectable.
Overall, it’s a pretty sweeping victory for Apple, and Samsung wasn’t awarded a single claim against the iPhone and iPad. We’ll be putting this all together a “what does this all mean” piece in the near future.