Apple's Request to Triple $1.05B Samsung Damages Denied

Due to findings that suggested Samsung did not willfully infringe on Apple's patents, judge Lucy Koh has denied the latter's request to triple the $1.05 billion in damages it received back in August, 2012.

"As this is the sum total of Apple's arguments and evidence that Samsung's infringement was willful, the Court cannot conclude that Apple has met its burden to show willfulness by clear and convincing evidence," she said.

Koh believed Samsung when it said that it thought Apple's patents were invalid. The judge, however, refused its request for a new trial. The South Korean technology giant stressed that Jury Foreman Velvin Hogan failed to mention that he was involved in a lawsuit filed against Samsung partner Seagate Technologies. Apple, meanwhile, were denied a permanent ban on its chief competitor's products.

Judge Koh will be presiding over the next major patent trial between Apple and Samsung in 2014.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
24 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • stoogie
    apple needs to grow up, stop stealing ideas, stop trying to prevent sales of competitors through loopholes in the patent system, and try to earn some respect.
    29
  • Anonymous
    Apple, before the value of your stock falls to the ground, please donate your 100s of billions to the US public debt.
    28
  • xpeh
    Sounds like Judge Koh is tired of Apple's bullshit
    25
  • Other Comments
  • A Bad Day
    Mister Rogers: "Can't we all just get along?"


    Software industry: "F--- NO!!!"
    14
  • Anonymous
    Apple, before the value of your stock falls to the ground, please donate your 100s of billions to the US public debt.
    28
  • csbeer
    Compete in the marketplace, not the courtroom. This whole disgusting episode undermines the legitimacy of intellectual property and harms the sanctity of the court when cases involving blatant ripping off of products need to be heard.
    15