Tech —

Final Apple v. Samsung orders are out: No extra damages for Apple

Samsung's infringement not willful; future order may lessen Apple's winnings.

Samsung HQ in Gangnam, Seoul.
Samsung HQ in Gangnam, Seoul.

US District Judge Lucy Koh, who oversaw the blockbuster Apple v. Samsung trial in San Jose last summer, published three orders late yesterday that cover all but one of the post-trial issues in that litigation. The orders cover a wide range of issues, but there are two clear takeaways. First, Apple isn't getting anything more than the $1.05 billion it won at trial. And for Samsung, there's no big escape hatch from the poor results of this trial.

It's almost all ready for appeal now, where both sides will, again, try to seek an advantage. Apple has already appealed its failure to win an injunction.

At a December hearing, Apple's lawyers made clear that if it didn't get some of what it wanted—injunctions and bigger damages—the patent war between the two leading smartphone companies had no end in sight. While Apple had a big win at trial, this series of post-trial orders shows what Koh is willing to give Apple to sweeten the pot: which is to say, absolutely nothing, regardless of how loudly it asks.

So Apple's damages aren't going up, but will they go down? It's a distinct possibility. In a footnote to the order denying Samsung's motion for a new trial, Koh notes that there will be at least one more order, on Samsung's request to lower damages or to get a new trial on damages.

The key findings of the four orders follow. 

Samsung's infringement not “willful”

When a patent infringer is found guilty of "willful" infringement, damage awards can be increased up to three times. The jury found Samsung's infringement was willful in five of the seven patents that Apple won on, but that isn't enough to automatically increase damages. For each of those five patents, Koh ruled, Samsung had good reasons to believe it didn't infringe, so the infringement isn't willful.

On the '381 patent and the '915 patent, for instance, Samsung had good reason to believe the key claims were invalid; on the '163 patent, Samsung had a reasonable defense that it was "indefinite," or too vague. Even though those defenses didn't ultimately carry the day for Samsung, the Korean electronics company wasn't being unreasonable in believing those defenses, Koh found.

In some cases the differences between Apple's patents and the prior art were tiny. In the '915 (multitouch) patent, Samsung argued that a Mitsubishi system called DiamondTouch should render it invalid. Koh explains:

The DiamondTouch, however, treats a two-finger touch as unique, and a single finger or a three-or-four-finger touch as the same. The ’915 Patent, in contrast, treats one-finger touches as unique, and two, three, or four-finger touches as the same. Though this jury did not, a jury could reasonably have found that the gap between DiamondTouch’s function and the ’915 Patent (i.e., whether the one-finger or the two-finger touch is unique) was not significant.

Koh ruled similarly on the two design patents, finding that Apple didn't even present much evidence of wilfulness for those two patents.

For Samsung: No escape from poor results, no new trial

Both sides tried to win in post-trial motions what they couldn't win at the jury trial. Samsung tried to argue that Apple's design patents were invalid and obvious. They argued, for instance, that the D'677 and D'087 patents were obvious because they were two similar to Japanese patents and a Korean patent that came before them. But Koh said those patents were different enough that the jury could have seen a "significant gap" between the prior art and Apple's patent. On Apple's design patent protecting its tablets, the D'889, Samsung again argued that the Fidler tablet and a tablet called the TC1000 rendered it obvious; Koh disagreed. 

Koh shot down the rest of Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents should be nullified, as well. Samsung's post-trial attempt to argue that its patents really were infringed by Apple didn't get any traction with her.

Samsung also argued that the trial was "manifestly unfair," because of time limitations and evidentiary rulings by Koh. For example, Samsung was forbidden to play advertisements during trial while Apple was allowed to do so. "None of these arguments merits a new trial," wrote Koh. Both sides were treated similarly in terms of time limits and what arguments were allowed. In the case of the one significant difference, which was the use of advertisements, "Apple's advertisements were relevant evidence for secondary meaning and fame, elements of Apple's trade dress claims," wrote Koh. "Samsung has not established that its advertisements were similarly relevant."

In a separate order, Koh found that none of Apple's patents are invalid because of indefiniteness. That was one issue where, during a key December hearing, she seemed to be leaning Samsung's way in at least one case. Koh asked a variety of questions as to why she shouldn't find the '163 patent (Apple's "tap to zoom" patent) too ambiguous. While it may have been a close call, Koh let this patent stand, along with the others.

For Apple: No more damages, for patents or trademarks

Apple tried to win a variety of results post-trial that it couldn't wrest from the jury. With a small exception, none of those attempts succeeded.

The company tried to convince Koh that "trade dress" not found protectable by the jury should be found so. It tried to argue that patents it failed to invalidate should still be held invalid, and that Samsung should be liable on the breach of contract and antitrust grounds that Apple failed to win on at trial. Those all lost, with one small exception: Apple was able to invalidate two claims of Samsung's patent no. 7,675,941, claims 10 and 15. That patent claims a system for transmitting data over a wireless network, by chopping up data with certain types of headers. Koh found those claims were invalidated by prior art. That small victory won't matter too much in this case, since Apple wasn't found to infringe those Samsung patents.

Finally, Apple also asked for a $400 million bonus on its verdict for the trademark part of its case. Koh made clear that legal precedent gives her authority over whether to award any enhancement here, and she decided to give Apple nothing. The "trade dilution" theory that Apple won on is "a doctrine at the outer reaches of trademark and trade dress law," notes Koh, and Apple already received a massive award of $382 million for the trademark part of its case. "Further, Apple is making two inconsistent arguments: first, that money cannot compensate Apple for the harm its lost market share may cause going forward, and second, that the Court should award $400 million to compensate Apple for lost market share," notes Koh in her final order of the day [PDF]. "If an amount cannot be calculated to compensate for this loss, then it is unclear why $400 million would be an appropriate award."

Onward to appeal

Overall, Koh predictably defended the results of the four-week trial that took place in her courtroom. Apple's courtroom win is still likely to stand as a testament to how much damage a corporation can do to a competitor by wielding US intellectual property laws; if upheld on appeal, it will be the largest patent verdict ever. But today's orders show that Koh is clearly determined to set some limits on Apple's victory, and not let it become one more crushing than it already is.

The four orders follow:

  • Order re: indefiniteness [PDF]
  • Order denying Apple's motions [PDF]
  • Order denying Samsung's motions [PDF]
  • Order denying enhanced damages [PDF]

Channel Ars Technica