Apple Inc awarded $290 mn in damages retrial against Samsung
22 Nov 2013
Apple Inc has been awarded around $290 million in a damages retrial against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. The verdict comes after the iPhone maker won a historic verdict in the case last year.
The trial lasted for about a week but the jury deliberated for around two weeks before yesterday's decision in a San Jose, California federal court. Apple had asked for $379.8 million, while according to Samsung it needed to pay $52.7 million.
The two companies have been fighting in the courts for over two years and Apple was awarded over $1 billion last year after it convinced a jury that Samsung had copied various iPhone features - like using fingers to pinch and zoom on the screen as also some aspects of design like the phone's flat, black glass screen, which ws later halved (See: Apple's $1.05-bn award against Samsung cut to $598 mn).
Earlier this year US district judge Lucy Koh upheld nearly $640 million of that verdict ordering a retrial on the rest, as she ruled that some errors had been made by the earlier jury in calculations.
Along with the retrial verdict of $290.5 million yesterday, Apple has now been awarded $929.8 million in the case.
Apple called in marketing chief Phil Schiller to testify during the trial, while Samsung did not call any senior executive, which was pointed out by Apple attorneys during closing argument.
The combined total of the damages awarded in the case has been calculated at slightly under $930 million by Apple.
"For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money," the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Macintosh computer maker said in a released statement.
"It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it's impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost."
Samsung said in a statement however, that it would "move forward with our post-trial motion and appeal."
"We are disappointed by today's decision, which is based in large part on a patent that the US Patent and Trademark Office has recently deemed invalid," the company added.
