Jury finds Samsung owes Apple another $290 million

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Jury finds Samsung owes Apple another $290 million

A jury has found that Samsung owes Apple another $290 million for infringing Apple’s smartphone patents, bringing the total damages to around $900 million

In August last year, a jury at the same district court in San Jose decided that Samsung had infringed five utility and design patents relating to the iPhone and awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages. But Judge Lucy Koh found that part of the award had been improperly calculated and reduced the total by $450 million.

Today’s verdict came at the end of a retrial solely focused on determining damages based on lost profits and royalties, as Samsung’s infringement of the patents was established in the previous jury trial. Apple requested an additional $380 million in damages, while Samsung argued that it only owed another $52 million.

Samsung attorney Bill Price asked Koh to declare a mistrial because of what Price described as “racist” comments by a lawyer representing Apple, but Koh refused to do so.

Samsung made about $3.5 billion from the infringing products, which included the Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Showcase, Fascinate, Vibrant and Mesmerize.

A separate trial will take place in March next year in relation to newer phone models, such as the Galaxy 4 and Note 2, and a counterclaim regarding Apple’s iPhone 5.

In a separate case on Monday, the Federal Circuit ordered a California district judge to reconsider a December 2012 ruling refusing to ban certain Samsung products found to infringe on Apple’s patents relating to mobile devices.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article