Apple Loses Bid to Triple Damages in Patent Litigation Against Samsung
Samsung violated Apple’s design and utility patents, but its intent was “not willful,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled late Tuesday, denying Apple’s request for additional damages on top of an existing damage award. A jury for the San Jose, Calif., federal court decided in late August that Apple should receive more than $1 billion in damages after it ruled Samsung had infringed multiple Apple patents on its mobile products (CD Aug 28/12 p6).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The jury had said Samsung’s patent violations were willful, which could triple the damages -- an action Apple sought in post-trial motions. Koh reversed the jury’s ruling on that point in her ruling Tuesday, saying she disagreed with that assessment. “Given that Apple has not clearly shown how it has in fact been undercompensated for the losses it has suffered due to Samsung’s dilution of its trade dress, this Court, in its discretion, does not find a damages enhancement to be appropriate,” she said. Koh is still considering whether to grant Samsung’s post-trial request to reduce the original damages amount by $600 million (CD Jan 3 p9).
Koh also denied Apple’s request for an additional $400 million in damages because of trade dilution. The jury had already included $382 million in its original damages award for trade dilution, “a doctrine at the outer reaches of trademark and trade dress law,” Koh said in her ruling. “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."
Koh also denied both manufacturers’ requests for a new trial in the case. Samsung had asked for a new trial because it felt the original trial was “manifestly unfair” because of time limits and what it felt were double standards on witness and evidence issues. Koh said in her ruling Tuesday that “the trial was fairly conducted” and that the two companies received equal treatment on timing and evidence rules. “A new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice,” she said.
The legal battle in the U.S. between the two manufacturers is far from over -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering Apple’s appeal of Koh’s decision to not grant a U.S. sales ban on Samsung products that contain the infringed technology. Koh said she would not grant the injunction because Apple failed to show there was still sufficient demand for the offending devices (CD Dec 19 p14) . Apple is also battling Samsung through the U.S. International Trade Commission. The commission recently voted to review a ruling by one of its administrative law judges who found Samsung had violated Apple patents (CD Jan 25 p10).