U.S. judge orders new trial to decide how much Samsung owes Apple for copying iPhone

“U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California issued an order late on Sunday, 10 months after the U.S. Supreme Court set aside a $399 million award against Samsung for mimicking the iPhone’s look for its Galaxy and other devices,” Jonathan Stempel reports for Reuters.

“The $399 million is part of a $548 million payment that Samsung made to Apple in December 2015,” Stempel reports. “Apple had argued that no new trial was warranted, and that the $399 million award should be confirmed. It did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment.”

Stempel reports, “Samsung, in a statement, said it welcomed Koh’s order.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Ah, the inexorable gears of so-called justice. So fleet. So useful.

Message from the U.S court “system” to the world: Crime pays and keeps on paying, and paying, and paying due to our sloth and ineptitude.

Thanks mostly to the glacial pace of legal proceedings, justice will never be fully served in these cases of obvious theft, patent infringement, and trade dress infringement.

The main reason why Samsung and the rest of the thieves are able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made and continue to make fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the ignorati in much the same way that Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century.

If it’s not an iPhone, it’s not an iPhone.MacDailyNews, October 5, 2017

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone

And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

cellphones before and after Apple iPhone

People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.

Trump administration backs Apple, says Supreme Court should deny Samsung’s most recent cert petition – October 5, 2017
Samsung takes second Apple v. Samsung patent case to the Supreme Court – February 24, 2017
U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules for Samsung in Apple patent damages dispute; case sent back to lower court – December 6, 2016
Why the U.S. Supreme Court asked if Apple’s iPhone design is like a Volkswagen Beetle – October 12, 2016
Seemingly frustrated U.S. Supreme Court hears Apple, Samsung patent case – October 11, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Samsung, Apple damages dispute today – October 11, 2016
Apple wins appeal reinstating $119.6 million verdict against patent-infringer Samsung – October 7, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung struggles to put out the fires caused by their exploding phones – October 6, 2016
Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and 100+ of the world’s top designers side with Apple in Samsung patent case – August 4, 2016
Apple to U.S. Supreme Court: Samsung stole our patents, should end its appeals and finally pay up – August 1, 2016
Obama nominates Lucy Koh for Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco – February 29, 2016


  1. I wonder if the additional time might help Apple. With the perspective provided by time, it seems easier to me to demonstrate to a jury that:

    – There were lots of competitors in this space making lots of different-looking phones.

    – Apple made their iPhone in a clearly distinctive way, and captured a dominant position.

    – The companies that continued to make their phones their own way are no longer in the marketplace.

    – Samsung clearly copied Apple’s distinctive features and as a result are still around today.

    All way easier to show with the passage of time. It was simply too noisy to clearly demonstrate all of that to the average person at the time.

    1. I don’t believe that the whole issue is being retried. The judgment is not being set aside, just the *amount* of the award against Samsung. So, the only issue in question is the valuation of the infringement based on the specific areas found to be infringed upon during the previous trials.

      1. I guess my point is they *were* able to prove those things back then, when it was in my opinion much more difficult to do so. The *value* of that copying should be so much easier to show today, in hindsight.

    1. For those who disagree, go do your homework. This ridiculous judge was personally responsible for MIS-directing the jury during the first trial, resulting in the chaos we witness today. How Lucy Koh is still on the bench after her blatant and blundering shenanigans is beyond comprehension.

      1. Yes. Judge Lucy Koh also arbitrarily severely limited the scope of the trial Apple had requested. She whittled the trial of numerous IP infringements down to just a few. If all the various infringements had been included as desired by Apple, it may be tantamount to the whole friggin’ phone. And the damages would not need to be further whittled down to “just the few infringements in question, not the entire phone”.

        Moreover, she is wrong. If a company loses business because a knock-off garners business, the infringed company — say, Apple — loses the entire profit (not to mention contributions to overhead, “ecosystem growth”, and the value of future sales) on that lost sale. The infringed company does not just lose a few pennies of sales attributed to, say, the infringer’s theft of a “look and feel”, an icon, “rounded corners”, or “slide-to-lock”.

        1. This has been Samsung’s argument all along, that a few infringements of ‘minor’ features/patents should not incur such high penalties. But, if Lucy Koh hadn’t limited the scope of the case so severely, then Samsung would not even have this argument.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.