Apple wins $538.6 million from Samsung in latest iPhone patent retrial

“Nearly six years after a federal jury awarded Apple over $1 billion in damages against Samsung for infringing on iPhone design patents, a jury retrying the case has reached a unanimous verdict, modifying the figure to $538,641,656,” Jeremy Horwitz reports for VentureBeat. “The verdict comes after years of damages-only retrials and appeals, including a visit to the United States Supreme Court.”

“Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. began in April 2011 with Apple’s allegation that certain Samsung smartphones infringed on iPhone intellectual properties including patents and trademarks,” Horwitz reports. “Apple won the trial in August 2012, receiving an initial award of $1.049 billion, but was forced back into court for subsequent disputes over legal questions and damages.”

“Not surprisingly, each side polarized its measure of damages to persuade the jury to fall somewhere in the middle,” Horwitz reports. “Samsung suggested damages of $28 million, while Apple asked for $1 billion, telling the jury to “put it in context: Samsung infringed millions and millions and millions of times.” The jury’s verdict included $533,316,606 for infringement of Apple’s design patents, and $5,325,050 for infringement of its utility patents, totaling just over $538.6 million. That figure sits roughly in the middle of the companies’ extremes, but is higher than the $399 million that was originally at stake in the retrial, a victory for Apple.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: If you think a paltry $538.6 million is justice for the untold billions of dollars Samsung (and Google) stole from Apple, you must work for Samsung (or Google).

The moral of the story: Crime pays (but not too well, since Apple’s revolutionary iPhone, the device upon which all Android knockoffs are based, dominates in smartphone profit share).

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.

Apple wants $1 billion from Samsung at iPhone copying retrial; Samsung wants to pay just $28 million – May 16, 2018
Samsung tries to further reduce Apple’s iPhone patent award – May 14, 2018
iPhone X drives smartphone revenue dominance; Apple made more money in Q417 than the rest of the smartphone makers combined – February 16, 2018
Apple iPhone took more than half of worldwide smartphone revenue share in Q417, a new record – February 15, 2018
Strategy Analytics: Apple has shipped 1.2 billion iPhones in the past 10 years; $760 billion in global revenue to date – September 8, 2017
Apple took 83% of smartphone market profits in calendar first quarter – May 16, 2017
How important is Apple’s iPhone market share? – May 29, 2017


      1. One dreads to think what the legal costs will be and if Samsung don’t get to pay a considerable percentage of that then their 6 years of delaying tactics will be worthwhile and a sign to others to follow suit. After all all the products that this covered have long gone so they didn’t take any real hit on sales and one could argue that the publicity about ‘how much like an iPhone even Apple thinks it is’ possibly even generated sales for them especially amongst the anti apple brigade.

  1. Jeez, Louise: it took long enough !

    Once again, a big Thank You — wrong verb? — to Judge Lucy Koh for this abomination of a trial, whittled-down scope, and general “failure to launch” justice for Apple.

    It is clear to all that Samsung ripped off Apple and must compensate Apple. Unfortunately the trial was a joke from the outset and I am not sure Apple was well served by our jurisprudence system. Samsung should have been forced to compensate Apple for all lost profits owing to pirated products. Samsung gamed the system and won. They would be a two-bit washing machine maker if they had not copied Apple’s iPhone. What they will pay to Apple is relatively cheap “research” and “product development”. Sad.

    Thanks again, Lucy. But, still and all, the outcome beats a poke in the eye.

    1. Yup, ScamScum plan on it. Here’s the last paragraph of the source article:

      Following the verdict, Apple said in a statement that “it is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design” and that it is “grateful to the jury for their service and pleased they agree that Samsung should pay for copying our products.” Samsung responded, saying that “[t]oday’s decision flies in the face of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in favor of Samsung on the scope of design patent damages. We will consider all options to obtain an outcome that does not hinder creativity.”

      ScamScum = Unrepentant LIARS to the last. I think of it as a sociopathic corporation as a whole. So, who’d want to buy from ScamScum like that? Beats the frack out of me!

      Oh and further thanks to Judge Lucy Koh for SCREWING UP the first hearing of the case all on her very lonesome. This justice deferred is ENTIRELY her fault. A disbarring would be a great consequence, IMHO of course. 😛

  2. Yay! I’m not sure how far a half a billion dollars goes when it comes to Apple’s costs, but I’m sure some Apple executives will get some fat bonuses. Who knows? Maybe some of that money will allow Apple to upgrade the Mac Mini. The Mac Mini might get a Coffee Lake processor and support for 4K @ 60fps. That would really be sweet. Oh, wait… Apple doesn’t seem to have much interest in desktops, so it might mean AppleWatch will get more high-end watch-bands. Ugh.

    On the positive side, this court award could push Apple’s stock price up another $2. Truthfully, I’m glad Apple is finally getting some money from Samsung. It’s taken long enough.

    1. It’s another scar on the already multi-damaged face of ScamScum. It sort of reminds me of this sci-fi transformation::

      ” target=”_new” rel=”nofollow”>Leo G Carroll in ‘Tarantula’ (1955)

  3. I’ll still say that once you copy the idea of “apps arrayed on a screen” rather than menus / keyboards you really can only come up with something iPhone-like.

    So I think the look-alike apps are the closest case for infringement.

    Copying apps in rows is really inconsequential.

      1. Totally agree: Samsungian comment. It is like pretending the case was all about Apple trying to patent “rounded corners”. When that the expression was simply used by Apple when describing its relevant, Apple was not claiming a patent on rounded corners. Reminds me of “Trump-speak”: twist the truth, muddy the waters, blatantly lie, define deviancy down. Goes to show how crappy our education system has been over the decades: most Americans cannot think clearly, objectively, and with any degree of discernment or discriminating thought.

Reader Feedback

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