This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.  > Find out more here

 

All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis

Samsung avoids extra damages in Apple patent infringement case

by James Dohnert

30 Jan 2013

View Comments

  • Tweet this
gavelandscales

A US judge has shot down Apple's attempt to win higher damages from Samsung over patent infringement.

Judge Lucy Koh determined that Samsung did not wilfully infringe on Apple patents. The judge's ruling is now expected to go to appeals as the two firms continue their global legal patent fight.

"Given that Apple has not clearly shown how it has in fact been under compensated 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," wrote Judge Koh in her ruling uncovered by Groklaw.

Apple had hoped the court would find Samsung of wilful infringement of its patents, which could have resulted in damages worth three times the initial ones it was awarded last year.

Judge Koh said her decision was partially based on the idea that Samsung had just cause to believe that it didn't infringe on certain Apple patents.

According to the judge, Samsung did not have enough evidence to prove it didn't infringe upon Apple patents. However, the company did present a reasonable case for its belief that it didn't think it was infringing.

Along with the consistent damages ruling, Judge Koh also ruled that Samsung could not overturn the original court ruling in the case. Samsung had hoped to avoid paying Apple over $1bn in damages. However, with the recent ruling it will still be required to pay fees to Apple.

Following Judge Koh's ruling the two companies at the heart of the case are expected to head to appeals court. Both Samsung and Apple have been in a global patent dispute with each other over the past several years.

"Poor Apple will have to make do with a mere $1 billion as its jury award. We'll see if that stands on appeal too," wrote Groklaw legal blogger Pamela Jones on the case.

V3 reached out to both Samsung and Apple for comment on the ruling. Samsung offered a no comment. Apple has yet to respond to inquiries.

Do you agree

blog comments powered by Disqus

Poll

Business security poll

How concerned are you by the rising tide of cyber threats?

16%

56%

10%

9%

9%

Popular Threads

Powered by Disqus
BlackBerry Q5

BlackBerry Q5 video demo

BlackBerry's latest smartphone is a mid-tier handset that will cost less than the Q10 and Z10

Updating your subscription status Loading

Connect with V3.co.uk

Sign up to our daily or weekly newsletters

newsletter sign-up button

mcafee

7 requirements for hybrid web delivery

It's no longer one or other with web security; you can now have a virtualisation and SaaS hybrid model

navisite

BYOD: the implications for the IT team

BYOD is important for employee satisfaction, but poses challenges in terms of security, productivity loss and costs

Drupal Developer

Drupal Developer- Drupal , CMS< HTML/CSS - London...

iOS Developer

Mobile, iOS, Developer, Agile, Xcode, Objective-C, GIMP...

Junior to Senior Flash AS3 Developer/Programmer - Social Gaming

Junior to Senior Flash AS3 Developer/Programmer/Engineer...

RCM Consultant - Meridium, Oil & Gas

Principal Consultant, RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance...

To send to more than one email address, simply separate each address with a comma.