Samsung has lost a patent case against Apple in the High Court after a judge ruled the patents in dispute should not have been granted to Samsung in the first place.
Although Apple was found to have infringed on some of the patents, it was ruled they already existed in 'prior art', meaning Samsung's ownership of the patents was effectively null and void.
In summation judge Floyd said that although Apple would have been found to have infringed Samsung's patents in some instances, the patents could not be upheld in Samsung's favour.
"My overall conclusions are that the 404 patent [...] is invalid both because it has lost priority and is rendered invalid by intervening prior art.
If it had survived these attacks, it would have been infringed by Apple's [...] devices," he said, with relation to the first patent.
"The 726 patent [...] is invalid based on Samsung's admission. If valid would have been infringed by Apple's [...] devices. The 675 patent, is not entitled to the priority claimed and is therefore invalid based on Samsung's admission."
Samsung said it was disappointed with the decision and said it was considering an appeal.
"Upon a thorough review of the judgment, we will decide whether to file an appeal," it said.
"We will continue to take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights."
Apple declined to comment when contacted by V3.
The 726 patent under review relates to a form coding information in mobile communication to reduce errors in transmission, while patent 675 covers similar technology relating to channel-coding technology.
The 404 patent broadly relates to the transmission of individual data streams on the same frequency range between a device and a base station.
The case is just the latest in a long line of legal battles between the two firms.
Recently a judge decreased a $1bn win for Apple to $450m in a high-profile case in the US while Apple was forced last year to issue apologises in newspapers and online.
This led to a series of recriminations for Apple as it was forced to repeat its apology and was accused of a "lack of integrity" by the judge overseeing the case.
Dan Worth is the news editor for V3 having first joined the site as a reporter in November 2009. He specialises in a raft of areas including fixed and mobile telecoms, data protection, social media and government IT. Before joining V3 Dan covered communications technology, data handling and resilience in the emergency services sector on the BAPCO Journal.