solution

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

BACKGROUND

In August 2012, a jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages for infringement against Samsung. Samsung filed a motion with the court for reduction of the jury award and for a new trial, and Apple filed a motion for supplemental damages.

JUDGE LUCY H. KOH

Apple’s motion for an increase in the jury’s damages award is DENIED. The Court declines to determine the amount of prejudgment interest or supplemental damages until after the appeals in this case are resolved.

Because the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, the Court hereby ORDERS a new trial on damages for the following products: Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. This amounts to $450,514,650 being stricken from the jury’s award. The parties are encouraged to seek appellate review of this Order before any new trial.

The jury’s award stands for the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi, Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, Intercept, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, and Galaxy S II T–Mobile. The total award for these 14 products is $598,908,892.
It is so ordered.

Case Questions

1. Should patent cases be decided by lay judges and juries?

2. Are litigation damages too high in patent cases?

3. How can the legislature improve the patent system and reduce the inefficiencies of litigation?