California Verdicts

Amount:

$290,456,793

Type:

Verdict-Plaintiff

State:

California

Venue:

Federal

Court:

United States District Court, Northern District, San Jose

Case Type:

Intellectual Property – Patents, Infringement

Case Name:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Date:

November 21, 2013

Plaintiff(s):

Apple Inc.

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Harold J. McElhinny;
Morrison & Foerster LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
Apple Inc. ■ Rachel Krevans;
Morrison & Foerster LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
Apple Inc. ■ William F. Lee;
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP;
Boston,
MA,
for
Apple Inc. ■ Michael A. Jacobs;
Morrison & Foerster LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
Apple Inc. ■ Mark D. Selwyn;
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP;
Palo Alto,
CA,
for
Apple Inc.

Defendant(s):

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Defense Attorney(s):

William C. Price;
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ■ Charles K. Verhoeven;
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP;
San Francisco,
CA,
for
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ■ Michael T. Zeller;
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP;
Los Angeles,
CA,
for
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ■ Kevin P.B. Johnson;
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP;
Redwood Shores,
CA,
for
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ■ Victoria F. Maroulis;
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP;
Redwood Shores,
CA,
for
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

Plaintiff Apple Inc., a multinational corporation that designs, develops and sells consumer electronics, computer software and personal computers, alleged that various products designed and manufactured by Samsung, a multinational company that specializes in electronics, mobile communications and telecommunication systems, infringed on several of Apple’s utility and design patents. Apple Inc. sued Samsung’s corporate divisions, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, alleging patent infringement in 2011. On Aug. 24, 2012, a jury found that Samsung had infringed on five Apple patents related to the iPhone’s design and functionality, and it awarded $1,049,393,540 in damages. However, in March 2013, Judge Lucy Koh determined that the jury’s damages calculations were improper and excessive for 13 Samsung devices that allegedly infringed on Apple’s patent rights. Thus, Koh vacated about $450 million of the award and ordered a new trial to recalculate the damages with respect to the patent infringement of those 13 devices. During the retrial, Apple sought recovery of damages with respect to 13 patent-infringing Samsung products: Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy Tab, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform. Samsung contended that Apple’s damages claims were overreaching in light of the trivial nature of the patented inventions. Judge Koh instructed the jury that the prior jury already decided that Apple’s patents were valid and that Samsung’s products infringed on those patents, and that the jury should not revisit those issues. Thus, the sole consideration in the retrial was how much Samsung might owe Apple for infringing its patents.

The parties agreed that Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing devices, generating $3.5 billion in revenue. As a result, Apple asked for $379,776,091 in additional damages based on lost profits of $113,777,344, disgorgement of Samsung’s profits of about $231,373,554, and reasonable royalties of $34,625,193. Apple estimated it would have sold 360,000 devices if Samsung had not introduced the infringing products. Samsung disagreed with Apple’s allegations regarding the amount of royalties, lost Apple profits, and Samsung’s profits. Defense counsel contended that Samsung owed Apple only $52.7 million in Samsung profits and $28,452 in reasonable royalties. Counsel argued that Apple failed to prove that it was entitled to lost profits, and that Apple’s calculation of Samsung’s profits improperly failed to deduct operating expenses that were necessary to make and sell Samsung’s products. Defense counsel further argued that Apple’s alleged royalties were overstated, given the narrow scope of the patents.

The jury determined that Apple was entitled to $290,456,793 in damages from Samsung.

Judge:

Lucy H. Koh

Jury Composition:

2 male/ 6 female

This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.