Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Friday, July 12, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Apple Dings Samsung for Another $1.8 Million

SAN JOSE (CN) - Samsung must cough up $1.8 million in costs on top of the $548 million judgment it's already paid Apple in their long-running patent fight.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Samsung's argument that the costs award was vacated by the Federal Circuit's partial reversal of a judgment in Apple's favor.

Apple sued in 2011, claiming Samsung smartphones and tablets violated patents. A jury awarded Apple just over $1 billion in 2012, but a partial damages retrial the next year reduced the award to $929 million.

Apple then sought $6.2 million for court costs, including transcripts, copies, and compensation for interpreters. That amount was whittled down by the clerk and the court, resulting in a costs award of $1.87 million, which Samsung appealed.

The Federal Circuit this year affirmed the validity and infringement judgments with respect to Apple's design and utility patents and the damages connected to those judgments. But it vacated the damages award against the Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution.

The Federal Circuit's order, which resulted in the damages award being reduced to $548 million, did not mention costs.

Apple claimed that the Federal Circuit's failure to explicitly vacate the costs award amounted to an affirmation, while Samsung argued that an appellate decision partially reversing a judgment immediately vacates any costs award associated with that judgment.

Koh agreed with Apple in her Dec. 9 ruling.

"(T)he costs award, which was expressly appealed, forms part of the damages judgment that the Federal Circuit remanded 'for immediate entry of final judgment.' The costs award was not explicitly reversed or vacated, so under the Federal Circuit's mandate rule, the costs award is 'foreclosed from further consideration. Thus, the court cannot vacate the costs award but must instead enforce it," Koh ruled.

Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.