Apple to See More Damages in Samsung Spat

     SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) – Supplemental damages will boost the paltry $120 million that a jury handed Apple for three smartphone patents Samsung copied, a federal judge ruled late Monday.
     This past May, an eight-person jury found that all Samsung’s latest gadgets infringed Apple’s “quick links” patent, and some copied the “slide-to-lock” feature. But none of the South Korean company’s products infringed the universal search or background sync patents, the jury found.
     While U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed Monday that Apple deserves supplemental damages for Samsung’s Galaxy S III and Galaxy Note II sold after the verdict, she denied Apple’s request to disturb the verdict or try the whole case again.
     Koh also declined to place a dollar amount on either the supplemental damages or prejudgment interest, noting that the case is far from over since both sides have appealed and Samsung Galaxy products will continue selling in the meantime.
     As to Apple’s objection that it was “manifestly unfair” of Koh to let Samsung remind the jury that Apple admitted it has never used some of the patents over which it cried foul, Koh reminded the Cupertino-based company that it had its chance to prove otherwise.
     “With respect to Samsung’s arguments that Apple never practiced the asserted claims in the past, the court fails to see how Samsung’s assertions were ‘false’ given that this court explicitly gave Apple the opportunity to present its evidence of past practice of the asserted claims, and Apple’s evidence was weak at best,” Koh wrote. “Moreover, Apple did not obtain any expert opinion that Apple practiced those claims, as Apple expressly conceded.”
     She continued: “With respect to any argument by Samsung that Apple does not practice and has never practiced the three unasserted extra claims, the court is not convinced by Apple’s claim that Apple was prejudiced by not being able to rebut Samsung’s arguments. Apple’s claim is unavailing because this court gave Apple the choice not once, but twice, to rebut by presenting evidence at trial that Apple practices the extra claims, but Apple declined the court’s offer both times. When given the choice not to present evidence of Apple’s practice of these extra claims, or to do so with the consequence of opening up those claims to a validity challenge by Samsung and to have those claims count as one of its five ‘asserted’ claims, Apple itself chose not to present such evidence and to only assert the five other claims Apple originally asserted for infringement purposes.”
     In the end, Apple’s decision were strategically beneficial, Koh said. “Apple cannot now complain that its own decision led to an unfair result or prejudice,” she wrote.
     Apple’s laundry-list of reasons why Samsung’s dirty tactics with the jury warranted a new trial also failed to sway the court.
     “Under 9th Circuit case law, granting a motion for a new trial on the basis of attorney misconduct is only appropriate where the ‘flavor of misconduct sufficiently permeates an entire proceeding to provide conviction that the jury was influenced by passion and prejudice in reaching its verdict,'” Koh wrote, citing 1984’s Kehr v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.
     It has been a tough month for Apple, with Koh deciding in late August that the fame and beauty of its products aren’t enough to warrant $16 million in attorneys’ fees for trade dress against Samsung.
     The judge also denied Apple’s bid for a permanent sales ban on Samsung gadgets, finding that an injunction would do little to enhance Apple’s reputation or its image a fierce protector of its own property rights.
     Both sides agreed last month to bury the hatchet and end their contentious patent war – but only outside the United States.

%d bloggers like this: