Final total reached in Apple/Samsung dispute
In a retrial, a federal jury awarded an additional $290 million to Apple, based on Samsungs infringement on five Apple patents in 13 different devices.
November 22, 2013 at 07:01 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It seems that the long, drawn-out dispute between Apple and Samsung has finally come to a conclusion that is likely to please the iPhone maker. In a retrial, a federal jury awarded an additional $290 million to Apple, based on Samsung's infringement on five Apple patents in 13 different devices.
The award is added to the $640 million that Samsung was required to pay as the result of the original trial. This brings the total damages to $930 million, which is fairly close to the $1.05 billion Apple was seeking in the suit.
In the recent retrial, Apple sought $380 million, while Samsung felt that $52 million was a more realistic figure.
“This case has always been about more than patents and money,” an Apple spokeswoman said in a statement. “It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love.”
For its part, a Samsung spokesman expressed disappointment. “While we move forward with our post-trial motions and appeals, we will continue to innovate with groundbreaking technologies and great products,” the spokesperson said in a statement. The case is expected to move to an appeals court as the next step in the patent war.
As part of the next step in the process, Apple continues to seek an injunction against 26 different Samsung products.
For more on the patent wars, check out the following:
It seems that the long, drawn-out dispute between
The award is added to the $640 million that Samsung was required to pay as the result of the original trial. This brings the total damages to $930 million, which is fairly close to the $1.05 billion
In the recent retrial,
“This case has always been about more than patents and money,” an
For its part, a Samsung spokesman expressed disappointment. “While we move forward with our post-trial motions and appeals, we will continue to innovate with groundbreaking technologies and great products,” the spokesperson said in a statement. The case is expected to move to an appeals court as the next step in the patent war.
As part of the next step in the process,
For more on the patent wars, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 2Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 3Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 4Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 5Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250