by Ryan Flax
(Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting
A2L Consulting

The trial is long over, and now the post-trial motions have been ruled-upon by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. The Judge has just dealt with the post-trial motions, bringing finality to the case and opening the door to the appeal process.

The results of her latest rulings as to Apple’s motions are as follows:

• Apple’s request for enhanced damages (over the $1.05 billion awarded by the jury) for willful patent infringement is denied (Judge Koh ruled the infringement was not willful, reversing the jury’s findings on willfulness).
   
• Apple’s trade dress (the look) of its iPad products (specifically the original one and the second version) was not protectable and there will be no new trial on the issue.
   
• Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet product does not infringe Apple’s ‘889 design patent as a matter of law and there will be no new trial on the issue.
   
• Samsung’s Galaxy Ace phone does not infringe Apple’s ‘677 design patent as a matter of law and no new trial would be granted on the issue.
   
• Samsung’s Galaxy S II and Infuse 4G phones do not infringe Apple’s ‘087 design patent and there will be no new trial on the issues.
   
• Not all (but some of) the accused Samsung products dilute (akin to trademark infringement) Apple’s iPhone trade dress (registered and not) and there will be no new trial.
   
• Apple lost on its attempt to get a judgment as a matter of law on the infringement of unregistered combination iPhone trade dress (a vague bit of IP to say the least) and will not get a new trial on the issue.
   
• Not all (but some of) the accused Samsung products infringe Apple’s ‘915 and ‘163 utility patents as a matter of law and there’ll be no new trial thereon.
   
• And, Apple lost its motions for JMOL on several ancillary claims for breach of contract and antitrust violations.
   
• Apple did get one win here – claims 10 and 15 of Samsung’s ‘941 patent were held invalid as a matter of law – however, Apple lost such motions relating to other Samsung patents’ claims.

All of these “failures” or “loses” by Apple are somewhat inconsequential because the company has still won an unprecedented victory over its largest rival. The biggest deal here, by far, is Apple’s loss on willful infringement, where if the jury’s finding of willfulness was upheld and taken to its limit, it could have resulted in $3 billion in damages awarded to Apple.  That would have been about 1.5% of Samsung’s market value. In finding no willful infringement, Judge Koh overruled the jury’s decision on the issue.

Judge Koh’s rulings on Samsung’s motions were as follows:

• First of two wins for Samsung – claims 15 and 16 of its ‘516 patent are not exhausted.
   
• Second, and more important win for Samsung – no willful patent infringement.
   
• Samsung lost its bid to overturn the jury’s finding of infringement of Apple’s ‘087, ‘677, and ‘305 design patents or get a new trial thereon.
   
• Likewise, Samsung lost its similar attempts to invalidate these same three patents and Apple’s ‘889 design patent for a variety of reasons (functionality, as design patents can’t cover function; obviousness; double patenting).
   
• Samsung failed to prove that the unregistered iPhone 3G’s trade dress was undeserving of protection.
   
• Samsung failed to show that Apple hadn’t proven its iPhone’s trade dress was diluted (and willfully so) by the Samsung products.
   
• Samsung lost in its bid to overturn the jury’s finding of infringement of Apple’s ‘915 and ‘318 utility patents and won’t get a new trial thereon.
   
• Likewise, Samsung lost in its attempt to invalidate Apple’s three utility patents.
   
• The court declined to rule on whether the jury’s calculation of damages was correct as either including or not including global sales or acts of alleged infringement.
   
• The court did not change the jury’s findings of no-infringement of Samsung’s patents.
   
• And, finally, the court ruled that the trial was not “manifestly unfair” to Samsung.

None of these results is surprising in the least. This is how typical patent trials wrap up. Now, on to the appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.). Expect the notice of appeal to be filed soon by Samsung and for the hearing to be scheduled sometime this year. I expect validity to be the biggest issue when the time comes.

In another development in a related litigation between Apple and Samsung in the same court, Thursday the Fed. Cir. rejected Apple’s request for an en banc rehearing on the order lifting Judge Koh’s imposed injunction on Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus phone. In October, the Fed. Cir. held that the injunction was improper and an abuse of the district court’s discretion because of a lack of “causal nexus” between demand for Samsung’s phone and the infringing feature (a search function embodied in Apple’s Siri). In view of this ruling that the injunction is permanently off, it should make it pretty difficult for Apple to exert any control over sales of the Samsung phone, which is to be the subject of another patent trial between the companies scheduled March 31, 2014.

I’m paying close attention to the events in this patent war as they unfold in the U.S. and around the world and will continue to keep you apprised of those of particular interest.

Other articles and resources related to A2L Consulting's Intellectual Property Litigation Consulting Services:

• [Free Download] Patent Litigation Trial Presentation E-Book
• Five articles about Apple v. Samsung litigation
• The design patent renaissance beings
• Mock Markman Hearings for patent litigators
• Why trial graphics are so important in patent trials
• 11 Tips for trial graphics in a patent trial