In perhaps Samsung’s biggest legal win over Apple in their long-running patent war, a federal apppeals court Friday overturned a 2014 verdict that slapped the South Korean tech giant with nearly $120 million in damages for copying certain iPhone features.

The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismantled a San Jose jury’s findings in the second trial between the two rivals, essentially concluding that the technology at the heart of Apple’s lawsuit was so obvious that Samsung could not be punished for incorporating it into its smartphones. The appeals court added salt to Apple’s wound by upholding a $158,000 judgment against the Cupertino company for infringing a Samsung tech patent involving camera features.

In addressing one of Apple’s patents for its popular slide-to-lock feature, the appeals court noted that a key argument about such technology being integral to the iPhone’s popularity does not overcome Samsung’s position that much of the information was readily available to the industry. “A reasonable jury could therefore not find a nexus between the patented feature and the commercial success of the iPhone,” the court wrote.

For Apple, the ruling marks a damaging blow to the company’s legal and public relations campaign that years ago set out to prove that Samsung copied iPhone and iPad technology in its own line of competing smartphones and tablets. Apple may still prevail in the end, but its court fight continues to be bloodied in the appellate courts.

“The end result in this case is a huge moral victory for Samsung,” said Brian Love, a Santa Clara University law professor. “(The ruling) is a big blow to Apple’s contention that Samsung and other Android manufacturers were little more than copiers riding on its coattails.”

The ruling involved the second trial between the two companies, when an eight-member jury in 2014 determined that Samsung violated two Apple patents, including its slide-to-unlock feature on iPhones, and awarded Apple nearly $120 million in damages. That came after a first trial in 2012 that ultimately resulted in Apple claiming more than $500 million in damages for Samsung’s patent violations on even older smartphones and tablets, a verdict that was upheld last year by the Federal Circuit. Even that decision eroded Apple’s case — the amount was reduced from an original verdict of nearly $1 billion.

Samsung’s appeal of that first trial decision is now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. And U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh is scheduled in late March to rehear a portion of the first case involving a retrial on some of the damages issues.

Apple declined to comment on Friday’s ruling. The company can ask the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit to rehear the case with its entire roster of judges or appeal to the Supreme Court.

“In sheer dollar terms, it isn’t that significant compared to the first trial,” Mark Lemley, a Stanford University law professor, said of the ruling wiping out the second trial verdict. “But it is consistent with the idea that this fight is likely to end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.”

The jury in the second trial found nine Samsung smartphones had in some way infringed two iPhone technology patents — the slide-to-unlock and auto-correct features — after a judge earlier found one other patent also had been violated. Samsung’s Galaxy S3, the most recent smartphone involved in that trial, accounted for the largest chunk of the damages award, about $52 million of the total. Those findings were wiped out by Friday’s ruling.

To underscore how far the legal battle has lagged behind new products, Samsung is now on to its Galaxy S6 versions while Apple has unveiled its iPhone 6S.

During the 2014 trial, Samsung argued that Apple was in fact targeting software features for the most part developed by Google for its Android operating system, which ran the 10 Samsung products involved in the trial. Samsung’s lawyers told the jury that Apple’s case was about its “holy war” against Google, quoting a comment from an internal email from late CEO Steve Jobs, and not truly aimed at Samsung.

But Apple accused Samsung of trying to hide behind Google, telling the jury that Samsung, not Google, decides what technology to include and sell in its smartphones and tablets. Apple also introduced evidence that Google has agreed to cover at least part of Samsung’s legal costs if it loses the patent case.

The Federal Circuit ruling is something of a reversal in the second trial appeals. The appeals court previously backed Apple’s request for an injunction that required Samsung to stop sales of those products, which amounted to a symbolic victory, given that the devices had already largely been replaced on the market. In that ruling, a divided Federal Circuit panel observed: “The right to exclude competitors from using one’s property rights is important.”

“This is not a case where the public would be deprived of Samsung’s products,” the appeals court ruled. “Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets.

“Apple established that Samsung believed these features were important and copied them,” the court added.

Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236 or follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz.