In two separate court filings on Friday, Apple lodged a motion for a permanent U.S. injunction on Samsung products found in infringement of certain utility patents by a jury earlier in May, while requesting a retrial of the same case.

As it did in its first California action against Samsung in 2012, Apple is looking to leverage a jury's recent decision to net a permanent injunction of Samsung devices found in infringement of three patents. The company is also requesting a complete retrial of the damages case that ended in a $119.6 million award, much less than the $2.2 billion Apple was seeking.

On the issue of a permanent injunction, Apple is asserting that the continued sales of Samsung's infringing products would cause the company irreparable harm that cannot be remedied with monetary damages.

As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, even if Apple wins an injunction, Samsung will likely be able to apply quick workarounds to skirt infringed patent claims.

Further, Apple v Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh already denied an injunction in the first California case, saying Apple's evidence did not sufficiently prove irreparable harm. Considering the current injunction is based on a similar piece of evidence, namely a conjoint consumer survey conducted by MIT professor John Hauser, the granting of an injunction from Koh would be surprising.

As for Apple's bid for a retrial, the company entered a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) seeking an order that additional Samsung products infringe certain patents, treble damages of the largest damages decision awarded by the jury or, in lieu of the previous, a complete retrial.

Described below in the 54-page filing, the request for a retrial applies to proposed motions for Samsung product injunctions and higher damages payouts relating to found infringed patents. These include the '647 data detectors, the '721 patent for "slide-to-unlock" functionality and the '172 patent for text prediction.

In addition, the filing states that "Samsung's improper and prejudicial statements to the jury warrant a new trial on infringement for the '414 and '959 patents (in the event that the Court does not grant JMOL of infringement), a new trial on willfulness for all patents other than the '721 patent (and also other than the '647 patent if the Court grants JMOL of willfulness for that patent), and a new trial on damages for all five of Apple's asserted patents."

While unlikely to be granted, Apple's last request seems to illustrate the company's displeasure of the jury's $119.6 million decision. The action contrasts a decidedly positive statement Apple issued after the verdict was handed down earlier this month.