

Stand by, because the jury in Apple v. Samsung just reached a verdict. They'll all convene in the courtroom and then it will be read. Lots are live blogging, but here's The Verge, which historically has been the most complete with the details, if you want to follow blow by blow. And you don't have to update the page. Just now waiting for the judge and the jury to come in. The lawyers are there. They report Michael A. Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster is smiling, but trust me, he typically does smile most of the time: Still waiting on Judge Koh. It's dead silent in the courtroom, save for the frantic typing on dozens of keyboards. Update: The amended verdict form [PDF]. Details below.



Jump To Comments [Update 1, Update 2, Update 3, Update 4] Here's the court notice: 1926 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Clerks Notice

Docket Text: CLERKS NOTICE RE STATUS OF JURY DELIBERATIONS. The Jury informed the Court at 2:35 p.m. that they have reached a verdict which will be read in Courtroom 1 as soon as the parties can be assembled. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) No moss growing on Samsung's Quinn Emanuel. A filing already, just in case they want to clarify any points by talking with the jury: 1927 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Notice (Other)

Docket Text: SAMSUNG'S REQUEST FOR THIRTY MINUTES TO REVIEW THE JURY VERDICT FORM BEFORE THE JURY IS DISMISSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF POTENTIAL INCONSISTENT VERDICT IF NECESSARY by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/24/2012) Modified text on 8/24/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). It reads like this, minus headers and footer: SAMSUNGS REQUEST FOR THIRTY

MINUTES TO REVIEW THE JURY

VERDICT FORM BEFORE THE JURY IS

DISMISSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF

SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF

POTENTIAL INCONSISTENT VERDICT

IF NECESSARY Introduction The verdict form in this complex case necessarily spans 20 pages and requires unanimous answers to more than 500 discrete questions across 5 different legal disciplines. (Dtk. No. 1890.) The likelihood of an inconsistent verdict is a possibility despite the jurys best efforts. Samsung respectfully requests thirty minutes to review the verdict form before the jurors are dismissed and the opportunity to determine whether it would be appropriate to seek clarification if an inconsistent verdict is reached. This will allow the parties and the Court to determine whether to seek clarification of any potential inconsistent verdict from the fact-finders themselves, avoid waiver of potential of inconsistent verdict arguments, and conserve the resources of the Court and the parties. Samsung requested that Apple join in this motion. Apple declined. Argument The parties risk the possibility that any inconsistent verdict arguments may be deemed waived on appeal if not given sufficient time to review the verdict form for inconsistencies before the jury is discharged. See Home Indemnity Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the district court properly refused to amend the judgment because [the plaintiff] waived its objection to the jurys verdict on its contribution claim by not objecting to the alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury). The parties and the Court here have expended substantial time, money, and resources to bring this case to verdict. Allowing the parties thirty minutes to identify any inconsistencies in the jurys verdict and the opportunity to seek clarification from the original fact-finders will (1) give clarity to the verdict and may avoid potential post-trial briefing on topics the jury could have easily remedied if given the opportunity, and (2) allow the parties the time necessary to object to the verdict in order to preserve those objections for any appeal. See, e.g., Duk v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 320 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) (We now hold that where the jury is still available, a district courts decision to resubmit an inconsistent [special] verdict for clarification is within its discretion.) 1 Thus, for all the reasons stated above, Samsung respectfully requests thirty minutes to review the verdict form before the jurors are dismissed and the opportunity to determine whether to seek clarification if an inconsistent verdict is reached. Dated: August 24, 2012 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP Apple refused to join in the request, but the Verge tells us that Judge Lucy Koh, now in the courtroom, says it's a good idea: "I saw Samsung's request for 30 minutes to review the verdict form... I think that makes sense." After that: Apple and Samsung agree that both sides should take 10-15 minutes to review the document if there are inconsistencies after it is read. That's this case in a nutshell. What does it mean, to look for inconsistencies? Well, Judge Koh said she will review and if there is something like damages awarded for a patent they found invalid elsewhere in the long verdict form, that would be an inconsistency, and she'd send them back to finish it without inconsistencies. The Verge: Judge Koh agrees with Samsung that she doesn't want to release the jury until everything is clear. This is a remarkably quick verdict, and it's a remarkably complicated litigation. I'm impressed Samsung got this filed so remarkably fast. But I guess that's what you pay firms like that the big bucks for. Perhaps they even have a stand-by folder, for all known contingencies, ready to file if needed. Actually, that would impress me even more. Reading the verdict form [PDF]: 1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the 381 Patent? Answer: Yes, Samsung infringes Apple's '301 patent, all devices

2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the 915 Patent? Answer: Yes on claim 8 of'915 patent, some devices, almost all

3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the 163 Patent? Answer: Yes on claim 50 of '163 patent, yes, some devices, no others.

4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the 381, 915, or 163 Patents? Answer: Inducement re '381, '915, '163 patents: yes, all devices on '381; yes for all devices but Replenish on '915; on '163 yes for most devices

5. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D677 Patent? Answer: D'677 (design patent) - Yes for most devices, no for Ace.

6. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D087 Patent? Answer: D'087 - Yes for most. No for No for S2 ATT, S2 i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.

7. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D305 Patent? Answer: D'305 patent - Yes for all.

8. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D889 Patent? Answer: D'889 - No for all.

Q9, If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D677, D087, D305, and/or D889 Patents? Answer: D'677: Yes. D'087 Yes for S4G and Vibrant. No for the rest. D'305 Yes, for all. '889 No for Galaxy Tab.

Q10, If you answered Yes to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entitys infringement was willful? Answer: SEC yes, for all but D'087 and D'889, no for those two. SEA, Yes for '163, '381, '915.

11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid? Answer: No, on all.

12. Apple Trade Dress Claims: Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apples registered iPhone trade dress 983 is not protectable? Answer: No.

13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apples unregistered trade dresses are protectable? Answer: Apple has proven only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable. No on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.

14. Trade Dress Dilution

Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apples trade dresses are famous? Answer: Yes on Registered iPhone and Unregisterd iPhone 3G, no on Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress and Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.

Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apples trade dresses are famous? 15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the registered iPhone trade dress? Answer: Yes (SEC) on all except Captivate, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, S2, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Infuse 4G. Yes (STA) on all.

16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress? Answer: Yes (SEC) on Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant. No on the rest. Yes (STA) on Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress? Answer: Skipped for obvious reasons.

18. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress? Answer: Skipped.

19. If you answered Yes to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entitys dilution was willful? Answer: Yes, except (SEA) No on iPad; (STA) No for Unregisted iPhone Trade Dress and iPad Trade Dress.

If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21.

20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress? Answer: Skipped.

20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress? 21. If you answered Yes to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entity has infringed Apples unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entitys infringement was willful? Answer: Skipped.

22. DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE)

What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple? Answer: $1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars (broken down by product).

What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple? 23. Damages broken down by product.

SAMSUNGS UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE

24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). Answer: No, no, no, etc. except iPad Touch.

24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? (Please answer in each cell with a Y for yes (for Samsung), or with an N for no (for Apple). 25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apples infringement was willful? Answer: Skipped.

26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsungs asserted utility patent claims are invalid? Answer: No.

DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE) -

27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsungs utility patent infringement claims on the 516 and 941 patents? Answer: Nothing.

27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsungs utility patent infringement claims on the 516 and 941 patents? 28. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsungs utility patent infringement claims on the 711, 893, and 460 patents? Answer: Nothing.

29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the breakdown by product. Answer: Skipped.

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST -

30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (IPR) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? Answer: No.

30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (IPR) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? 31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard? Answer: No.

32. If you answered Yes to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsungs antitrust violation and/or breach of contract? Answer: Skipped.

33. PATENT EXHAUSTION

Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple? Answer: Yes on '516 and '941 patents. In short, it's a rout. So the irony is, on the same day, a South Korean court ruled that a South Korean company did not copy the US company Apple and a US court ruled that a South Korean company did copy the US company Apple. However, it's not total: please note that Apple's FRAND claims lost, even in a US court. Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now. Microsoft knows what this means and what it was about. Of course, there will be an appeal. Litigation isn't over until it's finished with all the appeals. But do expect more stupid patent litigation, including look and feel nonsense. There's also statements in the same article by both Apple and Samsung: First up, Apple: We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsungs copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsungs behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isnt right. And now we have Samsung, which is clearly not pleased with the outcome of this case: Todays verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apples claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer. And Dan Gillmor puts it like this, in The Guardian: A home-town jury has given Apple the world, or at least the United States, in its campaign to control the smart phone and tablet markets. Samsung, which decisively lost the highest-profile case to date in Apple's sue-everywhere strategy against the Android operating system, will surely appeal the verdict handed down the San Jose, California, federal court on Friday afternoon. And even if Samsung ultimately has to pay the $1bn judgement, the company can afford it. But we're likely to see a ban on many mobile devices from Samsung and other manufacturers in the wake of this case, as an emboldened Apple tries to create an unprecedented monopoly. If so, the ultimate loser will be competition in the technology marketplace, with even more power accruing to a company that already has too much.... Crucially, the jury found none of Apple's patents invalid, despite substantial evidence that others anticipated many of the innovations that Apple put together when it released its first iPhone. This is a shame, because Apple's abuse of our out-of-control patent system has given Apple its chief ammunition in its global campaign to destroy Google's Android operating system, which Samsung (and many others) adopted for its smart phones. Trial lawyers early on had predicted appeals would inevitably follow a verdict in the patent battle between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Sure enough, Samsung said on Friday it would file post-verdict motions to overturn the district court verdict and, if unsuccessful, appeal to a higher court.... On appeal, Samsung would likely argue that Judge Koh's ruling to keep evidence of "prior art"evidence that designs similar to Apple's iPhone and iPad existed before Apple got certain patents on those productsout of the hands of the jury was wrong and that the case should be retried. Early on in the trial, Samsung strenuously objected to Judge Koh's decision to exclude evidence it argued proved Apple copied elements of the iPhone from Sony Corp., which could have been used to undercut the validity of patents on Apple designs. The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions. And that's exactly the problem. Also, the jurors goofed and some inconsistencies resulted. Rushing can do that. The amount of damages, as a result, is now reduced. The Verge reports Samsung noting the inconsistencies: The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing  $219,694 worth  but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything.... A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million Intercept: "The jury found no direct infringement but did find inducement" for the '915 and '163 utility patents. If a device didn't infringe, it would be rather hard for a company to induce said non-existant infringement. ... Samsung's attorneys are now arguing that the jury's finding of patent exhaustion not be valid because one of the prerequisites for patent exhaustion is that Apple's devices had infringed in the first place. O M G The jury wasn't even paying close attention. "Let's give Apple millions," seems to be the attitude. Talk about an appeal issue. So the jurors went back and tried again, these slipshod folks who don't even need jury instructions. And the new funny money awarded to Apple by this jury of its peers is $1,049,343,540. 1929 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Jury Notes

Docket Text: Jury Note Number 1 (only question from jury during deliberations) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) 1930 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Jury Verdict

Docket Text: JURY VERDICT. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) 1931 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Jury Verdict

Docket Text: AMENDED JURY VERDICT. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) 1932 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Jury Trial - Completed

Docket Text: Minute Entry: Jury Trial completed on 8/24/2012 before Judge Lucy H. Koh (Date Filed: 8/24/2012). (Court Reporter Lee-Anne Shortridge.) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2012) 1933 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Clerk's Judgment

Docket Text: CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Apple Inc. against Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) 1934 - Filed & Entered: 08/24/2012

Order

Docket Text: ORDER Re: Post-Verdict Proceedings. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/24/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012) The judge's order, #1934, tells us that Apple is already asking for an injuction to block Samsung's "guilty" products, and there have been arguments on how fast it has to be handled: The Court is reconsidering the briefing and hearing schedules regarding Apples post-verdict preliminary injunction motion, the parties Rule 50 motions, and Apples enhancement motion. By Monday, August 27, 2012, Apple shall file a 1-page chart identifying both the products for which Apple is seeking preliminary injunctive relief and the liability finding(s) on which the request as to each product is based. No argument is permitted. Depending on the scope of Apples preliminary injunction request, the Court may continue the briefing and hearing schedule on Apples preliminary injunction motion. CNN tells us what was the plan originally: An issue still to be decided is whether to grant injunctions that could prevent Samsung from selling products that infringe on Apple's patents. Judge Lucy Koh wanted both sides to be ready for a hearing on the matter in two weeks, but Samsung's team argued that wasn't enough time. A hearing was scheduled for September 20.... After the trial was over, all nine jurors opted to leave through a back door of the courthouse to avoid speaking with the mass of reporters waiting at the front entrance. So would I, if I was responsible for a farce like this. And finally from WSJ: The only patent the jury found Samsung didn't infringe relates to design of a tablet. Throughout the trial, Samsung's lawyers frequently remarked that Apple shouldn't be given a monopoly on a rectangle with rounded corners.... "There will be many issues brought up on appeal by Samsung," including the damages award, said Daniel Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, which advocates for patent reform.... "Software patents are clogging the system at every possible point," says Christal Sheppard, an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska College of Law. "This could be the bellwether case that goes to the Supreme Court to decide what invention in the 21st century really means for software." Amen. This is definitely not the end of this story. It can't be. It's preposterous. Above the Law: Heres the thing, ladies and gentlemen of the Apple v. Samsung jury: It would take me more than three days to understand all the terms in the verdict! Much less come to a legally binding decision on all of these separate issues. Did you guys just flip a coin?