Samsung vs Apple: The Verdict

‘915: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Droid harge, Epic 4G, Exhibit, Fascinate, Prevaila, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Galaxy Tab, Tab 10.1, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Intecept, Mesmerize, Nexus, Transform, and Vibrant

No for Replenish

‘163: Yes for Droid Charge, Epic 4G, xhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Prevail, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Tab, Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Replenish.

No for Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant

Infringement of D’677 patent.

SEC
Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S, S 4G, S 2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 Tmobile, S 2 Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

No for Ace.

STA
Yes for Galaxy S 4G, S2 Tmobile, S2 Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant

D’087 Patent.

SEC

Yes for S i9000, S 4G, and Vibrant. No for S2 ATT, S2 i9100, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.

STA
Yes on S 4G and Vibrant only.

Patent D’305 patent.

SEC
Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

STA
Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Chrarge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, S 4G, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant.

D’889 Patent.

No. All devices

Samsung should have known its infringement?

D’677: Yes for Fascinate, S 4G, S2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, and Vibrant

D’087: Yes for S 4G, Vibrant. No for S2 ATT, S2 Epic 4G Touch, S2 Skyrocket, Infuse 4G.

D’305: Yes for Captivate, Continuum, Showcase, Gem, Indugle, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant.

‘889 No for both Galaxy Tab models.

SEC
Yes for all but D’087 and D’889

Samsung wilfully infringed?

SEA
Yes for 381, 915, 163

STA
Yes for all but D’087 and D’889

Invalidity.

381 Not proven invalid.

No across the board. Not a single one proven invalid by Samsung.

On to trade dress. Samsung has NOT proven that’893 trade dress is not protectable.

Apple has proven only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable.

Apple has proven only the iPhone 3G trade dress protectable.

Dilution? Apple provide Registered iPhone and unreigsted iphone 3G diluted, no others.

SEC
Yes on Fascinate, i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.

No for Captive, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, S2, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Infuse 4G

STA

Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant. No for Captivate, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy Prevail S2 ATT, S2 Tmobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.

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?

SEC
Yes to Fascinate, Galaxy S i9000, S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant.

No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 i9100, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.

STA
Yes for Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Mesmerize, and Vibrant.

No for Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Prevail, S2 ATT, S2 T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, and Infuse 4G.

SEA
No for iPad Trade Dress.

STA
No for unregisted iphone trade dress and iPad Trade dress

;

Damages

1 billion, 51 million 855 thousand dollars

Samsung Claims

‘711 Patent on iPhone 3G No. ‘460 on iPhone 3G: no.

‘711 iPhone 3GS: No

‘893 iPhone 3GS No

‘460: literally infirngement for 3GS: no

‘460 no across the board

No on all but the iPod touch.

Damages from Samsung to Apple: zero.

Did Apple prove they were invalid? No across the board

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?

No

Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?

‘516: yes. ‘941: yes.

So, there you have the full verdict and Steve Jobs famous word, BOOM!

Samsung’s statement:

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.

Apple’s statement:

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 trial 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.