Breakdown of the decisions in Apple versus Samsung verdict
The jury handed down its decision today in the case between Apple and Samsung in the US. It was a big win for Apple and a sweeping loss for Samsung, which will have to pay nearly $1.05 billion in damages assuming its appeals do not change the damages (and assuming the judge does not impose additional penalties for willful infringement). Here is a quick breakdown of the claims and how the jury decided on each.
This patent describes the bounce-back feature that happens when you scroll beyond the edge of an image or document. The jury found that all of Samsung's devices infringe this patent.
This patent describes the one finger scroll or two finger pinch to zoom gestures. The jury found that all devices except the Intercept and the Replenish were infringing.
This patent describes the tap to zoom gesture. The jury found that the Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Replenish. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge , Intercept, Nexus 4G and Vibrant did not infringe.
This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy Ace did not infringe.
This patent covers the design of the iPhone. The jury found that the Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G and Vibrant are infringing. The Galaxy S II, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket and Infuse 4G are not infringing.
This patent is a trade dress patent for the iPhone's homescreen. The jury found that the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Showcase, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize and Vibrant are infringing.
This patent relates to the industrial design of a tablet computer. The jury found that none of Samsung's tablet devices are infringing.
Samsung patents 914, 711, 893, 460, and 516.
The jury found that Apple did not infringe any of Samsung's patents.
Sherman antitrust law
The jury found Samsung violated Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust law by monopolizing markets related to the UMTS standard, while Apple did not.
Subscribe to Newsletter
Software Updatesmore updates
- Yahoo Mail improves email inbox searching with new filtering options
- Ember for Mac gains 'hugely-requested' screen recording feature
- Spotify update adds equalizer, refreshed Artist page and more
- Fantastical 2.1 for iOS adds new snooze, search and notification features
- ExpanDrive 4, more services and faster sync
- Apple adds iTunes Extras to Apple TV