A U.S. jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages from Samsung Electronics, finding that the Korean company infringed on some of Apple's valid patents.

As for the countersuit, the jury found Apple did not violate any of Samsung's wireless standards or feature patents.

Apple shares hit an all-time high in after-hours trading. Click here for the latest after-hours quote.


The jury found some Samsung phones infringed Apple design patents but said the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe Apple design.

The patents the jury found Samsung violated included those for the "bounce back," scroll, zoom and navigate features.

The verdict came after just three days of deliberation, court officials told reporters on Friday, reaching a decision faster than expected.

Apple and Samsung have locked horns since July 31 in one of the most closely watched technology trials in years. The outcome of the legal battle between two companies that sell more than half the world's smartphones and tablets will reverberate around a mobile industry struggling to make headway against the pair.

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.

John Quinn — crazy, or crazy like a fox?

As the Apple/Samsung trial enters its third week, much of the buzz continues to center around the famously aggressive trial lawyer's clashes with the judge. Assuming he isn't just a hothead, what's he trying to accomplish?

Probably two things, suggest legal strategists and those familiar with Quinn's style. Jumping up and down in front of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh about evidence she excluded is a way of signaling to the court of appeals just how pivotal Koh's ruling was. And releasing a statement to the media about the evidence? That was probably aimed at consumers rather than Koh and the jury.

The Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan managing partner ran afoul of Koh even before opening statements began when he literally begged her to admit the excluded evidence.

When Koh found out about the press statement — which highlighted an excluded slide that showed a Samsung mobile phone design before Apple Inc. introduced the iPhone — she threatened sanctions. Later, Quinn flouted a court order when he made reference — in front of the jury — to an injunction blocking sales of a Samsung tablet.

Apple is seeking billions in patent damages, and for a variety of reasons, Samsung Electronics is seen as vulnerable. That may explain the run-ins with Koh, a 44-year-old judge appointed by President Obama just two years ago: Quinn is laying the groundwork for a potential appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on that excluded evidence.

"I'm sure Samsung will appeal on that point," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford's Program in Law, Science and Technology and an IP litigator at Durie Tangri in San Francisco who has done work for Google Inc.

Quinn's tactics may have irked Koh, but his over-the-top entreaty about excluded evidence could help Samsung should it lose at trial, said Raymond Cardozo, an appellate specialist at Reed Smith in San Francisco. It's not enough to show an appeals court that the trial court made a mistake. Lawyers have to show that it was an outcome-changing mistake.

"The passion and the fervor with which he made the case that this evidence is crucial is helpful," Cardozo said. "When you are later arguing on appeal that this ruling was a complete game changer, it helps to show that's the way you behaved at the time."

But Samsung would also have to show that Koh's exclusion was an abuse of discretion. So far, her actions don't meet that standard, said appellate specialist Jerome Falk Jr., a partner at Arnold & Porter in San Francisco.

....