However, in a split decision on patents, the panel also said on Friday Samsung violated Apple technology behind the bounce-back feature when scrolling on touch screens, and ordered both sides to pay limited damages.

The 9-person jury was asked to fill out a 20-page jury form with more than 700 questions across 33 groups. They were required to come to a unanimous decision on each question and court-watchers didn't expect a verdict until at least next week.


The following is our liveblog as the verdict was written:

The jury was asked to fill out a form covering 33 separate questions regarding patents, trade dress, and antitrust.

On the first claim, regarding the '381 "bounce back" patent, the jury finds Samsung guilty on all counts. Samsung infringed on Apple's patent on a wide variety of products.

On Apple's "pinch and zoom" '915 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on all but three products.

For the "double-tap to zoom" '163 patent, the jury found that Samsung infringed on a wide number of products, but not all.

The jury found that Samsung took actions that it knew or should have known were infringing across the '381, '915, and '163 patents on most, though not on all, counts.

For the '677 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the front of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on most devices, but again, not all.

For the D'087 patent, covering Apple's trade dress registration of the look of the back of the iPhone, the jury found that Samsung did infringe on some devices, but not all.

For the '305 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPhone's home screen, the jury found that Samsung infringed across most devices.

For the D'889 patent, covering the trade dress registration of the iPad's appearance, the jury found that Samsung's tablets do not infringe -- one of the first victories for Samsung.

On the question of whether Samsung Korea knew or should have known it was inducing US subsidiaries to infringe on the D'677, D'087, D'305 and/or D'889 patents, the jury found in favor of Apple across a wide number of phones and patents, though not on the '889 patent regarding the iPad. These two questions are significant for Apple to receive damages.

On the question of whether Samsung's infringement was willful, the jury again found for Apple on a number of patents and devices.

Finally, the jury ruled that all of Apple's patents are valid.

Regarding trade dress, Apple has proven that its unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress was protectable, and the jury found that a number of Samsung phone models violated Apple's trade dress, though not all of them.

Overall, the jury is finding for Apple on most counts.

Regarding damages, the jury finds that Apple should be awarded $1,051,855,000 in damages for willfully violating Apple's patents and trade dress.

Next up are Samsung's claims against Apple.

The jury has found for Apple regarding its alleged infringement of Samsung's utility patents on every claim, however Apple did not prove they were invalid. The jury did not award Samsung any damages.

Finally, Apple did not prove that Samsung violated antitrust obligations regarding its FRAND patents.

Apple did prove that Samsung is barred from enforcing its '516 and '941 patents.

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.

I'm sitting in a Starbucks doing random whatever over an iced americano. While I waiting for my drink, I watched a guy with his friend, pick up a newspaper; and start to remark on the Samsung Apple verdict.

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

I put my Samsung QX410 on my table, and started to plug in, when he leans over to me, "Sorry, you don't mind if I ask, how much did you pay for your Samsung laptop?"

"Oh, no worries, it was $700." I replied.

I watched shock overcome his face, like actual shock. He looked at me, blankly, for an awkward amount of time, "Mind if I have a look?" he asked.

So, I obliged, and showed him a few things. He commented on Windows 7, so I opened up my virtual machine of OS/X... By the time the conversation was over, he was ready to kick Cupertino in the nuts, I think.

... Now, the punchline:

I'm writing this post after the FOURTH group of Starbucks patrons have made the connection that Samsung is now the same as Apple. They don't know the details, they don't really care, what they know is Apple is saying that Samsung is the same as Apple ... and with one simple Google Search, you get prices that are basically half for what seems to be the same products -- for nearly everything.

Two of these groups (including the husband/wife) asked me about my Samsung laptop, the second group noticed my Galaxy phone (also by Samsung)... Best billion dollar ad-campaign Samsung ever had.

In the wake of Apple's $1 billion victory over Samsung in its high-profile lawsuit over patent and trade dress issues, The Verge reports that the company has officially requested U.S. sales bans on eight Samsung smartphones found by the jury to infringe upon Apple's intellectual property.
- Galaxy S 4G
- Galaxy S2 (AT&T)
- Galaxy S2 (Skyrocket)
- Galaxy S2 (T-Mobile)
- Galaxy S2 Epic 4G
- Galaxy S Showcase
- Droid Charge
- Galaxy Prevail


The report notes that impact of any sales bans would likely be negligible, as most of the cited products have already been discontinued in the U.S. in favor of successor devices.

Apple is requesting a preliminary injunction covering these eight devices out of the 28 devices at stake in the trial, but is reserving its rights for a future permanent injunction request in favor of moving quickly to ban sales of this subset of devices.

The Verge also reported that the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself [this appears to be his patent, "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information"], told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict:

I knew this day would come. I can’t say that I hoped for it, but in all honesty, it was inevitable. Apple has been very busy lately in doing all it can to ban as many Android devices as it can, and HTC, Samsung, and Motorola have all recently got a small taste of the Apple juice lately. But something has changed: Google now owns Motorola, and aren’t wasting any time in defending their new acquisition, as they are now seeking a sales ban on the iPhone, iPad, and Mac computers in the US. This time, it’s personal, and contains a twist that could make this particular lawsuit a very dangerous one for Apple.

This is the first case that Google has signed off on in defending their new hardware company, meaning that there’s no more lurking in the background providing support. This is full on Google with their law team directly involved. Thsi isn't Google watching from the sidelines, but instead, they are calling this one play by play. But Google and Motorola were clever, as this isn't a lawsuit that focuses on silly topics such as icons or square shaped tablets.

Google and Motorola are filing patent infringement for non-standard essential patents. To put it simply, Google-rola has filed a case for a patent/patents that courts cannot legally force companies to patent, meaning that if they win this case, Apple could be forced to completely stop using the technology in their devices.

We don’t have confirmation on exactly which Wifi related patent is in question here, but we do know that Motorola attempted to reach licensing agreements with Apple (since 2010), which Apple apparently refused. Motorola stated that:

This is a big one for Google and for Apple. This isn’t just an OEM that Apple is dealing with now. This is one of the most powerful (if not THE most powerful) movers and shakers in the world. If this comes to trial, Apple will have its hands full, and might even be forced to rely on Microsoft for backup.

The patent wars involving Android and Apple have now reached new heights, and with Google in the center, I have a feeling that things could get very very ugly for the companies that have sought to ban Android products.