decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple v. Samsung Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing More Than 6.4% Of Monetary Award For Willful Infringement
Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:45 AM EDT

The Apple v. Samsung Jury Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing
More Than 6.4% Of The $1.04B Monetary Award For Willful Infringement

by Richard T. Redano
Copyright: Richard T. Redano1 2012

High stakes design patent cases are rare. The recently tried Apple v. Samsung case2 is arguably the most important design patent case to be tried in a U.S. court, particularly if one defines importance in terms of monetary exposure. Now that the smoke has initially cleared on the field of battle in the district court, commentators can critically scrutinize the results i.e. “shoot the survivors.” The primary thesis of this paper is that no more than 6.4% of the $1.04B monetary award in the jury verdict3 can be enhanced for willful infringement, without being vacated and remanded on appeal. The reason for this assertion is that slightly less than 6.4% of the total monetary award is for infringement of only utility patents. Additionally, due to the lack of detail in the jury verdict regarding which Samsung products were used to commit willful infringement, it is quite possible that no enhancement of damages for willful infringement will survive an appeal.



The relative paucity of design patent jurisprudence regarding the legal remedy of damages and the equitable remedy of an accounting for the infringer’s profits, makes clear that while an award of damages for patent infringement may be enhanced under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for willful infringement, an award of profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, may not be enhanced under Section 284.4 While this distinction may appear important to one who wishes to obtain an enhancement of the damages award for willful infringement, the jury verdict form in Apple v. Samsung leaves one clueless as to whether the monetary award for infringement of 18 Samsung devices was an award of damages, an award of profits, or some combination of the two.

Jury Questions 1-4 pertained to infringement of Apple’s utility patents.5 Jury Questions 5-7 pertained to infringement of Apple’s design patents.6 Table A below summarizes the responses to Jury Questions 1-7. As shown in Table A, the jury found that:

(a) 15 Samsung devices infringed at least one utility patent and at least one design patent;

(b) seven Samsung devices infringed only one or more utility patents; and

(c) three Samsung devices infringed only one or more design patents.

Either damages under Section 284 or the infringer’s profits under Section 289 are available for infringement of the 18 devices in categories (a) and (c).

TABLE A: Jury Verdicts On Infringement Liability

Accused
Samsung
Device
Infringes
A Utility
Patent
Infringes
D’677
Patent
Infringes
D’087
Patent
Infringes
D’305
Patent
Fascinate Jury Q’s 1-4 Jury Q 5


Jury Q 7
Epic 4G Jury Q’s 1-4



Jury Q 7
Galaxy S i9000 Jury Q 1-3 Jury Q 5 Jury Q 6 Jury Q 7
Galaxy S 4G Jury Q’s 1- 4 Jury Q 5 Jury Q 6 Jury Q 7
Galaxy S II AT&T Jury Q’s 1-4 Jury Q 5



Galaxy S II i9100 Jury Q 1-3 Jury Q 5



Galaxy S II T-Mobile Jury Q’s 1- 4 Jury Q 5



1

Infuse 4G Jury Q’s 1- 4 Jury Q 5


Jury Q 7
Mesmerize Jury Q’s 1- 4 Jury Q 5


Jury Q 7
Vibrant Jury Q’s 1, 2, 4 Jury Q 5 Jury Q 6 Jury Q 7
Captivate Jury Q’s 1, 2, 4



Jury Q 7
Continuum Jury Q’s 1, 2, 4



Jury Q 7
Droid Charge Jury Q’s 1-4



Jury Q 7
Indulge Jury Q’s 3-4



Jury Q 7
Gem Jury Q’s 3-4



Jury Q 7
Exhibit 4G Jury Q’s 1-4




Galaxy Ace Jury Q’s 1, 3




Galaxy Prevail Jury Q’s 1-4




Galaxy Tab Jury Q’s 1-4




Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) Jury Q’s 1-4




Nexus S 4G Jury Q’s 1, 2, 4




Replenish Jury Q’s 1, 3, 4




Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)

Jury Q 5



Galaxy S Showcase

Jury Q 5


Jury Q 7
Galaxy S II Epic 4G


Jury Q 5



Jury Question 22 asked: “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?7 The way this question is phrased, one cannot discern the degree, if any, to which the jury’s response comprises an award of profits under Section 289 for any infringed design patents. In its amended response to Jury Question 22, the jury responded “$1,049,393,540.”8

Jury Question 23 asked: “For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar breakdown by product.9 For the seven products listed in Table A that infringed only one or more utility patents, Table B lists the jury’s responses to Jury Question 23. As shown in Table B, the total “dollar amount” awarded for these seven Samsung products was $66,927,523. This amount is slightly less than 6.4% of the total “dollar amount” awarded in response to Jury Question 22.

TABLE B: Jury’s Monetary Awards For Only Utility Patent Infringement

Samsung Product Found To Infringe
ONLY One Or More Utility Patent Claims
Monetary Award [Jury Q 23]
Exhibit 4G $1,081,820
Galaxy Ace $0
Galaxy Prevail $57,867,383
Galaxy Tab $1,966,691
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) $833,076
Nexus S 4G $1,828,297
Replenish $3,350,256
TOTAL $66,927,523

2

The jury instructions explained that only damages in the form of either Apple’s lost profits, or a reasonable royalty, were available for infringement of a utility patent.10 Assuming that the jury followed the jury instructions, there is a sound basis for concluding that the $66,927,523 monetary award summarized in Table B was an award of damages under Section 284, which may be enhanced for willful infringement.

What about the basis for the jury’s remaining monetary award of $982,466,017 for Samsung products found to infringe at least one design patent? Your guess is as good as mine! It is impossible to discern from the jury’s responses to Jury Questions 22 and 23, whether any portions of this amount was an award of Samsung’s profits under Section 289, which may not be enhanced for willful infringement under Section 284, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Braun.11

Thus the maximum amount of enhancement possible under these circumstances, assuming a trebling for willful infringement is $133,855,046.12 If the district court were to enhance the monetary award for willful infringement by more than $133,855,046, I submit that such a decision likely would be vacated by the Federal Circuit and remanded for a new determination of enhanced damages.

In Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,13 the district court entered a judgment of infringement of three patents and awarded damages of $58M with no apportionment of the damage award among the three patents adjudicated to have been infringed. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of infringement on one of the three patents-in-suit, vacated the entire damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on damages for the two infringed patents, holding:

In light of our holding that a new trial is required on the issue of infringement of the ’880 patent, we also vacate the determination that Verizon is entitled to a damages award of $58,000,000 and a royalty rate of 5.5%, since the jury’s verdict gives no indication what portion of such damages were allocated to the infringement of the ’880 patent. In a situation—such as this one—where the jury rendered a single verdict on damages, without breaking down the damages attributable to each patent, the normal rule would require a new trial as to damages. See Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 312 (1986) (“When damages instructions are faulty and the verdict does not reveal the means by which the jury calculated damages, the error in the charge is difficult, if not impossible, to correct without retrial, in light of the jury's general verdict.”).14

In NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.15 (“the Blackberry case”), the district court entered a jury verdict of $53.7M in damages for infringement of several claims of several asserted patents. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of infringement as to several claims and vacated the entire damages award, holding:

because the jury verdict did not specify the amount of infringing sales attributed to each individual patent claim, or the specific devices and services determined by the jury to infringe each separately asserted claim, the district court will have to determine the effect of any alteration of the jury verdict on the district court's damage award.16

3

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Verizon and NTP illustrate the danger of not breaking down (granulating) the damages or profits award in a complex patent case, claim by claim, and device by device (or method by method).

There are several reasons why seasoned trial counsel might elect not to granulate the jury verdict form to this extraordinary degree, including but not limited to, not overtaxing the jury. It is also not uncommon for a district court to refuse to granulate the jury verdict form to this degree. However, in the Verizon and NTP cases, insufficiently detailed jury findings, resulted in jury awards of over $100M for patent infringement being vacated. That amount is mere “chump change” compared to the 93.5% of the total $1,049,393,540 monetary award of in the Apple v. Samsung case, for which it is impossible to determine whether there is any award of damages for infringement under Section 284.

Readers who were devotees of the mid-1960’s Batman television series may recall that near the end of the first of each week’s episode, when Batman and Robin were caught in an ostensibly inescapable appointment with death, the announcer would proclaim “The worst is yet to come!” The same is true for Apple with respect to its hopes of obtaining an enhancement of damages for willful infringement that will withstand an appeal.

Specifically Jury Question 10 asked: “If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1-9, and then found that any Samsung entity had infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?

(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)17

Apple Utility and
Design Patents
Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd.
Samsung Electronics
America Inc.
Samsung
Telecommunications America
LLC
‘381 Patent (Claim 19) Y Y Y
‘915 Patent (Claim 8) Y Y Y
‘163 Patent (Claim 50) Y Y Y
D’677 Patent Y


Y
D’087 Patent N


N
D’305 Patent Y


Y
D’889 Patent N N N

The jury’s responses to the table in Jury Question 10 appear in italics in the above table.

Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Seagate, the first element for proving willful infringement is proving that the accused infringer “acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”18 It is possible, if not likely, that the evidence relating to this element is not identical for each Samsung device found to infringe an Apple patent. As summarized in Table A, the jury found that multiple Samsung devices infringed each of the six patents found to be infringed. However, one cannot discern from Jury Question 10 and its response, which of the many adjudicated infringing devices for each patent was the basis for the jury’s willful infringement verdict. Thus for any patent where the judgment of infringement is vacated for at least one Samsung device, any judgment of willful infringement for that patent should also be vacated because there is no way to determine whether Samsung committed willful infringement with the remaining infringing devices.19

4

As we proceed with this analysis, things get worse for Apple. It appears unlikely that Apple will have the necessary gadgets in its utility belt to overcome the defects in this jury verdict form. Even if every liability verdict in this case survives an appeal, the information provided by the response to Jury Question 10 should be found by the Federal Circuit to be inadequate to meet Apple’s clear and convincing burden of proof that the jury’s findings of willfulness apply to every Samsung device found to infringe any of the six patents where willful infringement was found.

There is no “one size fits all” doctrine for proving willful infringement. The Seagate test for willful infringement must be applied to each infringing device, in order to enhance any award of damages for such device. The first Seagate element, quoted above in now a question of law for the district court to adjudicate,20 Thus, the district court could rule on this element on a device by device and patent by patent basis in the post-trial hearing on willfulness. However, the second element of the Seagate willful infringement test is still a fact question. That element is whether the objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.21 Unfortunately for Apple, the jury, has already been dismissed without making any findings on this issue on a device by device basis.

Despite the widespread reporting in the mass media that the $1.04B jury award to Apple may be trebled, one can see that the jury verdict will not support such an enhancement and Samsung’s additional monetary exposure for willful infringement is miniscule, in comparison to the $1.04B award of damages, or profits, or both.

5

1 Richard T. Redano is the president of Richard T. Redano, P.C. and an adjunct professor of law at The Univ. Of TN School of Law, where he teaches patent litigation (rredano@redanoipcounsel.com).

2Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (U.S.D.C. N.D. Calif)

3 Amended Verdict Form, p. 15, Question 22.

4Braun v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 975 F.2d 815, 824 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

5Amended Verdict Form, pp. 2-5, Questions 1-4.

6Amended Verdict Form, pp. 6-7, Questions 5-7.

7Amended Verdict Form, p. 15, Question 22.

8Id.

9Amended Verdict Form, p. 16, Question 23.

10Jury Instructions, pp. 50 and 54, Instruction Nos. 36 and 40.

11975 F.2d at 824

12 Enhancement = (3-1) X $66,927,523 = $133,855,046.

13503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

14(emphasis added); Id. at. 1310.

15418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

16Id. at 1326.

17 Amended Verdict Form, p. 9, Question 10.

18497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc).

19NTP, 418 F.3d at 1326.

20Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L.Gore & Assoc., Inc., 683 F.3d 1003, 1006-’07 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

21In re Seagate Tech., 497 F.3d at 1371.


  


Apple v. Samsung Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing More Than 6.4% Of Monetary Award For Willful Infringement | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:53 AM EDT
So they can be fixed
error -> correction

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to Redano for allowing republishing here
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT
Thanks to Richard for allowing Groklaw to republish this here,
and for having done that analysis as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:07 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing More Than 6.4% Of Monetary Award For Willful Infringement
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT
Hmm, this case becomes really disgusting. I feel like watching a soap opera and
it's hard to believe how could the judicial system allow such.
Triple damages for the party being anal and dishonest in the case is the only
fix for that. Not only should Apple pay Samsung but it must be triple the
damages.

[ Reply to This | # ]

second element [...] is still a fact question.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT
So what happened here?

Was this a failure to ask the question? (i.e., a deficiency in the verdict form)
Or was it a failure to answer it? (i.e., a lack of diligence in the jury's
following of instructions)

Is it possible that the plaintiff thought it might be more likely to get trebled
damages "out of the hat" than through explicitly stated instructions,
and therefore collaborated with the defence in leaving out the necessary
instructions? Or did the verdict form just get so overwhelmingly big there was
no room to splice it in?

cpeterson, WINAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Holy Verdict Form Batman, We're Doomed!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 04:19 PM EDT
Quoting 1960s television to propose a theory displays commendable erudition. Meanwhile,
It is impossible to discern from the jury’s responses to Jury Questions 22 and 23, whether any portions of this amount was an award of Samsung’s profits under Section 289
I suspect the loose tongued Mr Hogan has explained the numbers in all those other boxes on the form, but if the form itself does not explain the allocation according to S.289, then we are indeed doomed. Will the whole case have to be rinsed and repeated?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung: Attacking the Verdict -Part IV- The Decision Lacks Sufficient Detail
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:12 PM EDT
.

Wow! It smells even more. An expert, Professor Redano, chimes in with further
serious inadequacies with the verdict form. They should have used his tables
and consulted him. [Did someone?] The statutory damages for the various kinds of
patents is complex and this jury didn't even get a chance to smooth them out.
The verdict form was inadequate. It promotes uncertainty and speculation.

1. The Foreman could eagerly clear this all up, but that highlights some other
parts of this verdict's problem. The jury couldn't give these issues proper
consideration since they weren't instructed or given a proper form.

2. Poor Judge Koh. Is she snakebit by the failure of the adversary system?
She is not a patent expert. The patent expert lawyers trying this case didn't
brief her on these angles. Mr. Redano who is an expert in these areas has shown
them all up and all but eliminated punitive damages. Did the Apple lawyers
know? Did they pull these specific punches to lessen scrutiny of Apple's
patents? Of course the Samsung lawyers aren't in the business of prosecuting
their clients and enabling punitive damages. Did they see this and smirk in
their hands as the final Verdict Form was approved by Judge Koh? It can be
argued that she rushed everything too much and they missed these distinctions.
Samsung is going to object to all punitive damages. If Redano is right, there
shouldn't be any. Then the question becomes what part of the damages is
punitive.

3. Compounding this problem is the Foreman's indication that part of the
billion was to teach Samsung a lesson. That is punitive. Remittance is in
order. In order to save this pile, Koh should have a hearing, parcel out the
damages, and heed Redano in the process.

4. Poor Judge. As with SCO, this case is just a piece of someone's global
commercial war, in and out of court. The Court of Appeals already shot her down
on the preliminary injunction. She was right on that. It is going to be harder
for her to feel right about damages and the verdict itself. She has learned a
bit. Will she give herself a "do-over?"

5. [This is a verdict digression that won't be stifled. As vocal as the
Foreman had been it seems that other jurors have remained silent. That may not
be so since they could have talked to the parties quietly or in confidence.
There may be much more material besides the Foreman, especially if one of them
feels bamboozled by him. This may be the case that inspires patent litigation
reform, or a revolt from the judges. It is like they flipped the coin
"AFTER" the game!]

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Samsung Verdict Lacks Sufficient Detail To Support Enhancing More Than 6.4% Of Monetary Award For Willful Infringement
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 12 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
Two questions.

1) Who is Mr. Redano?

2) How would his report have a significant impact on this
case?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )