WATCH LIVE REPORT:

$1 Billion Wasn't Enough for Apple in Samsung Case

The Atlantic
$1 Billion Wasn't Enough for Apple in Samsung Case
.

View photo

$1 Billion Wasn't Enough for Apple in Samsung Case

Unsatisfied with the $1 billion settlement a jury awarded in August, Apple has requested a California judge reconsider the winning ruling in their case against Samsung to give Apple almost twice as much, and to enact a wide-ranging ban that could include the iPhone's biggest competitor.

RELATED: These Are the Samsung Products Apple Wants Banned

Apple and Samsung both asked the judge assigned to their California patent case to take two very different directions with their trial. First, Apple wants another $707 million, on top of the $1 billion awarded in August. The requested increase is based around the design, and sales performance, of early Samsung Galaxy S models, reports the Wall Street Journal's Evan Ramstad. Early S models were a huge part of Apple's original kill list of Samsung products. If the judge rules in Apple's favor, Reuters points out the sales ban "could result in the extension of the injunction to cover Samsung's brand-new Galaxy S III smartphone." If you don't think the S III is Samsung's iPhone 5 killer, check out this ad Samsung released last week. A ban on the S III would be devastating. 

RELATED: Apple Wants Samsung's Galaxy S III Off the Market

Citing "constraints [Judge Lucy Koh] placed on time, witnesses and exhibits," Samsung asked Koh for a completely new trial. Samsung called the 25 hours each side was assigned to present their case "unprecedented" for a trial of this magnitude. If that wasn't an option, Samsung asked the damage award be reduced. Samsung argues the jury miscalculated the amount of the damages inflicted on Apple, miscalculated how much profit Samsung made off infringing patents, and that the jury should not have included Apple's original 2010 notification of possible infringement in their calculations. If the judge made a ruling based on Samsung's calculations, the settlement should have been closer to $35 million. "It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners," their lawyers argued. 

View Comments (83)