Testimony from Google engineers gave a boost to Samsung in court. Bloomberg News
Apple Inc. AAPL +0.19% won a $119 million jury verdict against Samsung ElectronicsCo. 005930.SE +0.22% for infringing on three of its patents. But it didn't achieve a key goal: inflicting pain on its Korean rival.
The late Friday verdict also did little to derail the momentum of Google Inc.GOOGL -0.87% 's Android operating system, which has eclipsed Apple's, first with high-end iPhone alternatives from Samsung and now with low-cost smartphones from Chinese manufacturers.
A U.S. District Court jury in San Jose, Calif., found that some Samsung devices had infringed on Apple's patent for "quick links," a feature that dials a phone number included in an email, and Apple's "slide to unlock" patent, for gaining access to a device. The jury will reconvene on Monday to determine whether additional damages are necessary for Samsung's infringement of Apple's "auto-complete" patent, which offers suggestions about how to change or complete a word during typing.
But the verdict is expected to have little impact in the marketplace. Legal experts and people close to the company said most of the infringing products are no longer sold, and Samsung is likely to implement alternative technologies for future models.
The verdict won't hurt Samsung financially either, even if it is upheld following likely appeals. The award of $119 million in damages amounts to roughly one-quarter of 1% of Samsung's $47.56 billion in cash. It is also a far cry from the $930 million Apple was awarded following an earlier trial—one of the biggest awards in patent-litigation history. Samsung has appealed that verdict.
The jury of eight men and women in the latest case watered down Apple's marketing victory—the ability to label Samsung a "copier"—when it found that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent for organizing photos and videos in folders and awarded $158,400 in damages.
"The days of Apple hoping for a slam dunk or knockout win in the court system are behind us," said Michael Carrier, a patent-law expert and law professor at Rutgers University.
After the verdict, an Apple spokeswoman said the jury, like other courts around the world, concluded that "Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products." A Samsung spokesman said it was inappropriate to comment before the jury finished deliberating.
Apple may seek an injunction to force Samsung to stop selling infringing products, but it hasn't had much success with such efforts so far, even after the larger victory in the first trial. Federal courts have rebuffed nearly all of Apple's attempts to bar Samsung products, maintaining a high threshold for proving that any single patented technology influences consumer purchasing decisions.
"I can't imagine that Apple came away from this case and felt like it was a resounding victory," said Mark McKenna, an expert on intellectual-property law and a law-school professor at the University of Notre Dame. "This will take some of the incentive out of fighting this in the legal venue rather than the business world."
If there was a winner in this trial, it was Google. Samsung said during the trial that Apple's patent claims weren't valid because Google was working independently on similar technology.
Testimony from Google engineers helped to level the playing field for Samsung. In the first trial, Apple's lawyers successfully portrayed Samsung as a foreign company profiting from the innovations of a pioneering local company. With Google, another Silicon Valley giant, in its corner, Samsung suggested that Apple isn't the only local innovator in the industry.
Evidence during the trial showed that Google offered legal protection to Samsung, the largest manufacturer of Android smartphones, for two of the five patents at issue. But the jury found that Samsung didn't infringe on either of the patents, which pertained to background syncing and searching for information on the phone.
Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., has sued other phone makers that use Android, including HTC Corp. of Taiwan, but it hasn't gone after Google directly. Google licenses Android without charge, making it a difficult target for a damages claim. Google designs a few smartphones and tablets, but, compared with its hardware partners, it doesn't sell many.
The iPhone has been losing market share in the face of Android's growing reach. According to the research firm International Data Corp., or IDC, iPhones accounted for about 15% of world-wide sales last year, down from 19% a year earlier. Android phones, meanwhile, climbed to 79% from 69%.
Compared with the first trial, Apple's position in the recent case was more nuanced. The first case centered on Apple's hardware-design patents; this time, the jury had to assess the value of software features.
If Apple tries to bring another case against Samsung, it faces the challenge of arguing about patents that are "pretty deep in the weeds," according to Mr. Carrier, the Rutgers law professors.
"What does Apple gain by doing that? Not that much," he said. "They may be better off trying to license the technology."
