三星被判侵犯苹果2项专利，须赔近1.2亿美元

在经过为期三天的研究之后，上周五，陪审团裁定苹果在与三星的专利纠纷中获胜，认定三星侵犯苹果申诉5项专利之中的两项。苹果随后发表一份声明，感谢陪审团，并暗示将继续战斗，捍卫公司的创新产品。 苹果在起诉对方时，要求三星赔偿22亿美元损失。但陪审团裁定，苹果因3项专利遭三星侵权获赔1.196亿美元，远低于这家位于加利福尼亚州的公司提出的、为总共5项专利遭侵权索赔的20亿美元赔偿金。 陪审团认定，三星侵犯了苹果的“快速连接（quick links）”专利，专利号为U.S. Patent 5,946,647;以及苹果的“滑动解锁（Slide to Unlock）”专利，专利号为U.S. Patent 8,046,721。对于苹果提出三星所侵犯的其背景同步、文本预测和全局搜索三项专利，法庭认定三星并未侵犯这三项专利，因为根据三星的辩护，这家韩国电子集团在这两项技术上主要依赖于谷歌(Google)的支持。 1.196亿美元赔偿金中绝大部分——约9900万美元——是针对647专利“快速连接”。 申诉5项专利中仅2项获得支持，对于苹果来说这是很小的胜利，但是两项专利意味着每个侵权设备，都需要支付6.4美元的专利使用费。赔偿主要涉及到的产品是三星2012年5月推出的Galaxy SIII旗舰机。三星Galaxy SIII将受到很大冲击，涉5200万美元赔偿。对Galaxy tab没有影响。 苹果在声明中称：“对于陪审团和法庭的工作，我们深表感谢。今天的裁决再一次重申了世界各地法院认定的结果：三星故意盗取了我们的想法，并且抄袭了我们的产品。苹果将继续努力捍卫自己的辛勤工作，正是这些努力让我们带来了像iPhone这样令人喜爱的产品，我们的员工将继续献身献身设计并为用户呈递好的作品。” 三星也不甘示弱地拿到了赔偿 该陪审团还裁定，在三星声称的2项专利中，部分iPhone和iPod产品侵犯了其中一项，这标志着苹果在自己家门口遭遇了一场罕见的失败。苹果只须支付三星15.84万美元的赔偿金，而此前三星要求的赔偿金额达620万美元。 上一次两家公司在加利福尼亚州对簿公堂时，苹果曾取得全面胜利。而这次却不是。 在2012年的那场诉讼中，陪审团几乎完全倒向苹果，裁决三星侵犯了苹果另一组智能手机专利，支付10亿美元赔偿金，不过这一赔偿金额在随后减少到9.3亿美元。 苹果或将专利侵权指控战火烧至三星新机 此前早些时候，苹果试图将三星Galaxy S4纳入诉讼范围，但因为诉讼时限遭法官驳回。但若Galaxy S4和之前产品都涉嫌侵犯了苹果数据监测专利，这就意味着苹果将能够扩大三星的负债总额。法官尚未裁定苹果能否扩大三星故意侵权导致的损失范围，也未明确是否会对Galaxy S3和其他类似设备实行禁售，但任何禁售令都将对三星造成灾难性后果。 苹果此前曾在与HTC的专利纠纷中获胜，美国国际贸易委员会的认定，HTC侵犯数据检测专利，2012年HTC试图移除这一功能，但最终还是同意与苹果签订许可协议。围绕这项专利苹果也曾起诉摩托罗拉。 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文：Verdict Split in Apple v. Samsung,by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 三星：除了苹果这些不算专利的专利，我们都没抄
• “苹果你够了！”谷歌出面为三星撑腰
• 苹果三星专利诉讼战火恐波及Android？tHdesmc

{pagination} Verdict Split in Apple v. Samsung Rick Merritt SAN JOSE, Calif. – Jurors here awarded Apple a fraction of the patent infringement damages it sought from Samsung, failing to hurt the Korean giant or slow the Android juggernaut, analysts said. The verdict in the second Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case here gives both sides reason to claim victory publicly and feel defeat privately. Apple can claim it won by far the most damages ($119.6 million) and instances of infringement. However, it reaped little more than five percent of the $2.191 billion in the damages it sought -- far less than the $1.05 billion awarded in its first case here 18 months ago -- and the jury found no infringement on two of its five patents in the case. Samsung was awarded damages for Apple infringing one of its patents, but it got an even smaller fraction ($158,400) of the total ($6 million) it sought, and a fraction of the amount awarded to Apple. It was the first decision in the two cases of Apple infringing a Samsung patent. A few shoes have yet to fall in the case. Judge Lucy H. Koh will be asked to grant an injunction against Samsung selling infringing mobile devices in the U.S. That's not widely expected, and in any case Samsung's latest models such as the Galaxy S5 were not at issue in the trial. Jurors found Samsung guilty of willful infringement on the '721 patent on which it awarded just $750,648 in damages. The decision gives Judge Koh the option of increasing those damages up to three fold. On Monday, jurors will be dismissed and get an opportunity to talk publicly about their thinking behind the verdict. It's anyone's guess what the four men and four women on the jury will decide. Before they are let go, they will be asked why they assessed no damages for one Samsung smartphone they decided had infringed, an apparent mistake caught by Apple's attorneys. The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing one of its patents. The full verdict form is below. applesam.pdf In summary, the jury found: All Samsung accused devices infringed Apple's '947 "quick links" patent. No Samsung devices infringed the '959 "universal search" or '414 "background synch" patents. Six Samsung devices infringed Apple's '721 slide-to-unlock patent. The Judge ruled at the start of the case Samsung infringed Apple's '172 "automatic word correction" patent. Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent on presenting photos and videos. Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University who has been following the case, provided extensive commentary on it: Though this verdict is large by normal standards, it is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple. This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and may not surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case. Apple launched this litigation campaign years ago with aspirations of slowing the meteoric rise of Android phone manufacturers. It has so far failed to do so, and this case won't get it any closer. Overall, this outcome is feels like a defensive victory for Samsung, and not a particularly shocking one. Compared to the first case between these companies, this trial was an uphill battle from the start for Apple. With Google directly involved in developing the allegedly infringing software, Apple's claims that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone never rang true. Apple's case at trial also bogged down at times in nitty-gritty expert testimony about the patented technology and complex damages calculations. Samsung's partial win on its own counterclaims is icing on the cake, a moral victory against Apple's insistence that it is a peer-less innovator. The focus of this case now shifts to whether Apple can convince Judge Koh to issue an injunction banning the sale of Samsung products found to infringe. So far Apple has been unsuccessful at doing so and, without a sales ban, this case is unlikely to move the needle on the larger battle between Apple and Android. It is also important to remember that no money has changed hands and none will for some time to come, if ever. Samsung appealed Apple's earlier victory and will almost certainly appeal this one as well. Large damages awards in patent cases are reversed quite often post-trial. It's entirely possible that we'll be right back where we started 18 months from now. To the extent it wasn't already apparent, this verdict should suggest to Apple that litigation isn't a very effective means to gain a competitive advantage over Android. Hopefully, Apple will come to that conclusion, end its worldwide patent war, and go back to competing in the marketplace with innovative products. Florian Mueller, an analyst following the mobile patent wars, also commented on the verdict on his blog. "So far, the only feature that Google and its Android device makers have not been able to work around without losing the benefit of the invention is rubberbanding," he wrote. "After more than 50 months of Apple litigation against Android, this fact shows the limits of Apple's intellectual property." Mueller also suggested both this jury and the one in the case 18 months ago may have been too timid in questioning the validity of the patents at issue. At least one of the Apple patents in the first case was successfully challenges at the patent office, he noted.