In a virtual clean sweep for Apple, Samsung must pay more than $1 billion for willfully violating Apple's patents in developing a wide variety of phones and tablet computers, a Silicon Valley jury announced Friday.
Jurors also found Apple did not infringe on any of Samsung's patents and will not have to pay its rival a dime, Reuters reports. An appeal is likely.
In a historic and closely watched case, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple sued South Korea-based Samsung for allegedly copying the design and technology used in Apple's iPhones and iPad tablet designs.
What could the decision mean for consumers?
In addition to Samsung paying Apple more than $1 billion ($1,051,855,000 to be exact), Samsung faced the potential of being barred from selling its infringing products in the United States, InformationWeek reports.
But it wasn't immediately clear after Friday's verdict if Samsung would have to pull its products from the U.S. market. Lawyers for both sides were reviewing the verdict. Samsung's lawyers are expected to appeal.
The nine-member jury found Samsung violated Apple's design patents on many, though not all, of its products, CNET reports. Those products included Samsung's Galaxy tablets and several popular smartphones that use Google's Android operating system.
Friday's U.S. verdict came after a judge in South Korea found both companies had infringed on each other's patents, The Associated Press reports. As a result, both companies will have to pull various infringing products from the South Korean market.
The $1 billion Apple v. Samsung verdict also follows decisions in Europe, where Samsung had sued Apple for violating its wireless-technology patents, according to the AP. European courts all rejected Samsung's claims.
- Apple v. Samsung: Jury Rules for Apple, Recommends Over $1 Billion in Damages (ABC News)
- Judge Koh to Apple Attorney: You Must be Smoking Crack (FindLaw's California Case Law blog)
- Judge Rules Apple Must Run 'Samsung Did Not Copy iPad' Ads (FindLaw's Technologist)
- Kodak Wins One, Loses One, in Patent Case Against Apple (FindLaw's Federal Circuit blog)