Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29051
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- This is a patent case where a jury found infringement and trade dress dilution by Samsung and awarded $1,049,343,540 in damages, broken down by product.
- Apple and Samsung each filed post-trial motions challenging the damages; Apple sought additur, supplemental damages, and prejudgment interest, while Samsung sought a new trial or remittitur.
- The court denied Apple's additur request, granted supplemental damages for post-verdict infringing sales, and addressed prejudgment interest at a 52-week Treasury rate with annual compounding.
- The court analyzed whether to remit or grant a new trial for various products based on impermissible theories and notice dates, finding multiple products affected by improper theories or timing.
- The court ordered a new trial on damages for Galaxy Prevail and for eight other products, and struck $450,514,650 from the jury’s award; 14 products' awards remain, totaling $598,908,892.
- Overall, Apple’s aggregate post-judgment remedies were resolved with a plan to determine further amounts after appeals and potential remittitur or new trials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to permit additur to increase the jury award | Apple contends the court should augment damages to reflect expert calculations. | Samsung argues Seventh Amendment prohibits judicial additur post-verdict. | Additur denied; Seventh Amendment prohibits the court from increasing the jury award. |
| Availability and method of supplemental damages for post-verdict sales | Apple seeks supplemental damages for post-verdict infringing sales under §284/§289. | Samsung contends the availability and computation are unclear and potentially improper when §289 applies. | Supplemental damages are available, beginning August 25, 2012, with product-by-product per-sale calculations; method and timing tailored to avoid prejudgment double-recovery and guided by statutes. |
| Appropriateness and rate of prejudgment interest | Apple proposes the prime rate; seeks compounding. | Samsung argues for a lower Treasury rate and opposes compounding. | Prejudgment interest awarded at the 52-week Treasury Bill Rate, compounded annually. |
| Whether the jury’s damages award can be examined for impermissible legal theories and remitted/new-trial remedy | Court should review final award for support in record, not dissect jury’s reasoning. | Court may examine and correct impermissible theories via remittitur or new trial. | The award contains impermissible theories; remittitur not feasible for all products; court orders new trials for several products and remits certain amounts. |
| Notice dates and appropriateness of damages tied to early notice | Evidence supports earlier notice dates for most patents. | Some notice dates are incorrect; damages tied to early notice may be excessive for some products. | Earliest supported notice dates identified; damages recalibrated per notice; some products subjected to new trials or removed amounts to address improper notice periods. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court 1935) (Seventh Amendment limits on judicial additur)
- In re First Alliance Mortgage Co., 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) (jury damages not bound to bottom line; impermissible theory can taint award)
- Nike, Inc. v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (design patent remedy provisions remove apportionment requirement for infringer’s profits)
- Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (lost profits require but-for causation and reliable economic evidence)
- Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (supplemental damages and piror inequities in remedies; coexistence of multiple remedies)
- Unisplay, S.A. v. Am. Elec. Sign Co., Inc., 69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (maximum recovery rule for remittitur calculations)
- Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (remittitur using maximum recovery where applicable)
- Joiner Sys., Inc. v. AVM Corp., Inc., 517 F.2d 45 (3d Cir. 1975) (jury’s explicit monetary calculations; remittitur mechanics)
- Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (one sale, multiple remedies; not to double compensate)