Domstol i USA: "Samsung har kopierat Iphone och Ipad"

Fråga 1: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381 patent?
- The answer for all devices is yes.

Fråga 2: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 patent?
- The answer for most devices is yes, except for the Intercept and Replenish smartphone models.

Fråga 3: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163 patent?
- The answer is yes for almost all the smartphone models, though there are few exceptions. It’s yes for Galaxy Tab.

Fråga 4: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’915, or ’163 patents?
- For 381 patent, yes for all devices.
- For 915 patent, the answer is yes but all but one devices listed.
- For 163 patent, the answer is yes for most except for about eight devices.

Fråga 5: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’667 patent?
- The answer is yes for all but one of the devices. The no is Galaxy Ace.

Fråga 6: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’087 patent?
- The answer is yes for about half, with the no’s various models of the Galaxy.

Fråga 7: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’305 patent?
- The answer is yes for all devices listed in the chart (again, see the verdict form for all the particulars).

Fråga 8: For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 patent?
- The answer is no for all the Galaxy Tab’s listed.

Fråga 9: If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’667, D’087, D’305, and/or D’889 patents?
- The answer is yes for all devices re: Patent 677.
- For the 087 patent, mixed yes and no’s.
- For the 305 patent, the answer is yes for most devices.
- For the 889 patents, the answer is no as it relates to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets.

Fråga 10: If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
- Yes on all patents except 087 and 889.

Fråga 11: Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid?
- The answer is no to all (Apple in the clear around Samsung’s patents.)

Fråga 12: Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone trade dress ’983 is not protectable? No

Fråga 13: Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade dresses are protectable? For unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress, yes. But it’s a no for unregistered combination iPhone trade dress and unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress.

Fråga 14: Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are famous? First two questions are a yes, last two no.

Fråga 15: Have you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the registered iPhone trade dress? Yes for the Galaxy models, but no to several of the other models listed

Fråga 16: If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress? Some yes, some no.

Fråga 17, 18: Skipping

Fråga 19: If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful? Yes for the first two, no to the second.

Fråga 22: What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple? $1.05 billion. (Note: On initial reading, this sounded like $1.5 billion, so you may see that reported. It’s actually $1.051 billion and it was confusing as the clerk read out the amount.)

Fråga 23: For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar breakdown by product. Note: The jury did award damages on a model-by-model basis of infringing Samsung phones and tablets. However, the numbers were read fairly quickly for the 28 devices listed. Will try to post the actual chart from the verdict jury once it’s available.

Fråga 24: For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims? No across the board.

Fråga 25: If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s), has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was willful? Not applicable.

Fråga 26: Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility patent claims are invalid? No.

Fråga 27: What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents? Zero.

Fråga 28: What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents? Zero.

Fråga 30: Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights (“IPR”) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared essential” patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms? No. A victory for Samsung.

Fråga 31: Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard? No. Another victory for Samsung.

Fråga 32: Not applicable. Zero.

Fråga 33: Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple? Yes for Samsung Patent 516 and yes for Patent 941. A victory for Apple.