In a filing on Wednesday, Apple made the case that it shouldn’t have to wait to collect on the $600 million in damages that the judge upheld. Judge Lucy Koh had encouraged both sides to exhaust any appeals before returning to discuss the damages issues.

“Apple takes seriously the Court’s encouragement, but after careful analysis, Apple believes that until the damages retrial is held and supplemental damages are decided, appellate review of the March 1 Order will not be obtainable,” Apple wrote in its court papers.

Plus, Apple said, “Samsung benefits enormously from any delay, even delay resulting from a failed attempt at an immediate appeal.”

“Samsung must now pay $600 million, and it faces the prospect that it will be liable for hundreds of millions more following a new trial,” Apple wrote. “Moreover, despite the jury’s verdict and Samsung’s representations to the Court that an injunction was unnecessary because Samsung was discontinuing all infringing products and implementing design-arounds, Samsung continues to sell the same and additional infringing products without making any payment to Apple. Every day that a final judgment is deferred, Samsung benefits.”

Samsung not only opposes the request, but in paperwork filed on Thursday, the company asked for more than its allotted five pages because of the substantive issues raised in Apple’s motion.

“Samsung respectfully submits that Apple’s motion, which involves fundamental questions involving the scope and timing of any new trial, is not a proper use of the rule governing Motions for Administrative Relief, which may address ‘miscellaneous administrative matters,’” Samsung said in its filing on Thursday. “Samsung respectfully requests that it be allotted 10 pages for response.”

The ball is now back in Koh’s court to see just what sort of filings and hearings will be allowed.

Judge Lucy Koh said that the jury’s $1 billion verdict was supported by the evidence, adding that “the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied to both sides.”

“A new trial,” Koh wrote in the ruling, “would be contrary to the interests of justice.”

Both sides are likely to appeal various parts of the verdict, with some appeals in the case already filed.

For those who want to read the whole ruling, The Verge has posted a PDF.

If the jury’s decision stands, the award would rank among the largest to date in a patent case.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The South Korean company will drop injunction applications in Germany, France, the U.K., Italy and the Netherlands, a senior executive told The Wall Street Journal. But it will continue to pursue lawsuits in Europe, where it alleges infringements on its products, it said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Samsung will be seeking to get a new trial and to have the award reduced, while Apple will be looking to have the damages heightened and to see injunctions imposed against various Samsung products found to infringe Apple products.

While such procedural motions often follow large damage awards, Thursday’s hearing is shaping up to be a doozy. Here are three things in particular worth watching for:

1. Will any of Samsung’s arguments for a new trial catch on?
Samsung is arguing, among other things, that the jury foreman’s failure to mention a past lawsuit amounts to jury misconduct and should be grounds for a new trial.

Even if Judge Lucy Koh rejects Samsung’s motions, the company will also be making many of these arguments in its inevitable appeal.

2. What will happen to the damage award?
Koh could leave the judgment unchanged. She could also reduce it, finding that the jury used the wrong calculations. And she could increase it up to threefold, finding that Samsung’s infringement was willful.

3. Will the judge order a sales ban on any Samsung products?
Apple is seeking permanent injunctions on a variety of Samsung products, probably the most important of which is the Galaxy S II, which is still sold in volume at many carriers. Samsung doesn’t feel any injunctions are warranted. Even if a permanent injunction is granted, Samsung believes it has workarounds that should allow sales of its products to continue.

4. What will be revealed about Apple’s recent pact with HTC?
After getting its outside lawyers a peek at the deal, Samsung has sought to have the document entered into the case. Though Apple and HTC might prefer to keep the document sealed entirely, Judge Koh has indicated that the only parts that can be kept secret are the royalty rates and other pricing terms, but not other issues including the patents that have been licensed.

Until now, Apple indicated only that it wanted other companies not to copy it. It didn’t seem interested in licensing its patents.

Late CEO Steve Jobs seemed more interested in crushing Android than trying to extract royalties from those that use Google’s operating system.

By contrast, Microsoft has also said it believes Android devices infringe its products, but has been plenty happy to license its patents.

Under the 10-year deal announced on Saturday night, however, Apple appears to be following suit, allowing HTC to continue to do business as usual — and collecting a fee in return.

Also surprising is the fact that HTC is apparently not being forced to pay an arm and a leg for that privilege.

Although terms are not being disclosed, HTC did say that it does not expect the agreement of have an “adverse material impact” on its financials. Whatever the company is paying (and rest assured, Apple is being paid here), it would appear to be relatively cheap considering that a jury ordered Samsung to pay upward of a billion dollars for infringing Apple patents.

Of course, Samsung continues to fight that verdict in court and is still some way from actually having to write Apple a check.

Whether this indicates a willingness by Apple to settle with Android device makers beyond HTC remains to be seen. Apple hasn’t been totally closed to patent deals with mobile phone makers — it has a pact of some sort with Nokia and a rather broad cross-licensing arrangement with Microsoft. It even offered Samsung a deal at one point, though it was seeking $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.

It’s not totally clear what type of license HTC has to Apple know-how, but HTC did say the deal will allow it to continue shipping its existing lineup of devices, a lineup that includes a wide range of Android and Windows Phone devices.

Apple may also be playing a bit of “the enemy of the enemy is my friend” here. Though Apple and HTC have hardly been chummy, the company’s biggest strategic battles are against Samsung and Google (which now owns Motorola). By making peace with a struggling HTC, Apple could boost the Taiwanese phone maker in its battle with those two larger rivals.

The notice does comply with the court’s order, but in the annals of recantation … well, Galileo should have been so lucky. Apple’s statement cites at length a widely publicized High Court finding that said Samsung’s Galaxy tablets were “not cool” enough to be mistaken for iPads. And it goes on to point out that while the U.K. court didn’t find Samsung guilty of infringement, courts in the U.S. and Germany have.

Which makes it hardly an apology at all, and a masterful twist of the court mandate.

Here’s the notice, which Apple must promote from the front page of all its EU Web sites for a month, and publish in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine, “in a font size no smaller than Arial 14 on a page earlier than Page 6.”

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.
In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”

“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.”

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple’s far more popular iPad.

The U.K. Court of Appeals Thursday decided not to overturn a lower court ruling that will force Apple to publicly recant allegations that Samsung copied the design of the iPad for its own Galaxy tablet. First issued in July, the mandate requires Apple to post to its Web site, and in a number of British newspapers and magazines, a notice explaining that Samsung has not infringed its intellectual property with the Galaxy. Specifically, Apple must link to the original order from the front page of all its EU Web sites for a month, and publish notices in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine, “in a font size no smaller than Arial 14 on a page earlier than Page 6.”

Arial, not Helvetica? Cruel punishment, indeed. (Could have been worse; could have been Comic Sans.)

The court’s rationale for denying Apple’s appeal? To do otherwise would stifle competition.

“If the registered design has a scope as wide as Apple contends, it would foreclose much of the market for tablet computers,” the court wrote in its decision. “Alterations in thickness, curvature of the sides, embellishment and so on would not escape its grasp. Legitimate competition by different designs would be stifled.”

Point your browser at the German Web site of its Motorola Mobility division and you’ll find a paucity of smartphones, not a single Android tablet, and a notice promising some updated devices by the end of July.

July has come and gone, of course. And now we’re well into October and those promised updated devices are nowhere to be found. Why the delay?

We put that question to both Google and its Motorola subsidiary and neither has yet responded, but there’s one obvious explanation: The multiple injunctions against Motorola Mobility products that Microsoft and Apple have won in Germany. To date, Microsoft been granted three separate injunctions against Motorola Mobility in Germany. Apple has won three as well. So with half a dozen injunctions against it, Google likely had no recourse but to yank much of its allegedly infringing portfolio, leaving the German smartphone markets with just the Razr, the Razr i, and the Gleam HD + — a fraction of its handset portfolio.

An irksome situation, I imagine, for Google, which spent $12.5 billion on Motorola Mobility not just to “supercharge the Android ecosystem,” but to acquire a patent portfolio with which to protect its mobile OS. At this point, that costly acquisition doesn’t appear to have succeeded at either.

Update: Reached for comment, a Motorola spokeswoman said the decline in devices we’re seeing in Germany was planned all along. “As we have previously stated Motorola Mobility is focusing on fewer mobile devices,” she told AllThingsD. “As a result we have phased out some of our lower tier devices in Europe/Germany.”

And what of those updated devices the company promised by the end of July? Who knows …

Judge Lucy Koh had issued the injunction in June based on the likelihood that a jury would find that a specific Apple design patent had been infringed. Although the jury largely sided with Apple in the case and awarded more than $1 billion in damages, the jury didn’t find Samsung’s tablet infringed on that particular product.

“The Court agrees with Samsung that the sole basis for the June 26 Preliminary Injunction was the Court’s finding that Samsung likely infringed the D’889 Patent,” Koh said in her ruling. “The jury has found otherwise. Thus, the sole basis for the June 26 Preliminary Injunction no longer exists.”

Koh could still impose a permanent sales ban on that and other Samsung products after a hearing in December.

Samsung said it was pleased with Koh’s ruling.

“We are pleased with the court’s action today, which vindicates our position that there was no infringement of Apple’s design patent and that an injunction was not called for,” Samsung said in a statement.

Koh had initially declined to lift the ban, noting that the issue was before an appeals court. However, the Federal Circuit court last week ruled that Koh could lift the ban if she saw fit.

For the time being, Koh is also hanging on to a $2.6 million bond that Apple had posted, but will decide later whether any of that money should be given to Samsung on the basis that the injunction was wrongfully issued.

Separately, Samsung on Monday also filed court papers to add the iPhone 5 to a second suit between the two companies.

“We have always preferred to compete in the marketplace with our innovative products, rather than in courtrooms,” Samsung said. “However, Apple continues to take aggressive legal measures that will limit market competition. Under these circumstances, we have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights.”

Swiss railway operator SBB says the design of a new clock app on the iPad copies its signature — and trademarked — clock.

“The rights for this design of the watch are (owned) by the SBB,” a railway spokesperson told AllThingsD. “We are in contact with Apple to seek together an agreement about the rights.”

The clock is the design of Swiss engineer Hans Hilfiker, with licensed versions selling for hundreds of dollars.

An Apple representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Design issues aside, the clock is a welcome addition to the iPad, which until now has bizarrely lacked the alarm clock and timer features found on other iOS devices.

A German court ruled Thursday that a number of tablets and smartphones made by Google’s Motorola Mobility division infringe a Microsoft patent, and granted the software giant a ban on their sales in Germany. Microsoft must pay a bond of $61.4 million if it wants to see the ban implemented.

The patent at issue in the case covers “a method and system for receiving user input data into a computer system having a graphical windowing environment.” And it covers a functionality that Microsoft alleges has been built into Android. Indeed, the only reason Microsoft hasn’t asserted the patent against other Android device makers like HTC and Samsung is because those companies have already agreed to license it. Google is the lone holdout. And now it must either modify Android to avoid further infringement or agree to pay Microsoft the royalties it demands.

Microsoft was quite pleased with the ruling, the third that has gone in its favor against Google in Germany. “We’re pleased this decision builds on previous rulings in Germany that have already found Motorola is broadly infringing Microsoft’s intellectual property,” Deputy General Counsel Dave Howard said in a statement. “We will continue to enforce injunctions against Motorola products in Germany and hope Motorola will join other Android device makers by taking a license to Microsoft’s patented inventions.”

Google has not yet replied to a request for comment, but it will undoubtedly appeal the court’s ruling and request a stay of the injunction.

Update: This just in from Google’s Motorola Mobility unit: “We are waiting for the written decision and are evaluating our options, including an appeal.”

Unwired Planet, formerly known as Openwave, said on Thursday that it has sued both companies for patent infringement. In separate suits filed in Nevada Federal Court, each company is accused of violating 10 of Unwired Planet’s patents.

In the Apple case, Unwired Planet is charging infringement on patents related to cloud messaging, mobile digital content and location services, among other features. With Google, Unwired Planet says the Android developer is infringing on patents related to Google AdWords, Google Wallet, and mobile search and advertising.

An Apple representative was not immediately available for comment. A Google representative said the company had no comment and said it had yet to be served with a copy of the lawsuit.

The suits are part of Unwired Planet’s effort to transform itself from a maker of mobile browsers to a company focused on its patent holdings. Openwave was a pioneer in the market for basic mobile browsers using the WAP (Wireless Application Protocol) standard.

“Today’s actions follow a careful review that we launched in late 2011 as we began to transform Unwired Planet into an Intellectual Property company,” Unwired Planet CEO Mike Mulica said in a staement. “This litigation marks a key step in our multi-pronged strategy to maximize shareholder value through the licensing of our robust portfolio of patents and to protect our IP through litigation against unlicensed parties as necessary.”

As part of that shift, the company is relocating to business-friendly (and patent-friendly) Nevada.

“Nevada has been chosen as one of 14 districts across the United States as a pilot patent district and it has developed specialized procedures to handle complex patent cases,” Mulica said. “As a result, we believe the Nevada district will be an ideal venue to resolve this matter with efficiency and expertise.”

Although a jury found in Apple’s favor on many of the patent issues in the case and found Samsung liable for more than $1 billion in damages, the seven men and two women found that Samsung did not infringe on a design patent that was the basis for the June 26 preliminary injunction. Samsung, naturally, asked for the ban to be lifted.

Judge Lucy Koh said in a ruling on Monday that it would not be proper to lift the injunction given that the matter is now before an appeals court, but did issue a declaration that Samsung’s motion raises “substantial issues,” potentially paving the way for the appeals court to send that issue back to her courtroom.

A broader set of post-trial motions, including Apple’s request for additional damages and injunctions, is set to be argued at a December hearing.

According to reports from Bloomberg, Reuters and others, the court ruled in Samsung’s favor, and ordered Apple to pay the Korean company’s legal costs.

“We welcome the court’s decision, which confirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple’s intellectual property,” Samsung said in a statement to AllThingsD. “We will continue to offer highly innovative products to consumers, and continue our contributions towards the mobile industry’s development.”

An Apple representative was not immediately available for comment.

The Japanese ruling is the latest of several court decisions across the globe in recent days.

A Korean court ruled that both companies infringe on the other’s technology, while a jury in San Jose, Calif., ruled last week that Samsung was liable for infringing a number of Apple’s design and feature patents, and ordered it to pay more than $1 billion in damages.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

When the stock market opens later today, one interesting indication of the impact of the Apple victory over Samsung in its patent infringement battle will be investor reaction.

A jury in California rendered the verdict in the contentious case — in which more than $1 billion was awarded Apple — after the markets had closed on Friday.

In after-hours trading starting later that day, Apple’s shares rose smartly. The stock is now up almost 2.4 percent, or $15.67, to $678.89. Apple closed Friday afternoon at $663.22, already an all-time high.

On the flip side, today in Asian markets, Samsung’s stock plunged 7 percent.

And even though the South Korean consumer electronics giant has vowed to appeal the decision, this morning will bring the clearest indication of what the financial markets think of the development.

Will Apple soar — especially given that the Silicon Valley icon is expected in the weeks ahead to also be releasing new versions of its hugely popular iPhone and iPad devices?

And whither the shares of Google — a major Samsung mobile partner, whose Android operating system software is at the heart of many of the contested smartphones and tablets?

The big question, of course, is whether Google is seen by Wall Street as a Samsung proxy, with the potential of being a future target of Apple’s lawyers or, perhaps more simply, collateral damage in the fight.

Not surprisingly, the search giant sought to distance itself from the legal melee by finally releasing an ain’t-nobody-here-but-us-chickens statement on the situation last night.

In case you’re keeping track anyway, Google shares closed Friday at $678.63 — ironically, at almost the exact same price as Apple’s.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Google — which went curiously silent on Friday after a blockbuster court win by rival Apple against its Android partner Samsung — finally found its voice today, by releasing a statement about the patent infringement verdict:

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

Here’s the translation, for those who don’t speak passive-aggressive:

Good lord, let’s hope Samsung wins on appeal, because if Apple prevails, it might be coming for us next. We hope our massive patent-buying splurge in mobile will protect us, but the there-is-nothing-new-under-the-sun defense is our fallback position.

But, let us reiterate: Good lord.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

In case you have not read enough about the outcome in the Apple-Samsung patent infringement trial, here’s the official amended verdict form to keep you busy.

Apple kinda won, by the way.

verdict

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

CNET nabbed an exclusive interview with one of the nine jurors in the high-profile and complex trial.

The jury largely handed over a victory to Apple in the patent infringement case, along with an award of just over $1 billion.

Manuel Ilagan — who said debates among jurors were at times “heated,” in spite of the quickness of the verdict — told CNET that “Samsung’s internal emails about incorporating some of Apple’s technology into its devices, and the evasive way Samsung executives answered questions, was damning.”

Ilagan also denied that the jury was favoring Apple in any kind of “hometown bias.”

“We weren’t going for Apple,” he told CNET. “We weren’t thinking Apple or Samsung.”

The interview is well worth a full read here.

Reuters also talked to another key juror, foreman Velvin Hogan, about making sure Samsung knew it had done wrong.

Hogan, who holds a patent himself, said the jury “wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

After Apple’s legal victory over Samsung in the much-disputed patent infringement battle earlier today, its CEO Tim Cook sent a memo to the tech giant’s employees.

Cook, who took over at the company exactly a year ago, said Apple had gone to court “very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work.”

He stressed that the lawsuit “has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values.”

The memo was similar, though perhaps more emotional, than a company statement earlier today.

Apple said, in part,

“The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy.”

Here is the full Cook memo, which was obtained by 9to5Mac:

Today was an important day for Apple and for innovators everywhere.

Many of you have been closely following the trial against Samsung in San Jose for the past few weeks. We chose legal action very reluctantly and only after repeatedly asking Samsung to stop copying our work. For us this lawsuit has always been about something much more important than patents or money. It’s about values. We value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. And we do this to delight our customers, not for competitors to flagrantly copy.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the jury who invested their time in listening to our story. We were thrilled to finally have the opportunity to tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than we knew.

The jury has now spoken. We applaud them for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

I am very proud of the work that each of you do.

Today, values have won and I hope the whole world listens.

Tim

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

And, now that the verdict is in, the inevitable appeals process will begin.

First, though, Samsung will ask Judge Lucy Koh to throw out the verdict as matter of law and Apple will seek an injunction and the increasing of the award based on willfulness. Koh has said she will hear those motions at a future date.

Samsung is clearly going to be most eager to appeal, with the jury having found it infringing on multiple Apple patents and awarding more than $1 billion in damages. Apple, too, could appeal on some of the issues on which it lost.

Throughout the trial, both sides made statements and objections that were geared more toward an inevitable appeals court review than to either Koh or the seven men and two women on the jury.

There were debates on which witnesses should be allowed to testify and on what evidence should be admitted. Lawyers stridently made their case and hoped for a favorable ruling. But each time they lost, they marked down yet another possible grounds for appeal.

Koh even made reference to this on more than one occasion, noting to the losing side that they had now “made their record” for appeal.

Samsung, as it made clear in its statement, expects further legal debate on the matter as well.

“This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims,” Samsung said.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Apple’s already soaring stock got yet another boost in after-hours trading today, after it largely won a bruising patent infringement battle with Samsung.

Shares of the tech giant, which have risen 76 percent in the last year, are now up almost 1.8 percent, or $11.73, to $674.95. Apple’s stock closed Friday afternoon at $663.22.

This comes on the heels of Apple becoming the most valuable public company of all time this week, after surpassing a market capitalization beyond $600 billion last week.

Now it is even higher, thanks to the jury verdict and — perhaps even more significantly for investors in the weeks ahead — as new versions of the popular iPhone and iPad are about to be launched this fall.

Today, with those iPhones and iPads a key part of the legal battle, the trial effect hit.

After the markets closed, jurors ruled that many of the Samsung smartphones and tablets infringed on various design and utility patents held by Apple on its popular iPhone and iPad devices. It also found some Samsung phones had violated Apple’s protected “trade dress” for the iPhone.

There will obviously be an appeal — Samsung said as much clearly in its cheeky statement about the loss:

“It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies,” the South Korean consumer electronics giant said. “This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims.”

But, for today at least, Wall Street likes the Apple legal victory.

Check it out for yourself:

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

There are at least two problems with the verdict, Koh said. For the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, the jury found no infringement or inducement but awarded damages. On another count, the jury found no infringement of Apple’s utility patents but found inducement of infringement, a combination not possible according to Koh’s jury instructions.

Koh sent the jury back down to clarify those two points, though both issues would not seem to affect the bulk of the ruling. The jury left the courtroom and is expected to return shortly.

Earlier on Friday, the jury ruled that many — but not all — of the Samsung phones and tablets at issue infringed on various design and utility patents. It also found some Samsung phones guilty of infringing on Apple’s protected “trade dress” for the iPhone.

The jury, meanwhile, denied Samsung’s countersuit that accused Apple of infringing on its patents.

Update, 5:30 pm PT: The jury has sent a note seeking clarification of just what the inconsistencies were with the verdict. Koh is now drafting an answer, with guidance from the lawyers. Looks like it is going to be a late night.

5:50 pm PT: Jury has a revised verdict, Koh informs courtroom.

5:54 pm PT: Jury back with revised verdict, finds no inducement on the patent in which it found inducement but no infringement. That brings the total damage amount down to $1,049,343,540.

6:00 pm PT: Jury now being excused and told they can choose to speak — or not — to the media and the lawyers in the case.

6:01 pm PT: Koh now asking what sorts of post-trial motions each side will make. Apple, of course, wants damages increased and an injunction against infringing Samsung products.

Samsung wants any injunction put on hold until it can make its other legal motions, but Koh indicates she wants a hearing on a preliminary injunction sooner.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

If anyone had any question what irony is exactly, consider this: Today is the one-year anniversary of the day Steve Jobs stepped down from his job as the charismatic and legendary leader of Apple, as well as the very moment that the company he co-founded has largely won an epic legal battle with Samsung over patent infringement.

The late Apple co-founder was particularly vocal at various times on the issue of copying innovations that he felt his company had pioneered.

That’s been especially true related to Google Android operating system that Samsung and many other device makers are using.

In a quote by Jobs from Walter Isaacson’s biography of him, he famously said:

“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

And that has certainly been at the center of the landmark trial over who stole what in the aggressive race to dominate the market for popular smartphones and tablet devices, including Apple’s iPhone and iPad.

Right now, the verdict from a California jury — who deliberated for less than 24 hours — is being read in a San Jose courtroom.

And, so far, it is largely favoring the Silicon Valley-based Apple over the South Korean consumer electronics giant on the wide-ranging patent infringement case.

As The Verge’s liveblog of the verdict noted: “Apple didn’t win everything — not by a long shot — but it won enough to make this a very important day.”

Indeed.

Those wins include patents related to touchscreen features, such as zooming, as well as on designs.

In addition, so far, Samsung has been ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

The jurors determined that Samsung violated six of seven patents and found that it willfully infringed in five instances. Also: The jury said that all seven of Apple’s patents were valid, which Samsung had contested.

The findings in the complex case are still being read in court, because it involves many patent infringement allegations on both sides related to dozens of devices.

Legions of lawyers for Apple and Samsung went back and forth on who invented what and whether it was a matter of copying or simple inspiration.

Samsung, naturally, said the various devices might be similar, but not the same. Apple begged to differ.

Jobs would have been in agreement, too, had he lived to see the verdict — he died of pancreatic cancer in October of last year, only months after stepping down.

But, in his resignation letter a year ago, he wrote about the importance of innovation:

“I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role. I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.”

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage