Judge Lucy Koh made a ruling in regards to the Samsung vs. Apple patent wars appeals process. Both sides scored a victory and a loss in the round of events. First, Judge Koh denied Apple's request to ban Samsung products over the court victory. She ruled that Apple could not prove their sales were harmed enough to warrant a ban, and they also failed to prove that the features Samsung infringed upon were the reason anyone chose a Samsung phone over the iPhone. Here's a snipped from the Judge,
That was a loss for Apple and a victory for Samsung; however, the reverse also happened. Judge Koh denied Samsung's request for a new trial. Samsung claimed that the jury was tainted by jury foreman Velvin Hogan, but Judge Koh ruled otherwise, and will not grant a new trial."The fact that Apple may have lost customers and downstream sales to Samsung is not enough to justify an injunction. Samsung may have cut into Apple's customer base somewhat, but there is no suggestion that Samsung will wipe out Apple's customer base or force Apple out of the business of making smartphones."-Judge Lucy Koh
There is one area of contention that has not been decided yet. Judge Koh has yet to rule on a modified damages award. Apple wants an additional $121 Million on top of the $1.05 Billion already awarded, but Samsung wants the damage reduced because they believe the Hogan-led jury made incorrect calculations. Of course, both sides will likely appeal these verdicts, and there is still the matter of the appeals that are already scheduled for 2014.
Update: A separate report indicates the extra amount Apple is requesting in their bid to increase the damages is much higher than originally reported. Since we are not too sure which one is accurate, we thought it best to simply report the other info as well. Here's a quote with the details,
The jury said Aug. 24 at the end of a trial that Samsung should pay $1.05 billion. Apple asked Koh to increase the damages by $536 million, while Samsung says they should be reduced by more than $600 million. Koh, who held a hearing on the matter Dec. 6, has yet to issue a ruling. ~ Businessweek
It looks like the two gladiators will be trading blows for quite some time...