Apple requests retrial of Samsung patent case, demonstrates dissatisfaction with jury verdict
After the original version of the Apple v. Samsung II jury verdict that came down on May 2 (and had to be amended on May 5), Apple's PR department had issued a premature statement that basically described …
Context & Ripple Effects
The May 2 verdict in the second Apple-Samsung case — already amended once before Judge Koh finalized it on May 5 — was supposed to close out this round, but instead both camps are back in motion practice. Apple has filed for a retrial, and per FOSS Patents' broader report it is simultaneously seeking a U.S. permanent injunction against Samsung built on the same jury findings.
The move mirrors the playbook Samsung itself ran four months ago, when it asked for a retrial of the November damages retrial in the first U.S. case between them; Judge Koh refused then, while also rebuking Apple for invoking nationalist bias arguments. With Apple now filing its own retrial demand, each company has formally tried to overturn a verdict it disliked — and Apple's PR team compounded the mess with a statement issued before the verdict form was even corrected.
First-order effects
- Apple's retrial request keeps the second case's damages figure provisional and extends Samsung's legal exposure indefinitely, since no payout can be treated as final until Judge Koh rules on the motion.
- Samsung faces a two-front response: contesting the retrial request while preparing defenses against the injunction bid Apple is pursuing off the same verdict.
Second-order effects
- Judge Koh now holds the deciding vote on both companies' retrial demands, giving her rulings more weight than either jury's verdict in determining where the dispute actually lands.
- The litigation's cost structure hardens: with post-verdict motions now standard on both sides, legal spend and engineering resources tied up in design-arounds continue regardless of who 'wins' any individual verdict.
Third-order effects
- If verdicts in this rivalry remain routinely challenged by whichever side loses, the courtroom stops functioning as a decisive forum and becomes one negotiating input among licensing talks and injunction fights — prolonging the standoff rather than resolving it.
The trend: The Apple-Samsung patent war is shifting from single decisive jury verdicts to endless post-trial maneuvering, with both companies treating every outcome as an opening position rather than a conclusion.