Apple's application for the extra damages in its US intellectual property claim against rival Samsung have been rejected by the Judge Lucy Koh.
Judge Koh rejected the application on the grounds that, although the prior art that Samsung's expert witnesses presented in its defence were rejected, it did demonstrate that Samsung was not "wilful" in its infringement. As a result, the original bill for damages of $1.05bn (£650m) will still stand - but it won't be cut and it is unlikely that a new trial will be ordered.
Koh also rejected Samsung's demands for a new trial based on claims that jury foreman Hogan, who convinced the rest of the jury to find overwhelmingly in Apple's favour, had not fully disclosed all potential links to litigants in the case.
In a separate judgment, she stated: "It is not clear whether Mr Hogan was intentionally dishonest. Neither party has conclusively shown whether Mr Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether he merely forgot to mention it when asked by the Court whether he was ever involved in a lawsuit, or whether he believed that the answer he gave had sufficiently responded to the Court's question."
Her judgment continued: "Further, it is not even clear that Mr Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung. Mr Hogan left Seagate's employment in 1993, and his lawsuit against Seagate was nearly two decades ago."
Apple had been seeking a tripling of damages as it pressed home its victory in the courthouse less than 20 miles from its headquarters.
Judge Koh ruled that Apple had not done enough to demonstrate that Samsung's infringement was "wilful", while the rejected prior art evidence that Samsung presented at the trial nevertheless demonstrated quite the opposite, she said.
"Apple did not establish at the preliminary injunction stage that the '381 patent was central enough to Samsung's products to drive sales, and has not established that fact here either. Nor has Apple established that either the '915 or the '163 patents actually drive sales of any Samsung products. Neither statements about broad categories, nor evidence of copying, nor the conjoint survey provides sufficiently strong evidence of causation," she stated in her main judgment.
[Please turn to page two]