But Koh ruled that the jury was largely correct in its verdict and looks set to reject demands for a new trial. "It seems pretty clear that Judge Koh largely supported the jury verdict and isn't planning to second-guess the validity and infringement issues," Stanford University law professor Mark Lemley told CBS News. "It also seems clear she thinks $1.05bn is plenty of money."
However, Koh could trim the damages after it was found that some of their calculations for damages were found to be wrong - the jurors had pencilled in amounts they thought that Samsung owed in damages for various products, but had included amounts for damages against devices they had decided were non-infringing.
In addition, the rejection of Apple's claim that Samsung's opening demand in negotiations for 2.4 per cent royalties for its "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) patents relating to mobile communications technologies was upheld.
Meanwhile, Apple is still arguing for an injunction to stop infringing Samsung products from being sold in the US, while Samsung continues to claim that the original trial was unfair and ought to be sent to appeal.
Sometimes, the power of the mainframe is the most cost effective answer. Computing's Peter Gothard puts Computing's readers' questions on the future of the mainframe to IBM's Z13 expert Steven Dickens.
This Dummies white paper will help you better understand business process management (BPM)