Apple v Samsung: Judge revisits patent verdict

Media playback is unsupported on your device
Media captionSamsung is appealing on grounds that the jury foreman was 'dishonest'

A US federal judge has urged Apple and Samsung to end their ongoing worldwide legal battle over patents, as she reviews the $1.05bn (£652m) awarded to Apple in damages in an August ruling.

"I think it's time for global peace," Judge Lucy Koh said at the end of a hearing in San Jose.

Samsung is seeking a new trial, or reduced sum, after a jury said it had violated Apple patents.

Judge Koh said she would issue a series of rulings over several weeks.

Apple, for its part, has asked for an increase in the award and for a permanent ban on the US sales of eight Samsung smartphones the jury said illegally used Apple's patented technology.

The two companies are embroiled in several lawsuits in many different countries.

Analysis by product

Samsung called into question the legality and soundness of the jury's calculations when deciding the amount of damages.

Apple urged Judge Koh not to try to figure out the jury's reasoning on a device-by-device basis.

"I don't see how you can look at the aggregate verdict without looking at the pieces put together to make that verdict," Judge Koh said.

"If there is a basis to uphold the damages award, by the record, then I am going to uphold it," she continued. "But I think it is appropriate to do analysis by product."

'Tenuous connection'

Samsung has asked for the verdict to be entirely dismissed and for a new trial to be held.

One of Samsung's main arguments centres around the impartiality of foreman Velvin Hogan.

Samsung said it was misconduct on his part not to disclose that he had been sued by his former employer, Seagate Technology, in 1993. Samsung now holds a stake in Seagate.

Mr Hogan has said that according to court instructions he only needed to disclose litigation within the previous 10 years.

Although Judge Koh did not indicate what she thought of Samsung's argument in court, legal experts said it was unlikely to be reason enough for a whole new trial.

"The connection here is tenuous," said Christopher Carani, a patent lawyer in Chicago. "I would be surprised if Judge Koh accepted this argument and scrapped the jury's entire finding."

More on this story

Related Internet links

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites