Apple said in a statement to Mashable that the case "has always been about more than money". Following the first verdict, Samsung paid Apple $548 million in damages, roughly $399 million of which was at stake here.
Apple originally sought $1.07 billion from Samsung for the latter infringing on three design patents, but Samsung argued $28 million was appropriate instead.
Samsung's statement does not say whether they plan to appeal the verdict, but it's generally assumed that they will.
In what feels like a never-ending technology patent spat, Apple has just been awarded a hefty amount of damages from Samsung related to design patent infringement. That meant Samsung was asked to pay about $548m (£328m).
Thursday's ruling awarded Apple a little over $533 million for infringement of its patents for the iPhone's design. Six years ago, Samsung was found guilty of violating patents and told to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages.
The case had been sent back to the district court following a Supreme Court decision to revisit an earlier $400 million damage award.
As expected, Samsung's lawyer said that the verdict isn't based on evidence so the Korean giant will raise its objections.
It had approached the apex court for clarification on whether damages from design patents could be limited to the value of the infringed part instead of the total profit made from the sale of the device.
The Supreme Court decision Samsung is referring to happened in December 2016, in which the court ruled that Samsung would not be liable for penalties for copying some of the iPhone's design. The additional $5,325,050 million covers two more utility patents that Samsung also was infringing on.
During the week-long trial, Samsung and Apple argued over the meaning of "article of manufacture".
In the recent past, Samsung has been filing a number of patents relating to folding smartphones.
The verdict appears to be a compromise between Apple and Samsung's positions and does not offer much clarity on that question, said Burstein, who predicted Samsung would appeal it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- England vs Pakistan, 1st Test
- Gas prices are up 31% from last Memorial Day. Here's why
- Belize's ally, Taiwan, intimidated by Chinese aircraft bombers
- How to Delete Your Apple ID and All Your Data With it
- George R.R. Martin’s ‘The Ice Dragon’ to become animated film
- ’Survivor: Ghost Island’ final vote ends in tie
- BBC Newsnight: Ireland's abortion referendum
- Vevo is killing off mobile apps and website to focus on YouTube
- John Mayer Shares Charmingly Low-Budget Music Video For "New Light"
- Red Sox To Cut Ties With Hanley Ramirez