U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose explained the court’s decision as the trim is considered to be a technical error in the jury’s methodology used to calculate the damages Samsung owed relating to 14 products.
Koh scheduled a new hearing aimed to estimate the damages related to the mentioned products, which could theoretically result in the $450.5 million portion of the verdict being increased or decreased.
“The court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury,” Koh said in her ruling.
“We are pleased that the court decided to strike $450,514,650 from the jury’s award,” Samsung said in a statement.
“Samsung intends to seek further review as to the remaining award. We are also pleased that the court earlier found that Samsung had not acted willfully, denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction, and denied Apple’s motion for increased damages.”
The judge also accused the Cupertino tech giant of using an expert in the case who used an “aggressive notice date” — meaning, an early one — to calculate damages, The New York Times reports.
“The need for a new trial could have been avoided had Apple chosen a more circumspect strategy or provided more evidence to allow the jury or the court to determine the appropriate award for a shorter notice period,” she said in her ruling.
Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, describe the court’s decision as “an extremely careful and thorough opinion on a very difficult and interrelated set of issues.”
Prof Lemley went further and predicted that the Korean company would eventually win some reduction in the original $1 billion award, but “almost certainly” less than the $450 million that Judge Koh reduced it by on Friday.
“We’ll need a new trial to figure that out,” said Mr. Lemley, who has done legal work in the past for Google, maker of the Android operating system involved in the Samsung case and others.
“Judge Koh has encouraged both sides to appeal first. That may clarify some questions, but it is unlikely to prevent a new trial, just delay it some.”
Last summer the US court has ordered Samsung to pay the Cupertino tech giant $1.05bn for infringing intellectual property.
The nine jurors in the case in San Jose, California, found Samsung violated six of the seven Apple patents in dispute and did so willfully in five of the cases.
The South Korean company filed a counter-suit, claiming that Apple infringed five of its own patents. Lawyers for Samsung argued its rival was trying “to thwart legitimate competition”.
Steven Jobs, the late chief executive of Apple, in his biography described Android as a “stolen product.”
“In a very real sense, it’s a fight between Apple and Google,” said Brian Love, a patent expert at the University of Santa Clara.
He continued: “This particular case has been the most important in that because we have had the number one and the number two manufacturers facing off.”