A federal jury in the Apple-Samsung case delivered a mixed verdict Friday. 
 
 The panel ruled that various Samsung products infringed on two patents that Apple had sued over in its latest patent case and found damages on a third patent, awarding more than $119.6 million in damages. However, it found Apple did not infringe on two other patents and also awarded Samsung $158,400, saying Apple infringed on a Samsung patent. 
 
 The jury found all accused Samsung phones infringed on the first patent at issue, the ’647 “quick-links” patent, but the devices did not infringe on two others related to universal search and background synchronization. For the ’721 “slide-to-unlock” patent, it ruled some Samsung products infringed, while others did not. 
 
 For a fifth patent, the judge had ruled that Samsung’s products infringed on the Apple patent, and the jury determined that infringement was willful. 
 
 Meanwhile, the panel ruled that Apple violated one of two Samsung patents that the company had countersued over, but ruled the infringement was not willful and awarded only the $158,400. 
 
 A discrepancy on the verdict form, however, means the panel will have to come back on Monday to clarify the verdict. (see updates below.) 
 
 The verdict was reached after three full days of deliberations, with a retired IBM business unit executive serving as the foreman of the four-man, four-woman jury. 
 
 Apple had been seeking $2.2 billion in damages, while Samsung argued that it owed at most $38 million or so, not that it believed it infringed Apple’s patents in the first place. It was also seeking about $6 million from Apple in its countersuit. 
 
 The $119.6 million is also far less than Apple got in its last case against Samsung, where two juries in the same courtroom awarded nearly $1 billion in damages. With Samsung continuing to gain ground in the market–and courts so far having been unwilling to order its products be changed or taken off the market–a strong case can be made that Samsung has already outflanked Apple in the ongoing legal battle. 
 
 And of course, both sides will likely ask Judge Lucy Koh to set aside the latest verdict and, failing that, will appeal the jury’s verdict. 
 
 That said, Apple praised the ruling. 
 
 “We are grateful to the jury and the court for their service,” Apple told Re/code. “Today’s ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: That Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers.” 
 
 Representatives of Samsung and Google were not immediately available for comment. However Google appeared to come out a winner; it had agreed to provide indemnity to Samsung with regard to two patents at issue, both of which the jury ruled were not infringed. 
 
 The jury heard more than 50 hours of testimony in all, as well as opening and closing statements. 
 
 Update, 6:05 p.m.: Apple has identified one product found to infringe for which no damages were awarded; Judge Koh says the jury will be asked to clarify that point. Given the lateness of the hour, the jury will have half an hour tonight or it will have to come back on Monday. 
 
 6:30 p.m.: The jury decides it would rather settle things after the weekend, so they will be back at 9 a.m. Monday. 
 
 Samsung’s outside attorney, John Quinn, declined to comment on the damages award, noting the verdict is not yet final given the discrepancy still to be addressed by the jury. Google has also declined to comment. 

 Vicki Behringer 
 
 SAN JOSE, Calif. -- An eight-person jury on Friday handed back a mixed verdict in the Apple v. Samsung patent-infringement case, determining that both companies were guilty in some aspects but not guilty in others. 
 
 The jury found all of Samsung's accused gadgets infringed Apple's '647 "quick links" patent but that none infringed the '959 "universal search" patent or the '414 "background sync" patent. Results were mixed for the '721 "slide to unlock" patent, with some Samsung devices, such as the Galaxy Nexus, found to infringe, and others found not to. Judge Lucy Koh, in a pretrial judgement, had already ruled that Samsung infringed the '172 "automatic word correction" patent, and the jury simply calculated damages. 
 
 The jury awarded Apple only $119.6 million for Samsung's infringement, much less than the $2.2 billion it had requested. 
 
 Meanwhile, the jury also determined that Apple infringed Samsung's '449 patent for photo and video organization in folders and awarded the Korean company $158,400. Samsung had accused Apple of infringing two patents and asked for damages of about $6.2 million. 
 
 The jury will return Monday at 9 a.m. to reconsider one of the damages figures. It awarded Apple no damages for one version of the Galaxy S2, but Apple believes it should be awarded some money for Samsung's infringement of the '172 patent. 
 
 Asked for a response to today's events, a Samsung spokesperson said, "It is inappropriate to comment while the jury is still deliberating." 
 
 Apple said in a statement that it's "grateful to the jury and court for their service." 
 
 "Today's ruling reinforces what courts around the world have already found: that Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products. We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers." 
 
 Apple v. Samsung - completed jury form 
 
 The jury reached its verdict shortly before 4:30 p.m. PT Friday, the end of the third full day of deliberations. The verdict was read to the court about half an hour later. 
 
 The results of the trial are less clear cut than the previous patent-infringement case and damages retrial that netted Apple about $930 million. However, the results likely will be viewed as a victory for Samsung. The damages amount owed to Apple fall far below the company's request, and Samsung wasn't found to infringe all of Apple's patents. In addition, Apple was found to infringe one of Samsung's patents, something that didn't occur in the previous trial. 
 
 "This outcome feels like a defensive victory for Samsung, but not a particularly shocking one," said Brian Love, assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. "With Google directly involved in developing the allegedly infringing software, Apple's claims that Samsung blatantly copied the iPhone never rang true." 
 
 
 
 
 
 Almost two years after Apple and Samsung faced off in a messy patent dispute, the smartphone and tablet rivals returned to the same courtroom here to battle once again over patents before Judge Koh. Apple argued that Samsung infringed on five of its patents for the iPhone, its biggest moneymaker, and that Apple was due $2.2 billion for that infringement. Samsung wanted about $6.2 million from Apple for infringing two of its software patents, and it argued that even if it did infringe all of Apple's patents, it should have to pay only $38.4 million. 
 
 While the companies asked for damages, the case is about more than money. What's really at stake is the market for mobile devices. Apple now gets two-thirds of its sales from the iPhone and iPad; South Korea-based Samsung is the world's largest maker of smartphones; and both want to keep dominating the market. So far, Apple is ahead when it comes to litigation in the US. Samsung has been ordered to pay the company about $930 million in damages. 
 
 The two companies presented their closing arguments Tuesday. The case was then handed to the jury of four men and four women shortly before 3 p.m. PT that day. The jury was made up of tech novices such as a police officer and a retired teacher. Only one member, a former IBM software executive, had experience in technology, while another works in renewable energy. 
 
 Now Playing: Watch this: Jury awards Apple far less than it wanted in Apple v.... 
 
 
 
 In the case, Apple and Samsung accused each other of copying features used in their popular smartphones and tablets. The trial involved different patents and newer devices than the ones disputed at trial in August 2012 and in a damages retrial in November 2013. For instance, the new trial involved the iPhone 5 , released in September 2012, and Samsung's Galaxy S3 , which also debuted in 2012. 
 
 Most Samsung features that Apple said infringe are items that are a part of Android, Google's mobile operating system that powers Samsung's devices. All patents except one, called "slide to unlock," are built into Android, Samsung said. Apple has argued the patent infringement trial has nothing to do with Android. However, Samsung called Apple's suit an and said that Google had invented certain features before Apple patented them. It came out during the trial that Google has been helping Samsung fund its defense against a couple of Apple's patent claims because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" for Samsung to use Google's apps. 
 
 Suing Google wouldn't get Apple far since Google doesn't make its own phones or tablets. Instead, Apple has sued companies that sell physical devices using Android, a rival to Apple's iOS mobile operating system. In particular, Apple believes Samsung has followed a strategy to copy its products and then undercut Apple's pricing. 
 
 The monthlong trial, which kicked off March 31 with jury selection, included about 52 hours of testimony, three hours of opening arguments, and four hours of closings. It covered everything from the invention of the technology at issue in the case to what damages should total. Apple argued throughout the trial that its case was about Samsung, not Google, and that Samsung copied Apple out of desperation. Samsung, meanwhile, argued that Apple's suit was about hurting competition and Android. 
 
 An appeals court ruling April 25 in Apple's related patent-infringement suit against Motorola threw a wrench in the Apple v. Samsung case, extending the duration of the trial by one day to give the parties one additional hour each -- on top of the 25 apiece they already had -- to present more evidence. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday upheld a ruling by Judge A. Posner of the Northern District of Illinois that determined a specific interpretation of Apple's '647 "quick links" patent. Koh had allowed the patent, particularly the use of an analyzer server, to be interpreted in a way in the current trial that differed from Posner's accepted meaning, so she allowed Samsung and Apple to address the patent Monday. 
 
 There were seven patents at issue in the latest case -- five held by Apple and two by Samsung. Apple accused Samsung of infringing US patents Nos. 5,946,647; 6,847,959; 7,761,414; 8,046,721; and 8,074,172. All relate to software features, such as quick links for '647, universal search for '959, background syncing for '414, slide-to-unlock for '721, and automatic word correction for '172. Overall, Apple argued that the patents enable ease of use and make a user interface more engaging. 
 
 Samsung, meanwhile, has accused Apple of infringing US patents Nos. 6,226,449 and 5,579,239. The '449 patent, which Samsung purchased from Hitachi, involves camera and folder organization functionality. The '239 patent, which Samsung also acquired, covers video transmission functionality and could have implications for Apple's use of FaceTime. 
 
 Shara Tibken/CNET 
 
 The Samsung gadgets that Apple said infringe are the Admire, Galaxy Nexus , Galaxy Note , Galaxy Note 2, Galaxy S II, Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy SII Skyrocket, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and the Stratosphere. Samsung, meanwhile, said the iPhone 4 , iPhone 4S , iPhone 5, iPod Touch (fifth generation), and iPod Touch (fourth generation) all infringe. Samsung initially accused the iPad 2 , iPad 3, iPad 4, and iPad Mini of infringing its '239 patent, but it later dropped those claims. That also reduced the amount Samsung wanted in damages to $6.2 million from its originally requested $6.8 million. 
 
 The trial contained testimony by numerous technical and damages experts, as well as people who invented the technology at issue in the case. 
 
 The first day of arguments featured testimony by Phil Schiller, Apple's head of marketing. Other witnesses who have testified for Apple include Greg Christie, an Apple engineer who invented the slide-to-unlock iPhone feature; Thomas Deniau, a France-based Apple engineer who helped develop the company's quick link technology; and Justin Denison, chief strategy officer of Samsung Telecommunications America. Denison's testimony came via a deposition video. 
 
 The crux of Apple's case came with two expert witnesses, John Hauser, the Kirin professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management; and Christopher Vellturo, an economist and principal at consultancy Quantitative Economic Solutions. Hauser conducted a conjoint study that determined Apple's patented features made Samsung's devices more appealing, while Vellturo determined the amount of damages Apple should be due for Samsung's infringement: $2.191 billion. 
 
 Samsung, which launched its defense April 11 after Apple rested its case, called several Google engineers to the stand to testify about the early days of Android and technology they created before Apple received its patents. Hiroshi Lockheimer, Google vice president of engineering for Android, said his company never copied iPhone features for Android. Other Google Android engineers, Bjorn Bringert and Dianne Hackborn, also testified about features of the operating system. 
 
 High-ranking Samsung executives, including former Samsung Telecommunications America CEO Dale Sohn and STA Chief Marketing Officer Todd Pendleton, also took the stand during the monthlong trial. The two executives testified about Samsung's marketing push for the Galaxy S2 and other devices, saying a shift in the Korean company's sales and marketing efforts -- not copying Apple -- boosted its position in the smartphone market. 
 
 The latter half of the trial largely featured experts hired by Samsung to dispute the validity of Apple's patents and to argue that Samsung didn't infringe. David Reibstein, chaired professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, refuted Apple expert Hauser's testimony from earlier in the trial. Judith Chevalier, a professor of economics and finance at the Yale University School of Management who was hired by Samsung, said her analysis determined that a reasonable royalty for Samsung's assumed infringement would be $1.75 per device, or $38.4 million overall. Apple had argued it deserved $40 per device for infringement as well as lost profits for a total of $2.191 billion. 
 
 After presenting its defense, Samsung on April 21 launched its own infringement suit against Apple. Dan Schonfeld, a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, testified that Apple infringed the '239 patent in its iPhone through the use of FaceTime and a feature for attaching video to messages and mail. And Ken Parulski, another expert who was part of the Kodak team that developed the world's first color digital camera, testified that Apple infringed another Samsung patent for organizing video and photos in folders. 
 
 James Storer, a professor of computer science at Brandeis University hired by Apple as an expert witness, then testified April 22 that Apple didn't infringe Samsung's patents. The company then called witnesses such as Apple engineers Tim Millet and Roberto Garcia to testify about the creation of technology used in iPhones and iPads. Millet serves as senior director of platform architecture at Apple, helping create the processors that power iOS devices. Garcia, meanwhile talked about the creation of the FaceTime technology that has been accused of infringing a Samsung patent. 

 SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — A California jury awarded Apple $119 million — far less than it demanded — in a patent battle with Samsung over alleged copying of smart phone features, and the jury made the victory even smaller by finding that Apple illegally used one of Samsung's patents. 
 
 FILE - In this Monday, April 28, 2014, file photo, Apple attorneys Harold McElhinny, left, and William Lee, walk with others to a federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif. A California jury determined Friday,... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this Tuesday, April 29, 2014, file photo, Samsung attorney David Nelson walks to a federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif. A California jury determined Friday, May 2, 2014, that Samsung infringed... (Associated Press) 
 
 The verdict was a far cry from the $2.2 billion Apple sought and the $930 million it won in a separate 2012 trial making similar patent infringement claims against older Samsung products, most of which are no longer for sale in the United States. 
 
 The jury found that Apple had infringed one of Samsung's patents in creating the iPhone 4 and 5. Jurors awarded Samsung $158,400, trimming that amount from the original $119.62 million verdict. Samsung had sought $6 million. 
 
 "Though this verdict is large by normal standards, it is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple," Santa Clara University law professor Brian Love said. "This amount is less than 10 percent of the amount Apple requested and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case." 
 
 The award may be adjusted slightly in favor of Apple. Jurors were ordered to return to court Monday to continue deliberations on a minor matter that could result in a higher award for Apple. Because the jury was still empaneled, jurors were prevented from talking publicly about the case. 
 
 Samsung spokesman Lauren Restuccia declined comment, citing the ongoing deliberations. 
 
 Apple declared Friday's verdict a victory. 
 
 "Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. "We are fighting to defend the hard work that goes into beloved products like the iPhone, which our employees devote their lives to designing and delivering for our customers." 
 
 Unlike the first trial in San Jose federal court in 2012, Samsung lawyers made Google a central focus of their defense. Google makes the Android software that Samsung and other smartphone manufacturers use as their operating systems. Samsung argued that Google was Apple's real target. 
 
 More than 70 percent of smartphones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers 
 
 Both companies will now try to urge the judge to remove the others products from store shelves in the United State. Love and other experts say that neither company is expected to succeed with those demands. 
 
 "So far Apple has been unsuccessful at doing so and, without a sales ban, this case is unlikely to move the needle on the larger battle between Apple and Android," Love said. 
 
 The verdict marked the latest intellectual property battle between the world's top two smartphone makers. Apple and Samsung have sued each other in courts and trade offices around the world. 
 
 Apple and Samsung are locked in a bitter struggle for dominance of the $330 billion worldwide smartphone market. Samsung has become the leader of the sector with a 31 percent share after being an also-ran with just 5 percent in 2007. Apple, meanwhile, has seen its market share slip to about 15 percent from a high of 27 percent three years ago. 
 
 The jury of four men and four women delivered its verdict in the latest case after beginning deliberations on April 29. 
 
 During the monthlong trial, Apple argued that many of the key functions and vital features of Samsung phones were invented by Apple. Samsung countered that its phones operate on the Google Android software system and that any legal complaint Apple has is with the search giant. 
 
 Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board. The move infuriated Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip-off of iPhone innovations. 
 
 After removing Schmidt from Apple's board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to "thermonuclear war" to destroy Android and its allies. At the recent trial, Samsung attorneys produced an email Jobs sent to executives in 2010 urging them to wage a "holy war" against Android in 2011. 
 
 Early in deliberations, the jury wanted to know if Jobs had mentioned Google when considering the lawsuit that was eventually filed in 2012, several months after the Apple founder died of cancer. 
 
 U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh told jurors no additional evidence was available to them beyond what was presented during the trial. 
 
 Koh answered similarly to questions about Samsung's chief executive officer's reaction when informed that Apple executives had complained to executives at the South Korean company about alleged patent infringement.
– Technically, Apple convinced a jury that Samsung infringed on some of its patents when building smartphones. But the numbers from the San Jose courtroom yesterday provide a sense of how limited in scope the victory was: Apple sought $2.2 billion but won $120 million, reports recode.net. On top of that, the jury found that Apple infringed on one of Samsung's patents and ordered it to pay its rival $158,400. Apple declared victory nonetheless, saying it proved that "Samsung willfully stole our ideas." But the AP quotes a law professor with a different take. "Though this verdict is large by normal standards, it is hard to view this outcome as much of a victory for Apple," says Brian Love of Santa Clara University. "This amount is less than 10% of the amount Apple requested and probably doesn't surpass by too much the amount Apple spent litigating this case." The jury found that some Samsung devices cribbed from Apple on features such as "slide to unlock" and another that makes it easy to dial a phone number included in an email, reports the Wall Street Journal. Apple, on the other hand, stole from Samsung in a feature that organizes photos and videos in folders. (CNET has a more complete breakdown of the specifics of the patents in dispute.) One of Samsung's main arguments during the trial was that Apple's real fight should be with Google and its Android operating system. Apple's award may rise a bit Monday because the jury must return to reconsider a technical matter.