A nice read. There are some similarities but also some striking differences. Samsung continued to use the patents even after a jury verdict, thereby thumbing their nose at the Court. We aren't quite there yet.
They refused to turn over documents during a trial, at the Courts request - somewhat different than ATVI's refusal to produce documents at WDDDs request during Discovery. ATVI litigated the issue and has a Court ruling in their favor, so I would view this as dissimilar.
Testimony from a Samsung employee stated that Samsung studied the camera produced by the plaintiff and seeked to create a similar product using the plaintiffs tech. Not quite sure we have that in this case. ATVI is using tech by WDDD but no evidence so far that they attempted to copy the tech and then deny knowledge of using it. I believe ATVI's position is that they are indeed using the tech and believe it is unpatentable (somewhat different). The Court viewed Samsung's actions as "bad faith". All of that added up to an exceptional case. Despite the willful infringement, they were not awarded treble damages.
The amount of the award is relatively low in the $5 million range. A company of that size has little concerns when facing such small penalties, so they play dirty. ATVI is facing significantly larger losses and might take the Court proceedings more seriously.
In my opinion, it looks like Samsung ignored the Court when told to produce documents during trial and continued to use the patents w/o paying even after their trial loss. This shows a lack of respect for the Court which may have triggered the EXCEPTIONAL decision.
As you notice by the article the Court awarded legal fees but did NOT award treble damages, which also could have been awarded due to the exceptional circumstances. Some posters are under the impression that treble damages and legal fees are automatic or guaranteed with a win. They are not. Both are rare possibilities and even more unlikely to get both.
