In a judgment handed down on September 18, Judge Lucy Koh at the US District Court for the Northern District of California denied Samsung’s request to either stay the judgment or institute a new trial.

In total, Koh ordered Samsung to pay Apple $548,176,477. The ruling stems from a 2012 decision that initially saw Samsung fined $930 million. Koh’s ruling comes despite an Apple patent at the centre of the dispute being invalidated by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board in December last year. The decision on invalidity is not yet final and Samsung had asked Koh to either stay proceedings or order a new trial pending the PTAB’s final decision.

The patent in question, US number 78,44,915, covers the ‘pinch-to-zoom’ technology.

Koh agreed with Apple that it could not be determined how long it would take the PTAB to reach a final judgment. She added that in May the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already upheld part of her initial damages award. The federal circuit, after Samsung appealed against Koh’s 2012 ruling, upheld the $548 million award for patent infringement but vacated $382 million which had centred on trade dress dilution. On August 23, the federal circuit declined to hear the suit en banc.

In her judgment, Koh wrote: “Pursuant to the federal circuit’s May 18 order, judgment is entered against Samsung and in favour of Apple in the amount of $548,176,477.”

Another Apple patent that Samsung was found to have infringed in 2012, design patent number D618,677, was invalidated by the USPTO last month. The patent, which covers the appearance of the surface of a smartphone device, was handed a non-final rejection by the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit, leaving the door open for Apple to appeal against the judgment. A spokesperson for Samsung said: “We intend to appeal the partial judgment and have previously announced our plans to petition this case to the US Supreme Court.

“We will continue to defend against Apple's overreaching attempts to force Samsung and consumers to pay for Apple's invalid patents.”