[13] These were followed in June of that year with a massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screenshots of various iPhone graphical user interfaces.

[3][15] Apple submitted to the court side-by-side image comparisons of an iPhone 3GS and an i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps.

However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court.

[31] The District Court ruling aroused significant controversy among patent law experts and observers of the telecommunications industry.

The jury's decision was described as being "Apple-friendly" by Wired and a possible reason for the increased costs—because of licensing fees to Apple—that subsequently affected Android smartphone users.

[33] Jury foreman Velvin Hogan generated additional controversy when he stated to interviewers that he was an electrical engineer and patent holder, and used his expertise to help the other jurors reach a verdict.

[37] Based on the verdict, Apple filed a request to stop all sales of Samsung products cited in violation of the US patents, including the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge.

[43] Before the second trial could commence, Apple appealed Koh's refusal to accept the motion to stop sales of infringing Samsung products.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted Apple's argument and ordered Koh to issue the requested preliminary injunction.

[47] The injunction took effect in June 2012, preventing Samsung from making, using, selling, or esporing the Galaxy Nexus and any of its other products that used the disputed patents into the United States.

[51] In May 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed parts of the jury's verdict at the District Court, but vacated a percentage of the dollar amount pertaining to trade dress infringement and dilution.

The Guardian called this victory "pyrrhic" and noted that Apple requested more than ten times this amount may have spent more money litigating its various claims against Samsung than what it was ultimately awarded.

Judge Koh also denied a request from Apple to ban the sale of Samsung products that included the infringed patents.

In February 2016, this panel ruled in favor of Samsung, nullifying the jury verdict because the patents at issue were invalid based on existing prior art.

[66][67] This resulted in affirmation of the Federal Circuit ruling in favor of Apple, but the matter became moot with the June 2018 settlement between the two companies.

[12][59] Apple and Samsung have also litigated claims in various other countries in which smartphone design and utility patents are valid for regional sales of the devices.

The resulting rulings have been inconsistent and have raised questions about the effectiveness of country-level patent protection for products that are sold internationally and manufactured by companies in various nations.

Samsung appealed this decision and requested an expedited schedule in the hope that the matter would be resolved before the Christmas shopping season.

[17][69] In August of that year, the Tokyo District Court ruled that Samsung's Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not violate an Apple patent on an application that synchronizes music and videos between devices and servers.

[87] This resulted in a countersuit from Samsung, but that company failed to win a requested injunction against sales of Apple's product in that country.