(CNN) — A federal jury ruled Friday that Samsung must pay $119.6 million more to Apple over patent infringements, according to court documents filed by the U.S. District Court of Northern District of California, San Jose division.
The ruling is the latest development in the long-running legal battle between the two tech giants.
While certainly not insignificant, Friday’s decision was by no means a total victory for Apple: The Cupertino, California-based company had actually sought a much higher sum from Samsung, and the jury only sided with it on two of the four patent infringements that it claimed. And according to the court documents, Apple must pay Samsung more than $158,000 for patent infringement accusations filed by the Korean smartphone maker.
In a statement, Apple said the latest 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,” the company said.
This decision marks another — and almost definitely not the final — chapter in the years-long fight between Apple and Samsung.
The two companies are embroiled in dozens of patent disputes in courts around the world. Apple has typically been the aggressor in alleging Samsung of “slavishly” copying aspects of its iPhone and iPad technology, though Samsung has levied a few patent infringement accusations of its own.
In August 2012, Samsung was found to have violated several of Apple’s patents, and a jury ruled that Samsung owed Apple more than $1 billion in damages. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh later said that the jury miscalculated the award, and about $450 million worth of those damages were reconsidered in a new trial.
Then, last November, a federal jury ordered Samsung to pay $290 million in damages on top of the $640 million in damages that Judge Koh upheld.
But it’s not likely that decision is final, as both companies have appealed the original August 2012 ruling.
An appeal of Friday’s ruling, too, is still possible — from either party.