Apple has been awarded more than $1 billion in damages as it prevailed in its patent-infringement case against Samsung. The jury decided that the majority of Samsung smartphones and tablets violate patents held by Apple including features such as the zoom in and out innovation achieved by tapping the screen. The jury also decided that Samsung’s infringement was intentional and said the firm’s counter-suit for $399 million against Apple was without merit. Samsung has said it will appeal against the ruling. ‘We will move immediately to file post-verdict motions to overturn this decision in this court and if we are not successful, we will appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals,’ a statement from Samsung said. The verdict in the complex case came after the nine-member jury began deliberations on Wednesday. The software giant are set to call for a sales injunction at a hearing next month, demanding Samsung products are pulled from the U.S. market. The landmark legal case could also affect other territories such as the UK, as Apple could call for import bans on its rivals products. Apple Corp. filed its lawsuit in April 2011 and engaged legions of the country’s highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion from its top smartphone competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million. But the day belonged to Apple as the jury rejected all Samsung’s claim against Apple. The jury did reject some of Apple’s claims against the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the $2.5 billion Apple demanded. During closing arguments, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung was having a ‘crisis of design’ after the 2007 launch of the iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device. Samsung’s lawyers countered that it was simply and legally giving consumers what they want: Smart phones with big screens. They said Samsung didn’t violate any of Apple’s patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies. Apple’s legal team plans to formally demand Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. They also can ask the judge to triple the damages to $3 billion. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh will decide those issues along with Samsung’s demand she overturn the jury’s verdict in several weeks. The outcome of the case is likely to have ripple effects in the smartphone market. After seeing Samsung’s legal defeat, other device makers relying on Android may become more reluctant to use the software and risk getting dragged into court. ‘Some of these device makers might end up saying, ‘We love Android, but we really don’t want to fight with Apple anymore,’ said Christopher Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an investment bank specializing in intellectual property. ‘I don’t know if $1 billion is hugely significant to Apple or Samsung,’ Marlett said. ‘But there is a social cost here. As a company, you don’t want to be known as someone who steals from someone else. I am sure Samsung wants to be known as an innovator, especially since a lot of Asian companies have become known for copying the designs of innovators.’ Samsung conceded that Apple makes great products but said it doesn’t have a monopoly on the design of rectangle phones with rounded corners that it claimed it created. The trial came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and refused advisories by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to settle the dispute out of court. Samsung has sold 22.7 million smartphones and tablets that Apple claimed uses its technology. McElhinny said those devices accounted for $8.16 billion in sales since June 2010. Apple and Samsung combined account for more than half of global smartphone sales. As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most popular cellphones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. From the beginning, legal experts and Wall Street analysts viewed Samsung as the underdog in the case. Apple’s headquarters is a mere 10 miles from the courthouse, and jurors were picked from the heart of Silicon Valley where Apple’s late founder Steve Jobs is a revered technological pioneer. While the legal and technological issues were complex, patent expert Alexander I. Poltorak previously said the case would likely boil down to whether jurors believe Samsung’s products look and feel almost identical to Apple’s iPhone and iPad. To overcome that challenge at trial, Samsung’s lawyers argued that many of Apple’s claims of innovation were either obvious concepts or ideas stolen from Sony Corp. and others. Experts called that line of argument a high-risk strategy because of Apple’s reputation as an innovator. Apple’s lawyers argued there is almost no difference between Samsung products and those of Apple, and presented internal Samsung documents they said showed it copied Apple designs. Samsung lawyers insisted that several other companies and inventors had previously developed much of the Apple technology at issue. Samsung has emerged as one of Apple’s biggest rivals and has overtaken as the leading smartphone maker. Samsung’s Galaxy line of phones run on Android, a mobile operating system that Google Inc. has given out for free to Samsung and other phone makers. Google entered the smartphone market while its then-CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board, infuriating Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, who considered Android to be a blatant rip off of the iPhone’s innovations. After shoving Schmidt off Apple’s board, Jobs vowed that Apple would resort to ‘thermonuclear war’ to destroy Android and its allies. If Android lose any ground in the mobile computing market, that would hurt Google, too. That’s because Google relies on Android to drive mobile traffic to its search engine and services to sell more advertising. The Apple-Samsung trial came after each side filed a blizzard of legal motions and refused advisories by the judge to settle the dispute out of court. Deliberations by the jury of seven men and two women began Wednesday. Jurors left the courthouse without addressing the scrum of international media who camped out at the San Jose courthouse for a month. They notified the judge at about 2:30 p.m. that they had arrived at a verdict after deliberating two-and-a-half days. Many expected deliberations to last longer because of the complexity of the case. Jurors filed into the courtroom silently Friday, the youngest juror who favored flip flops, shorts and playing videogames was wearing a Beatles sweatshirt and handed over the 20-page verdict form with little fanfare. The U.S. trial is just the latest skirmish between the two tech giants over product designs. Previous legal battles were fought in Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany. The U.S. case is one of some 50 lawsuits among myriad telecommunications companies jockeying for position in the burgeoning $219 billion market for smartphones and computer tablets. And in what could be a foreshadowing of the U.S. verdict a court in South Korea ruled Apple and Samsung have both infringed each other’s patents on mobile devices The Seoul Central District Court decided Samsung did not copy the look and feel of the iPhone, and that Apple infringed on Samsung’s wireless technology. In a split decision on the case, however, the panel of judges also said Samsung violated Apple’s rights to the bounce-back feature when scrolling on touch screens. The ruling affects only the South Korean market, and is part of a larger, epic struggle over patents and innovation unfolding in nine countries. The biggest stakes are in the U.S., where Apple is suing Samsung for $2.5billion (£1.6billion) over allegations it has created illegal knockoffs of iPhones and iPads. The Seoul ruling was a rare victory for Samsung in its arguments that Apple has infringed on its wireless technology patents, which previously have been shot down by courts in Europe. ‘This is basically Samsung’s victory on its home territory,’ patent attorney Jeong Woo-sung told The Associated Press. ‘Out of nine countries, Samsung got the ruling that it wanted for the first time in South Korea.’