The verdict is in: Samsung must pay Apple an additional $290 million

The verdict is in folks. After just a few days of deliberation, a jury of six women and two men reached a conclusion for the retrial between Apple and Samsung over damages, and it’s ruled in favor of the iPad-maker. Samsung must pay Apple $290 million.

This is in addition to the damages awarded in the original trial last fall, bringing the total amount Samsung owes up to $890 million. So essentially, Apple won back most of the damages that Judge Koh cut in March after finding the initial verdict flawed…

Here’s Bloomberg with the report:

“Apple Inc. won more than $290 million in damages from Samsung Electronics Co. for patent infringement in a do-over trial that restored most of the amount cut from the iPhone maker’s jury victory in 2012.

A jury of six women and two men decided the damages amount today after a week-long trial in federal court in San Jose, California, where Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung last year over copying of technology used in smartphones. 

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh cut $410.5 million in March after finding the original verdict was flawed because jurors miscalculated the period that the infringement occurred for 13 Samsung devices. In the retrial, Apple sought to restore $380 million of the amount cut, while Samsung recommended that the jury award $52 million.”

Although the jury didn’t award Apple the entire $380 million it was looking for, this is still a big win for the company. Not only has it won almost $1 billion from Samsung, but it also has the possibility of winning an injunction against the infringing devices.

Here’s Apple’s statement to AllThingsD on today’s decision:

“For Apple, this case has always been about more than patents and money,” Apple said in a statement to AllThingsD. “It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love. While it’s impossible to put a price tag on those values, we are grateful to the jury for showing Samsung that copying has a cost.”

At the time of writing, Samsung had not yet responded to requests for comment.