Apple wants $535m damages from Samsung The jury in San Jose, California awarded Apple damages of $1bn (£617m) against Samsung for allegedly copying its technology to develop a smartphone that had infringed six of its seven key patents and resulted in a considerable loss of sales around the world. An avalanche of legal documents, released in San Jose over the weekend, claimed Apple felt it had been short-changed and is seeking another $535m in damages while the South Korean group wants the verdict over turned and a new trial ordered. Another hearing could see damages tripled. The bitter struggle between the two sides has provided fresh insight into the intense battle being waged in the market place as the iPhones and iPads move from the feature phone into the smartphone age providing a wider and more sophisticated range of mobile technology. Samsung has sped into the lead in the world smartphone market, almost doubling its share to 33pc over the past year. Apple which has seen its share slip from 19pc to 17pc over the same period argues the aggressive growth has been largely based on technology it has developed. The San Jose jury agreed, finding that 26 Samsung products were copies of the Apple range. The San Jose case has been central to Apple's efforts to tie down Samsung but the legal battle has assumed an international dimension with action in 10 countries, including the UK, Australia and South Korea. Samsung is countersuing. In the papers filed in San Jose Apple argues that Samsung deliberately embarked on a campaign to damage its business. The South Korean group had acted wilfully, "taking billions in sales in the fast-growing US smartphone market at a key moment in the transition between feature phones and smartphones." Samsung made a "calculated business decision to copy the industrial designs, graphical user interfaces and touchscreen navigation of the iPhone and iPad" said Apple. Judge Lucy Koh will hear arguments from the two sides to discuss the issues. Samsung says it will appeal if its request for a new trial is rejected. It says that many of the jury's decisions and their damage calculations were based on "insufficient evidence and questionable decision making procedures."