Apple won a sweeping legal victory last Friday as a California jury held Samsung, Inc. liable for a hefty $1 billion in damages for willfully infringing six mobile device patents held by Apple. Samsung, the world’s largest manufacturer of wireless smart phones with command of a 68% share of global shipments, was found to have infringed on various iPhone and iPad patents in its design of 28 products that include Samsung’s Galaxy line of wireless devices. Three of the infringed patents cover the shape of the iPhone and the icons that appear on the iPhone screen. Samsung was also held to have violated patents that pertain to the “pinch to zoom” feature on the iPhone and iPad and the “bounce back” effect that takes place when a user scrolls to the end of a list on both Apple devices. Adding to the sting, the jury also ruled in Apple’s favor with respect to a related countersuit, filed by Samsung, in which Samsung accused Apple of violating various Samsung patents in Apple’s design of the iPad and iPhone. Although the jury declined to award the full damages that Apple had requested (i.e., $2.5 billion), the $1.05 billion penalty assessed by the jury is said to rank among the highest intellectual property awards ever. On the heels of the jury verdict, Apple filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the sale and marketing of Samsung products that infringe upon Apple’s patents. A list of the devices that Apple wants banned and that was submitted to the court on Monday includes seven models of the Galaxy smart phone as well as the Droid Charge. (Sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 were banned under an injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in June.) Analysts also predict that the jury’s decision will reverberate beyond Samsung to impact the Google Android operating system, which is used by Samsung and a host of other manufacturers in wireless smart phone design. While vowing to appeal the jury’s verdict, Samsung bemoaned the verdict as a “loss for the American consumer” that “will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices.”