Breaking news coming out of California's Northern District Court tonight, as Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over the now-infamous Apple v. Samsung trial, has issued post-trial rulings on the parties' respective motions.
Jury Misconduct (Vel Hogan)
Judge Koh ruled that no jury misconduct occurred during the Apple v. Samsung trial, and that she would refuse to entertain the issue further. The judge will not even hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter, meaning Samsung failed in even at the most basic level in arguing its case for a new trial on account of Vel Hogan's alleged biases. This issue can be appealed, but the bar for overturning a post-trial motion for a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct is abuse of judicial discretion - meaning you can probably consider this issue dead and buried.
The verdict will stand, though damages adjustments may still be adjusted post-trial (and a new trial could still be granted on grounds of damage calculation issues - we'll see).
Permanent Injunctions on Samsung Products
The judge ruled that Apple's motion to have Samsung's infringing Android products banned from sale in the US was denied. Judge Koh noted - correctly - in her ruling that many of the allegedly infringing Samsung devices were no longer on sale in the US, and the fact that Apple had licensed many of the patents in suit to third-parties (even if such licenses have anti-cloning agreements), which is probably better for the industry as a whole. And, personally, I still maintain that Samsung's alleged stance of negotiation not being an option with Apple is mere posturing. While Apple's original licensing offer to Samsung was something of a farce, I would not be surprised to see the two come to an agreement in the next year.
It's worth noting, however, that this decision does not affect the second Apple v. Samsung trial, which accuses devices such as the Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S III, and Galaxy Note II. None of those devices were accused of infringement in the first trial.
Apple will, without a doubt, appeal Judge Koh's findings in regard to injunctive relief, which can be reviewed de novo (from a fresh start) if the appeals court deems such a review is necessary.
You can find the ruling regarding the injunctive relief at CNET.