"It's surprising they came back so quickly, given that it was a complicated case and very complicated verdict form, but that said, it looks like they were thoughtful about it and they did their job," said Roy Futterman, director at DOAR Litigation Consulting and a clinical psychologist who works on trial strategies and the mindset of jurors.

"One sign of that is that the verdicts were consistent, they held together -- they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity; it all tells the same big story," he said.

"The other way you can see they were thoughtful is that they did pick and choose among devices. They didn't just go across the board and check everything -- they said they infringed on this bit not on this bit, so they made some clear choices.

"So it was surprising to me that they came back that quickly, but it looks like they did a lot of work in a short amount of time,"