The real problem in this case, evidenced from post case interviews with the jury foreman, is that despite the majority of the trial being about prior art to invalidate Apple's patents, the jury was so confused that the jury foreman (the only member of the jury with any experience with patents) persuaded the jury that it was not their job to judge the validity of the patents. His reasoning was that since the patent office had granted them they must be valid. This was based on his experience of having a very hard time getting the patent office to accept his patent, because they kept raising prior art.
This was in direct contradiction to the written instructions to the jury, and should have resulted in a mistrial, since the jury foreman brought outside evidence into the discussions. The other important feature is that there is a difference in how patent claims are evaluated by the USPTO and by the courts.