The United States Supreme Court sided with Korean electronics manufacturer Samsung on Tuesday, ruling to throw out a $399 million dollar judgement against the company for copying parts of the design of Apple’s iPhone, the Associated Press reports.

The ruling issued by the court—which Reuters noted was an 8-0 decision—will send the case between the two technology giants back to the lower courts for further proceedings.

The outcome of that litigation will not require Samsung to pay all of the profits earned from the phones in question in the case because, according to the Supreme Court ruling, the features that were allegedly copied are only a small part of the devices.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court earlier this year after petition from Samsung. The original lawsuit was filed by Apple against its competitor in 2011, claiming Samsung had copied a number of features for which Apple holds patents. At question in the case was Samsung's use of a flat screen, rounded rectangle device shape, and the layout of icons displayed on the device, among other features. 

At issue was not if Samsung infringed upon the patents in question, but rather how much the Korean manufacturer is required to pay Apple for the infringement. The question stemmed from a 1887 law that requires patent infringers to pay "total profit."

Apple reasoned the law meant Samsung was on the hook to pay the profits from phone sales in full. Samsung held it should only be liable for profits related to the copied components, noting the devices in question contained more than 200,000 other patents not owned by Apple.

While a federal appeals court initially sided with Apple, the Supreme Court overruled that decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained the court's decision, stating the damages can be limited to only a component of a product rather than the full product under the law.

The decision will extend the litigation between Apple and Samsung as the companies will return to the lower court to come to new terms for damages, but the Supreme Court declined to use the case to lay out a specific test for how awards for damages should be calculated going forward. The decision will continue to be at the discretion of the lower courts.