US District Judge Lucy Koh also rejected demands from both companies to conduct another trial on different issues over claims that the South Korean company unfairly used technology controlled by Apple to build its iPads and iPhones to market knock-off products.
A US judge has rejected Apple's demand to increase the 1.05 billion US dollar (£899 million) damages a jury ordered Samsung Electronics to pay its fiercest rival in the smartphone market.
She also upheld the validity of the Apple patents at the centre of the dispute.
A jury in August found that Samsung "infringed" six Apple patents to create and market 26 models of smartphones and computer tablets and ordered the damages award. The jury found several other older Samsung products did not infringe any Apple patents.
Earlier, the judge refused to block sales of the infringing products in the United States after she said Apple failed to show consumer demand for the Samsung devices was driven by the purloined technology, including the "pinch-to-zoom" function. Apple is appealing against that decision.
Samsung contends that only three of the 26 older-generation products are still offered for sale in the United Sates.
Apple has filed a new lawsuit contending that Samsung's current products are also using Apple technology. Judge Koh scheduled a trial for that matter in 2014.
In a series of four orders, the judge painstakingly considered each side's myriad claims that the nine-member jury wrongly considered evidence and misread complex patent law. With a few minor exceptions, the judge concluded that the jurors were right as far as the law goes.
"Accordingly, the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied to both sides," the judge said. "A new trial would be contrary to the interests of justice."
The judge is still considering Samsung's demands to reduce the damages award. The jurors filled out a verdict form listing the damages Samsung owed Apple for each of the 26 products it found to have used infringing technology. Samsung argues that many of the line-item calculations were done incorrectly.