From what I've read so far, the very existence of a full display and a bezel surrounding the front of the phone may have been sufficient in this case for damages.
That's obviously crazy, but that appears to have been criteria used.
I'm reminded of an old joke: "In Soviet Russia reasonable and appropriate considerations are made before awarding 1B in damages based on vaguely similar designs".
That's obviously crazy, but that appears to have been criteria used.