The court had previously ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab range did not copy the iPad and instructed Apple to post a notice on its official website admitting as much.
Apple's initial post was hidden away and made reference to favourable rulings in other countries.
Apple was soon ordered to amend the statement, which it did, but that wasn't enough for the court, which says the initial statement was "calculated to cause huge confusion" among readers.
"The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying," the ruling stated, "which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true."
The High Court said it was asking Apple to pay Samsung's legal fees to express its disapproval at the company's conduct, during this incident.
The ruling read: "As to the costs (lawyers' fees) to be awarded against Apple, we concluded that they should be on an indemnity basis. Such a basis (which is higher than the normal, "standard" basis) can be awarded as a mark of the court's disapproval of a party's conduct, particularly in relation to its respect for an order of the court. Apple's conduct warranted such an order."
So, as Apple closes the door on one patent squabble with a smartphone rival, another one rumbles on.
Get daily insight, inspiration and deals in your inbox
Get the hottest deals available in your inbox plus news, reviews, opinion, analysis and more from the TechRadar team.
A technology journalist, writer and videographer of many magazines and websites including T3, Gadget Magazine and TechRadar.com. He specializes in applications for smartphones, tablets and handheld devices, with bylines also at The Guardian, WIRED, Trusted Reviews and Wareable. Chris is also the podcast host for The Liverpool Way. As well as tech and football, Chris is a pop-punk fan and enjoys the art of wrasslin'.