Samsung's lawyer John Quinn said in court that Apple is seeking profits on the entire phone and that the company's patents are "narrow", reiterating that the award should be limited to the specific components of those devices that were found to infringe on Apple's patents. "Not only does this not make sense, it is contrary to law".
The case revolves around what consists of an "article of manufacture". "Apple's design patents do not cover the entire phone". That's apart from profits Samsung made from infringing two of Apple's utility patents, Lee said. "That is what the law requires".
Lee showed the jury a series of Samsung phones released before, shortly after and years after the iPhone's debut in 2007.
"The iPhone was praised by commentators, consumers, designers, artists and even some competitors", Lee said during opening argument. It "does not exist apart from, and can not be separated from, the infringing Samsung phones."Koh will let Kare and other Apple experts cite evidence from the first trial of Samsung's deliberate copying of the iPhone design". Samsung might have to pay for the whole device or for the infringed components.
Is a smartphone a unitary design or just a collection of patented tidbits? Following a 2013 retrial on damages, the number was revised down to $930 million.The Federal Circuit threw out $382 million of the verdict that was related to trade dress and Koh entered judgment for $548 million.But the U.S. Supreme Court upset all that in 2016 by ruling that Apple might not be entitled to all of the profits earned on Samsung's infringing smartphones.
It was viewed as a win for Samsung at the time, and the technology company seems intent on advancing that legal theory during the current trial. The case was decided in Apple's favor in 2012 and it was awarded $1.05 billion in damages.
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung claiming the South Korean company's phones, including the Galaxy S2, copied the iPhone in both physical and software design. Morrison & Foerster partner Harold McElhinny, who once played the leading role for Apple, has retired and partner Rachel Krevans, who also represented the Cupertino, California-based company died a year ago.
Samsung is asking the jury to limit damages to just $28 million, while Apple is asking for $1 billion. There's no doubt that Samsung will have to pay Apple something, but exactly how much it will pay remains anyone's guess.
According to the BBC, retrial judge Lucy Koh has said she intends to apply a "Groundhog Day" rule, whereby through referencing the 1993 movie, she will restrict the two companies to only presenting new evidence rather than regurgitating previous evidence.