"Samsung recognized they had a crisis of design and in 4 months- 4 months-came up with the infringing phones".
Members of the jury should likewise adhere to the past judgment that Samsung duplicated three plan patents concerning the look of the first iPhone, and two utility patents including its squeeze to-zoom highlight and ricochet back looking over impact. Samsung, meantime, has requested the jury to restrict damages to $28 million.
After a round of appeals, Koh lopped $405 million off the jury's original damages award, ordering Samsung to pay up to the tune of $548 million. Expert Michael Wagner is expected to offer evidence of how much Apple spends on items such as screen glass to help calculate damages. But Apple's patents "do not cover the entire phone", he added.
Samsung has argued that consumers have other reasons to buy a phone other than its original design.
The three design patents in this case relate to the iPhone's distinctive design features - including the phone's black rectangular face, the stainless-steel rim that surrounds the face (called a bezel) and the graphical user interface that appears on the screen when the phone is turned on.
Cauvery: MB Patil accuses Centre of cheating the people of Karnataka
The Supreme Court had earlier pulled up the Centre for failing to implement the court's order. The central government had filed the draft scheme before the court on Monday.
"What was Samsung's solution?" he asked the jury rhetorically.
It's not the first time Apple has made this argument in court. She was concerned with Quinn's references to prior verdicts in the case, as she believed she'd prohibited either side from discussing previous rulings.
In 2012, a jury sided with Apple on its infringement claims and awarded the company $1.05 billion in damages. "Samsung might want to say just because you have a design doesn't mean you own the world".
In an attempt to limit the compensation to profits attributable to a specific component patent in question, Samsung then appealed the lower court's ruling to the Supreme Court. The Patent Act awards all profits from sales of any "article of manufacture" that infringes a patented design. The case is Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co, 11-cv-01846, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
Samsung attorneys, according to Bloomberg, argued this week that the damages should be paid based exclusively based on three "narrow" design patents - which would amount to $28 million.
Apple attorney Bill Lee stressed to jurors the importance of design to Apple, which "puts design before everything else".