After a week of questioning and witnesses, lawyers in the Samsung vs Apple trial presented their closing arguments on Friday. On Monday, the jury will deliberate and ultimately decide how much, if anything, Samsung owes Apple for infringing on three design patents and two utility patents…
Friday’s day in the courtroom kicked off with some last-minute questioning of Samsung’s final witness, Michael Wagner – a management consultant. CNET’s Stephen Shankland recounted the day on Twitter.
Attempting to prove its point that Samsung should pay damages on the whole phone, rather than only the infringing components, Apple asked Wagner if Samsung individually tracked profits on things like front glass faces, displays, or bezels. Wagner, of course, answered no.
All in all, Samsung is said to have made $3.3 billion on the sale of 8.6 million smartphones infringing on Apple patents. That number, however, considers full-phone earnings, rather than part-by-part earnings. Samsung wants to pay a max of $28 million in damages, while Apple wants $1 billion.
Furthermore, Apple challenged Samsung’s belief that it shouldn’t have to pay damages for phones that were unprofitable:
Apple: “For 1 million infringing units — 1 million acts of infringement — that resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, Apple should get zero?”
Once final questioning was completed, it was time for closing statements.
Apple stood firm on its grounds that you can’t dissect a phone and base damages on only certain parts of the device – as the patents, in its view, cover a whole phone.
Apple lawyer Joe Mueller:
“The fact you can pull apart a phone means absolutely nothing. The question is what did they apply those designs to. It’s not a pane of glass, it’s not a display screen that doesn’t show a GUI. It’s the phone.
We respectfully request you return a verdict in favor of Apple.”
Apple lawyer Bill Lee argued:
“Samsung wants you to believe [that] if Ford had decided to rip off the Volkswagen Beetle shape… the right article of manufacture would have been the exterior shell of the car.”
Meanwhile, Samsung’s John Quinn argued that Apple’s design patents do not cover the inside of the phone, thus meaning Apple is not entitled to profits of the article of manufacturer where the design was not applied:
“It can sometimes be difficult to tell what is covered by a design patent and what isn’t.The Apple design patents do not cover anything on the inside of the phones. They don’t even cover the entire outside. Under the law, Apple is not entitled to profits of any article of manufacture to which the design was not applied.”
Ultimately, the jury will deliberate on Monday and try to come to a decision. We could hear the results as early as Tuesday.
More on Apple v Samsung in 2018: