Apple designer: Samsung rip-off ‘offensive’
SAN JOSE — A fizzled attempt to include evidence began the Apple v. Samsung trial Tuesday, with Samsung counsel and Quinn Emanuel partner John Quinn pleading — “begging,” in his own words — with Federal District Judge Lucy Koh, and losing the fight.
Koh denied Samsung from using information about Apple’s “Sony-Style” designs in their opening statement, along with Samsung’s independent creation of phones similar to Apple’s iPhone but developed before its release in 2007.
Judge Koh told Quinn he had made his record for an appeal and added:
“Don’t make me sanction you.”
After the jury entered the courtroom, the court watched an instructional video on the patent system and heard Koh instruct the jury about design and utility patents, which are treated differently under the United States patent system.
Apple started by explaining to the jury its patent infringement and trade dress dilution case against Samsung.
Morrison Foerster partner Harold McElhinny showed the jury Samsung’s phone line before — and then after — the iPhone announcement.
He asked them how Samsung’s products could change so rapidly.
Internal Samsung development documents would show that Samsung iterated on smartphone and tablet designs by identifying differences between Apple and Samsung’s products and suggesting directions for improvement.
Or, as Apple argues, more copying of the Apple designs.
As McElhinny stated before letting WilmerHale partner William Lee rebut Samsung’s patent infringement case against Apple, “Samsung has simply adopted Apple’s distinctive look.”
Before Lee began his section of the opening, Samsung counsel and Quinn Emanuel partner Charlie Verhoeven once again objected to Apple’s placement of the Samsung F700 phone on the slide showing Samsung phones released after the iPhone because the F700 was developed before the iPhone was announced.
“Nice try,” McElhinny replied, as Apple had only claimed the F700 was released after the iPhone announcement but was not infringement. Judge Koh once again overruled Samsung’s objection.
In Lee’s presentation, Apple argued Samsung’s patent lawsuit was based on intellectual property Samsung should not have patented because it violated intellectual property rules for wireless communications standards. Samsung’s request for iPhone royalties is a violation of commonly-accepted “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” licensing, which “means everybody gets treated the same.”
Samsung’s opening statement, given by Verhoeven, alleged that Samsung has not infringed any valid patent or trade dress claim Apple has presented:
“There’s a distinction between commercial success and inventing something.”
Verhoeven showed various products Samsung has developed over the years and how none of them contained the specific design features Apple claims are being infringed.
Verhoeven argued Apple never developed inventions; they just made them commercially successful. Thus, there is “no harm, no dilution, no loss of any kind” to Apple’s intellectual property and products derived for it.
After opening statements, the court had time for the testimony of Apple’s first witness, Apple industrial designer Chris Stringer.
Stringer, who has worked on every Apple product since he joined the company in 1995, testified that Samsung’s copying “is offensive.”
In cross examination, Verhoeven asked Stringer if he remembered any phones with the four buttons aligned at the bottom of the user interface like in Apple’s iPhone. Stringer responded he did not and added:
“Clearly [the phones] didn’t stick in my mind.”
After beginning witness testimony from Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller, McElhinny brought to Judge Koh’s attention that Samsung PR firm Edelman had sent out press releases to reporters to inform them of the information excluded during earlier in open court.
Judge Koh ordered that Samsung and Quinn specifically explain the press leak by Wednesday. The jury trial is set to resume on Friday morning.