As Apple rests, Samsung attacks

After Apple called its final witness in its landmark legal battle over smartphone and tablet designs, Samsung tried in vain to get the case dismissed before presenting a defense.

But Judge Lucy Koh ultimately denied the motion, and Samsung launched into its defense of Apple’s allegations that they copied intellectual property specifically related to the iPhone and the iPad products.

Monday morning began with continued testimony from Apple Director of Patent Licensing and Strategy Boris Teksler. Once again, Samsung attorney Victoria Maroulis pointed out that Apple had not told Samsung about the specific patents involved in the current case.

Teksler responded that it was not customary to specify the patents before something like a cross-licensing deal:

“We were trying really hard to reach an amicable resolution with Samsung.”

Teksler repeated that Samsung needed to get a licensing and stop copying the unique Apple user experience. While Microsoft made a licensing deal with Apple, Microsoft also promised not to create clones of Apple designs like Apple argues Samsung has done.

After Apple called three Samsung employees by video deposition, Apple called its last witness, CPA Terry Musika. Apple counsel Rachel Krevans asked Musika to explain how he arrived at the total damage figure.

Calculations needed to be performed for each Samsung product in the case, so it took Musika’s 20-person team 27,000 professional hours over a year and a half to compile the report.

Musika’s figure is based on Samsung’s profits from the infringing device, revenue from Apple’s lost sales as a result of the infringement, and a reasonable royalty rate for Samsung’s sold products. Samsung’s figures were different because Samsung took deductions from its parent company that Musika did not.

In cross-examination, Samsung attorney Bill Price revealed that Musika had not evaluated the patent damages for each individual patent. Furthermore, Apple would only be entitled to Samsung’s profits if Apple could prove the design patents were infringed.

Price asked if Musika thought Samsung actually copied the designs, but Musika said that was beyond his expertise, and he was only asked to evaluate damages based on the assumption that Apple would win its case.

The jury took an hour break as Samsung presented to Judge Koh why Apple had not met its legal burdens in presenting its case. Koh listened intently as Samsung spent a half hour justifying its motion for judgment as a matter of law.

In the end, Judge Koh only allowed Samsung’s subsidiaries to escape liability for three of the products in question. Koh said the parent company is still liable for a judgment of infringement because an Apple witness testified that the three phones were sold globally but not specifically in the United States.

Samsung’s defense began with calling University of Maryland computer science professor Benjamin Bederson. Samsung attorney Ed DeFranco showed the “Launch Tile” program he developed and showed off for the Hewlett Packard iPAQ PDA.

Launch Tile could have zooming between zones of content and could snap to specific zones. “It added up to being fun,” Bederson said when he let people play around with the device.

In cross-examination, Apple lawyer Michael Jacobs pointed out that movement between zones did not “bounce back” like in iOS devices. Bederson noted that there were different indicators in different zones to let users know they were at an edge instead of snapping back.

Additionally, Bederson could not recall the details of any Launch Tile demonstrations he was involved with.

On Tuesday, Samsung’s defense continues with more testimony from Adam Bogue, one of the developers of the Diamond Touch Table. The Touch Table projects an image downward onto a slate, so users can sit around it and manipulate what is projected.

Samsung argues the Tablecloth and Fractal Zoom functions of the Touch Table predate the “bounce back” and “zoom and center” functions in Apple’s patents.

Apple is opting for a live demonstration of the Touch Table to show the jury that the product is too limited to actually invalidate Apple’s software patents in this case.