SAN JOSE — Samsung on Monday continued its defense against Apple with expert testimony about damages and the introduction of Samsung patents.
In addition to claiming Samsung should not pay around $2 billion for infringing Apple’s software patents, Samsung claims Apple devices violate two patents purchased by Samsung.
Yale Economics Professor Judith Chevalier was responsible for the alternative calculations of damages and explained why her methods were more appropriate than Apple’s. Chevalier did not believe Apple deserved any damages based on Apple’s lost profits to Samsung.
As Chevalier explained during cross examination:
“When Samsung sells a phone, Apple may be losing. But that is not the same as saying Apple loses sales because Samsung infringes Apple products.”
Instead, Chevalier calculated a royalty rate based on five different methods, including looking at the value from professional review sites like CNET, Engadget, and the Verge.
At 35 cents per patent — in “the very upper range” of what her data suggests — Samsung would owe around $39 million if the jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s products.
Chevalier brought up an analogy of a cupholder in a car to explain that relative value is a different consideration to willingness to buy, which Apple uses in their own damages calculation.
Samsung finished up the defense of their case and introduced the two patents they claim Apple violates in their software.
Inventor and attorney Michale Freeman testified that he and his family invented the 239 patent on videoconferencing, and Samsung bought it and another for $2.3 million. University of Illinois Chicago Professor Dan Shonfeld was also called to explain to the jury why Apple violated the 239 patent.
Apple counters that the technology is from the VCR/Betamax days, but Samsung claims the patent relates to the introduction of DVDs in the 1990s.
On Tuesday Samsung will resume presentation of its countersuit. Ken Parulski, former chief scientist from Kodak’s digital camera division, will continue to explain the 449 patent related to digital camera and photo album compression.
After Samsung presents evidence of damages related to infringement of its patents, Apple will have the opportunity in its rebuttal to address the countersuit and challenge Samsung’s defenses of infringement.