Apple and Samsung spar over huge damages claim

As Apple rests its case, Samsung's top lawyer goes on the offensive

The federal court building in San Jose, California, on April 11, 2014

The federal court building in San Jose, California, on April 11, 2014

Apple outlined for the first time on Friday how it came up with the US$2.2 billion in damages that it wants a California jury to award it for Samsung's alleged "massive infringement" of five Apple patents.

Around a quarter of it, some $507 million, is to compensate Apple for the profits it lost as a result of Samsung's infringement, said Chris Vellturo, an economist at Quantitative Economic Solutions who is one of Apple's expert witnesses in the case.

A further $560 million would be compensation for the reduced demand for Apple's products, and the largest portion -- $1.12 billion -- is for the royalties Apple says Samsung would have had to pay if it had licensed the patents.

The calculations were disclosed as the trial reached the end of its second week at the federal court in San Jose, California.

Vellturo arrived at the royalty figure by imagining a "hypothetical negotiation" between the two companies. That doesn't sound very scientific, but it's been a common method for estimating patent damages ever since a 1970 lawsuit between Georgia Pacific and U.S. Plywood.

Because no actual negotiation took place, the jury gets to consider what royalties would have been decided if the two sides had actually talked, taking into account factors like the usefulness of the patent and the impact a license would have had on their competitive positions.

Vellturo said his analysis determined a royalty rate of between $1.61 and $15.03 per patent, per device.

There are nine smartphones and one tablet at issue in the case, though not all are accused of infringing all five patents. For those that are, the total royalty bill for each Samsung device sold would be $40.10, according to Vellturo.

Samsung attorney John Quinn quickly went on the attack and questioned many of Vellturo's assertions.

He started with the figures themselves, which were based on data about lost sales and consumer demand supplied by a previous Apple witness, John Hauser, a professor of marketing from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"If Mr. Hauser's survey was not correct, your figures would not be reliable?" asked Quinn in one exchange.

"That's correct," said Vellturo.

Next Quinn went after Vellturo himself. The expert had disclosed earlier that he was being paid $700 per hour by Apple, and that he had earned $2.3 million from the case so far. Quinn accused him of being "a professional witness for Apple."

"If I was, I wouldn't be working for Microsoft, for Amazon," Vellturo said, keeping his cool. "I work with very direct competitors to Apple."

Quinn also questioned how many people who bought Samsung phones would have really considered an Apple phone instead, something that cuts to its lost profits claim. Apple's own market research, revealed earlier in the case, showed that its falling market share was due in part to shifting consumer preference for features such as larger screens.

With Samsung's cross-examination of Vellturo complete, Apple rested its case. Next, Samsung will begin its defense of the charges.

The case is 12-00630, Apple v. Samsung Electronics et al, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Martyn Williams covers mobile telecoms, Silicon Valley and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Follow Martyn on Twitter at @martyn_williams. Martyn's e-mail address is martyn_williams@idg.com

Join the newsletter!

Or

Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags smartphonesAppleAndroidlegaliPhoneconsumer electronicsintellectual propertypatentCivil lawsuitsSamsung Electronics

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Martyn Williams

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Father’s Day Gift Guide

Brand Post

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Luke Hill

MSI GT75 TITAN

I need power and lots of it. As a Front End Web developer anything less just won’t cut it which is why the MSI GT75 is an outstanding laptop for me. It’s a sleek and futuristic looking, high quality, beast that has a touch of sci-fi flare about it.

Emily Tyson

MSI GE63 Raider

If you’re looking to invest in your next work horse laptop for work or home use, you can’t go wrong with the MSI GE63.

Laura Johnston

MSI GS65 Stealth Thin

If you can afford the price tag, it is well worth the money. It out performs any other laptop I have tried for gaming, and the transportable design and incredible display also make it ideal for work.

Andrew Teoh

Brother MFC-L9570CDW Multifunction Printer

Touch screen visibility and operation was great and easy to navigate. Each menu and sub-menu was in an understandable order and category

Louise Coady

Brother MFC-L9570CDW Multifunction Printer

The printer was convenient, produced clear and vibrant images and was very easy to use

Edwina Hargreaves

WD My Cloud Home

I would recommend this device for families and small businesses who want one safe place to store all their important digital content and a way to easily share it with friends, family, business partners, or customers.

Featured Content

Product Launch Showcase

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?