Samsung figured out how the jury arrived at its damages figures (except for the Galaxy Tab 10.1)

On August 24, after only three days of deliberations, a jury awarded Apple damages from Samsung amounting to $1.049 billion. As I reported yesterday, Apple is seeking a substantial increase of that amount.

The jury had to fill out over 700 boxes on the verdict form. Most of them were Yes/No fields, but the jury also had to provide a total damages figure for each product. While the court was still discussing the structure of the verdict form with counsel, Samsung actually wanted the jury to specify how much of each award was based on which damages theory. That did not happen, but Samsung has been able to reverse-engineer the damages part of the verdict for all products but one (the Galaxy Tab 10.1) because it identified mathematical correlations that cannot be coincidental.

I have extracted the related tables from a Samsung document so everyone who is curious about how the jury arrived at its damages numbers can quickly find out here.

There are different correlations for different sets of products. The first and largest group are products that were found to infringe one or more Apple design patents but no Apple trade dress. Most of those products were also found to infringe at least one of the three asserted software patents, but apparently the jury didn't take any differences in software patent infringement into consideration when determining damages for this group of products. For these products, the jury simply adopted 40% of the disgorgement of profits that Apple had asked for (click on the image to enlarge):

For five products that were found to infringe one or more design patent and to dilute an Apple trade dress, the jury added 100% of the amount of lost profits claimed by Apple to the same 40% the disgorgement demand to products that it applied to products infringing design patents but no trade dress. The related table is interrupted by a page break in Samsung's original filing. I combined the two parts below (click on the image to enlarge):

While a combination of one party's lost profits with a percentage of the other party's unlawful profits is questionable, it's understandable that the jury felt it should award a larger amount of money where an additional category of intellectual property rights was found infringed.

When it comes to those products that were found to infringe only Apple's software patents (but no design patents or trade dress), the jury becomes inconsistent and in one case even uses a methodology that is contrary to patent damages law.

On the following handful of products found to infringe only software patents, the jury awarded Apple precisely half of the royalties it demanded (click on the image to enlarge):

So far, so good. But the Galaxy Prevail falls in the same category, and the jury then awarded 40% of what Apple claimed were Samsung's profits made with that device (click on the image to enlarge):

This means the jury applied its methodology for design-patents-only damages to a software-patents-only infringement issue. If that inconsistency was within the jury's discretion, it would be difficult to challenge, but the real problem is that a disgorgement of infringer's profits is not allowed by U.S. patent damages law with respect to utility (technical) patents. This option is available in connection with design patents (35 U.S.C. § 289).

The related jury award of $57.9 million dollars will have to be adjusted. If the same methodology (50% of Apple's royalty demand) as for the other software-patents-only items was applied, we'd be talking about a few million dollars, not tens of millions. And I guess this is one adjustment that Judge Koh will very likely make. This one adjustment alone would be enough to take the damages award (prior to any of the enhancements requested by Apple) below the psychologically important billion-dollar threshold, and Samsung might then try to argue that this contrary-to-law approach by the jury to the damages figure for one of two dozen products dictates a retrial on all damages numbers.

What remains a mystery is how the jury arrived at its award of $833,076 in damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi). Samsung couldn't identify any mathematical correlation that explains this number. Also, the number apparently exceeds what Apple demanded ($604,391 according to Samsung's representation). Should Apple prevail on its Rule 50 motion with respect to the tablet design patent, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 damages figure will have to be redetermined from scratch.

In a post later today or tomorrow I will provide a high-level assessment of the chances of the parties' numerous Rule 50 ("overrule-the-jury") requests.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Apple asks U.S. court to enhance damages award in Samsung case by $700 million

In a filing made late on Friday by local time, Apple points to a California jury's finding of willful patent infringement by Samsung and "requests an enhancement of $135 million under the Patent Act and $400 million under the Lanham Act, for a combined total of $535 million". Additionally, Apple asks for supplemental damages based on Samsung's sales in the period from July 1 (since the jury only looked at damages for the period until June 30) and Judge Koh's final judgment, amounting to another $121 million, and $50 million of prejudgment interest to offset the delay until Apple gets paid. The total of these additional demands is $707,061,678 if the district court proceedings are concluded on December 31, 2012.

The total of the jury's August 24 damages award ($1,049,393,540) and Apple's requested enhancements, supplemental damages and prejudgment interest would be $1,756,121,384 ($1.756 billion). The amount could even go up to $1,911,963,273 if the court grants Samsung's wish to disaggregate the jury award but ends up agreeing with Apple.

I know this is getting confusing. Before I explain in more detail, here's a chart that I created to provide an overview and breakdown of the different modifications Apple requests (click on the image to enlarge):

Now that I've provided an overview, let's look at each item.

Contrary to what was speculated in Korea and elsewhere, but consistent with what I've been saying since the verdict, Apple recognizes that only some parts of the $1.05 billion damages award by the jury are subject to enhancement for willful patent infringement. Apple is smart enough to know that asking for the moon without a legal basis wouldn't do any good, neither in the court of law nor in the court of public opinion. Apple is defending its intellectual property, and not just being greedy. Apple requests a tripling for willful patent infringement of an amount of $67,880,583 "for the five smartphones and two tablets that [the jury] found to infringe only Apple's utility patents [...] resulting in enhancement of $135,761,166 for a total award on those products of $203,641,749". Those parts of the damages verdict do not include the disgorgement of profits that presumably accounted for the bulk of the jury's damages awards concerning products that infringed both design and utility patents. Additionally, Apple asks for a $400 million under the Lanham Act (i.e., U.S. trademark law) for infringement of trade dress, resulting in "a total increase in the judgment of $535,761,166" for the willfulness part.

Apple's argument is based not only on the jury's finding of willful infringement of most of the intellectual property rights involved but also on Samsung's overall conduct, including litigation-related misconduct it was sanctioned for a few times.

Apple also asks for supplemental damages based on Samsung's sales between July 1 and the final resolution of the current proceedings in Judge Koh's court, and for prejudgment interest. The jury awarded damages only for the period until June 30, 2012.

In its Rule 50 motion ("overrule-the-jury"), Apple conditionally ask for an increase of parts of the damages figure. Apple would prefer for the court to accept the jury's damages verdict as final (except for the willfulness enhancements I just explained, and additional damages for the period since the verdict). But if the court grants Samsung's wish to review the overall damages award, then Apple wants a shot at getting more money. In particular, Apple says that there are five products for which the jury awarded less than the undisputed amount calculated by Samsung's own expert, and if the court agreed, this would result in an additional $155,841,889 ($155 million). That $155 million amount is not included in the $707 million total I stated above because it's only a conditional request -- the $707 million is the total of all unconditional requests.

Even the $1.9 billion figure in the chart I showed you above isn't the grand total. Since Apple also wants to prevail on some items on which the jury disagreed, the amount would increase further if any of Apple's Rule 50 requests results in additional liability findings.

As expected, the motion in which Apple seeks the additional $535 million also requests a permanent injunction to stop Samsung's infringement of the asserted intellectual property rights. Apple's motion lists the following exemplary infringing products:

"Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II (AT&T), Galaxy S II (i9000), Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1 (Wi-fi), Gem, Indulge, Infuse, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Vibrant, Galaxy S II (T-Mobile), Transform, Galaxy S Showcase, Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch), Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)"

But, very importantly, Apple's motion asks for an injunction that would not be limited to the exemplary infringing products but would also cover "any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products". I've been talking about this for some time. If Apple's motion for a permanent injunction is granted, Samsung will also have to avoid infringement of the relevant intellectual property rights with any other products, including the Galaxy S III. Judge Koh has previously granted Apple two "colorable difference" injunctions against Samsung, and the wording proposed by Apple here is consistent with the approach established by the Federal Circuit in its TiVo v. Echostar opinion.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Skyhook Wireless files new lawsuit against Google over 9 U.S. geolocation patents

Over the last eight days, Google has seen its subsidiary Motorola Mobility lose a couple of German patent lawsuits (1, 2) because its Android-based ddevices were found to infringe patents held by Apple and Microsoft. A new U.S. lawsuit filed yesterday by Massachusetts-based Skyhook Wireless adds to Google's Android patent worries and also targets the Google Maps service in general.

A few years ago, Skyhook had agreements in place with Samsung and Motorola until Google used the kind of bullying tactics that China's Alibaba also complained about last week, in response to which it brought a competition lawsuit under Massachusetts state law and a federal patent infringement action in the District of Massachusetts in late 2010. In the competition case, 418 pages of discovery material drew a lot of media attention to Google's overall attitude toward the freedom of Android device makers and the openness of the platform. Yesterday Skyhook filed a new patent lawsuit against Google, alleging infringement of nine geolocation-related patents by Android and Google Maps. The new complaint was filed in the District of Delaware and entered the public record today (click on the image to enlarge):

:

These are the nine patents-in-suit:

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,856,234 on a "system and method for estimating positioning error within a WLAN-based positioning system"

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,019,357 on a "system and method for estimating positioning error within a WLAN-based positioning system" (yes, same title as the previous one)

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,022,877 on "systems and methods for using a satellite positioning system to detect moved WLAN access points"

4. U.S. Patent No, 8,154,454 on "systems and methods for using a satellite positioning system to detect moved WLAN access points"

5. U.S. Patent No. 8,223,074 on "systems and methods for using a satellite positioning system to detect moved WLAN access points"

6. U.S. Patent No. 8,242,960 on "systems and methods for using a satellite positioning system to detect moved WLAN access points"

7. U.S. Patent No, 8,229,455 on a "system and method of gathering and caching WLAN packet information to improve position estimates of a WLAN positioning device"

8. U.S. Patent No. 8,054,219 on "systems and methods for determining position using a WLAN-PS estimated position as an initial position in a hybrid positioning system"

9. U.S. Patent No. 7,471,954 on "methods and systems for estimating a user position in a WLAN positioning system based on user assigned access point locations"

The titles of these patents show pretty well what Skyhook's technology is all about: geolocation based on nearby WiFi (WLAN) access points, a technique that has become very popular, one of the reasons for its success being that it also works in buildings in which GPS generally doesn't work.

All of these patents but one (the last one) were issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office after the earlier lawsuit was filed in the District of Massachusetts.

Like in its earlier patent lawsuit, Skyhook alleges willful infringement, pointing to business negotiations between Google and Skyhook in 2006 and 2007.

Its choice of the District of Delaware for this filing suggests that Skyhook wasn't entirely pleased with how things were going in its home court in the District of Massachusetts. Two of the patents that Skyhook was asserting in that earlier patent case were deemed indefinite by a federal judge in a recent summary judgment motion. But Skyhook's new lawsuit sends out a clear message: invalidating a patent or two won't solve the problem for Google since the company has been issued new geolocation patents all the time since the filing of its first infringement action. It looks it won't be done with Google anytime soon, and has been building a true patent thicket surrounding WiFi-based geolocation technologies.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Google file a motion to transfer this case out of Delaware, but if Google asked HTC, that company has actually been quite happy with the delay that resulted from a sweeping decision to stay various Apple lawsuits. HTC has recently achieved that newer Apple filings brought in the Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Virginia were transferred to Delaware.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

German court says Samsung and Motorola don't infringe Apple's touch event model patent

This morning, the Mannheim Regional Court announced a decision against Apple's claim that Android-based devices infringe EP2098948 on a "touch event model". Technically, the panel presided by Judge Andreas Voss ("Voß" in German) ruled on two separate lawsuits: Samsung was the defendant in one of them, and Motorola in the other. The decision on the Motorola case was originally scheduled for August 31 but postponed, aligning the schedules for the two cases.

Unlike the multitouch patents that Apple asserted at the recent California trial, each one of which is specific to a particular gesture, this is a fairly broad patent that covers the way the operating system reports touch events to applications or purposely ignores them. If Apple's proposed interpretation of this patent had been adopted by the court, numerous applications that rely on the attacked operating system functionality would no longer run in a reliable, stable fashion after a workaround. This would have caused logistical complications with the need to rewrite, recompile and reinstall many apps.

The ruling comes as no surprise given the skepticism the court expressed at the related trials. The original trial of Apple's lawsuit against Samsung was held in April, but Samsung successfully objected to the bond Apple had posted to cover Samsung for the event that it would be entitled to the recovery of legal fees (Germany has a strict "loser pays" system) but unable to collect its money from Apple (no matter how unlikely Apple is to run out of cash in the foreseeable future, Samsung can demand a bond). Apple had to present a new bond, and the court held a second Apple-Samsung trial as well as an Apple-Motorola trial over this patent on the same day in July. Earlier that month, the High Court of England and Wales had already cleared HTC of infringement of this patent, and had additionally declared the patent invalid due to the statutory exclusion of patents on computer programs "as such" (Article 52 of the European Patent Convention).

Judge Voss explained that the parties' first non-infringement argument (that Android does not store a multi-touch flag in association with each "view", i.e., user interface component). This non-infringement argument had previously convinced courts in the UK (as mentioned above) and the Netherlands (where a preliminary injunction based on this patent was denied). We will see whether this cross-jurisdictional consensus will survive every one of the various appeals.

As I said in connection with other decisions in favor of different defendants, in these fights someone's successful defense against a particular patent infringement action is a non-defeat for that party and a non-win for the patent holder, but it's not a victory or a loss in strategic terms since there are numerous lawsuits going on. What really gives someone leverage is the ability to win enforceable injunctions based on patents having enough technical scope to be hard to work around without some degradation of the user experience. Apple scored a significant win last week against Motorola when the Munich I Regional Court held Motorola to have infringed the "overscroll bounce", or "rubber-banding", patent. If Apple gets to enforce that injunction (i.e., if the appeals court doesn't stay it), Motorola will have to replace the overscroll bounce with a glow or some other solution that would be clearly inferior to rubber-banding.

Apple would obviously like to maximize its leverage over its rivals and win an injunction over a broad patent, or even a "killer patent". Some of the patents Apple is asserting in different jurisdictions could have that effect, and the touch event model patent would have caused far greater problems to Google's Android operating system than any single-gesture patent ever could. So far, Apple has not been able to enforce broad patents. While it will keep trying and may at some point succeed (especially in the U.S. where it now has a lot of momentum following the California jury verdict), Apple will realistically have to ensure differentiation between its products and their Android-based alternatives by enforcing a multiplicity of patents of the kind that were put before the California jury. With a critical mass of enforceable patents of that kind, Apple will also be in a strong position.

Operating system patents don't even have to be extremely broad to give patent holder serious leverage over a rival. For example, the "soft input panel" patent over which Microsoft won a German injunction yesterday against Motorola Mobility is much more powerful than any of the patents Apple has prevailed on to date. But Microsoft has been at the forefront of operating system development for decades and has over the last 20 years (the maximum term of validity of a patent from its filing date) spent far more money on research and development, not only in total but also on operating systems in particular, than Apple. Fortunately for the Android ecosystem, Microsoft is licensing-oriented, while Apple is primarily interested in differentiation.

I'd finally like to mention that the Munich I Regional Court held three Apple v. HTC hearings (two trials and one early hearing) in a row on Wednesday. The patents-in-suit are the slide-to-unlock patent, the photo gallery page-flipping patent, and the overscroll bounce ("rubber-banding") patent. I attended and took plenty of notes, and will report on this at some point. The first two cases will be adjudged in January, and the rubber-banding case will go to trial in April. Nothing spectacular happened on Wednesday. When I find the time, I will report on this within a week or two because I have some observations to share on Apple's challenges and opportunities in enforcing its multi-touch gesture patents, but it's not urgent. For now I'll just say that there isn't much that HTC has to fear from those three lawsuits.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Microsoft wins third German injunction against Google's Motorola over high-power patent

Google just suffered a strategically very important defeat at the Munich I Regional Court, where Presiding Judge Dr. Peter Guntz just announced a ruling in Microsoft's favor against wholly-owned Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility. Judge Dr. Guntz explained that "the Android operating system" infringes the invention protected by claim 23 of EP1040406 on a "soft input panel system and method". Microsoft is also asserting the U.S. equivalent of this patent against Motorola in the Western District of Washington.

The patent covers a software architecture that allows applications to flexibly receive input from sources between the user may switch, such as an on-screen keyboard and voice input, without requiring the app itself to worry about the underlying functionality that provides this level of abstraction. Out of the hundreds of thousands of Android apps that exist, many if not most make use of the related operating system functionality.

In formal terms, Microsoft won two rulings, one against Motorola Mobility Inc. (the U.S. company that now belongs to Google) and another against its German subsidiary and a distribution organization, in each case with respect to the German market. The ruling is appealable, and there is no doubt that Google will appeal and request a stay of the injunction. But such stays are an exception and not the rule in Germany. Microsoft will certainly enforce and post a bond or make a deposit of 37.5 million euros for each of the two related rulings, or 75 million euros in total. For another 10 million euros each, Microsoft can also enforce a recall.

Judge Dr. Guntz explained that the court decided on this relatively large sum in recognition of the impact of this patent. In my opinion, this is by far and away the technically most impactful patent, apart from standard-essential patents, to have been enforced against anyone in the smartphone patent wars. The kinds of patents Apple has enforced so far, which are mostly multitouch-related, are much easier to work around than this one. It remains to be seen how long it will take Google to make the necessary changes. Absent a stay, it may have to temporarily pull out of the German market or do what Microsoft has been proposing to Motorola for years: take a royalty-bearing license to the industry's leading operating system patent portfolio.

Except for Motorola, all other leading Android device makers are already paying for a patent license from Microsoft and don't have to worry about the possibility of this patent being enforced against them. Otherwise it would now be quite easy for Microsoft to enforce the same patent against the likes of Samsung and HTC (it would formally have to bring new lawsuits against them, but it would be very likely to win).

Today's ruling is further validation of Microsoft's claim that Android infringes many of its patents. Microsoft previously won a U.S. import ban against Motorola over a meeting scheduler patent and two other German injunctions: one from the same Munich court over a multi-part text message (SMS) layer patent and one from the Mannheim Regional Court over a file system patent. The different kinds of functionalities covered by the four patents Microsoft has by now enforced against Android worldwide (with most of its claims not even having been adjudicated yet) speak to the diversity of Microsoft's patent portfolio.

In my report on the trial over the soft input panel patent (back in May) I already mentioned that claim 23 appeared to be infringed. Microsoft was also trying to enforce a second, narrower claim. Since the court did not hold Android to have a "management component" of the kind required by that other claim, it cleared Motorola of infringement of that one (a decision that Microsoft may also appeal). Furthermore, one of the accused devices was not proven to be sold in Germany, and while the court granted a recall of certain devices (smartphones and tablets), it denied Microsoft an order to destroy Motorola's infringing products since the enforced claim (claim 23) is a method claim. For those technical reasons, Microsoft has to pick up more than 60% of the costs of this lawsuit, but in commercial terms, Google is the big loser.

German patent injunctions that are structured like the one announced today relate to all devices that infringe a given patent claim. The ruling says that Motorola is barred from selling, promoting etc. devices that implement the technique covered by claim 23 of the soft input panel patent, "as it has occurred in the case of [a list of exemplary infringing devices". Under German law, any "kerngleicher Verstoß" (violation of the same "core") automatically falls within the scope of the injunction regardless of the name of a given Motorola product.

Today's winning law firm, Bardehle Pagenberg, also won Apple two Munich injunctions against Motorola and represented Microsoft in other litigations including the one that resulted in the multi-part text message layer patent injunction against Motorola Mobility. Bardehle's team in the Munich Microsoft cases was led by Dr. Tilman Mueller-Stoy. On the losing end today, like last week in Munich and last month in San Jose, is Quinn Emanuel, whose lawyers do great work but simply have a group of clients in the Android context who infringe too much and innovate too little.

A week ago, the Munich I Regional Court also ordered an injunction against Motorola Mobility over Apple's "overscroll bounce", or "rubber-banding", patent.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Samsung tells U.S. court it will soon attack the iPhone 5 with eight patents for a starter

In a case management statement filed late on Wednesday with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Samsung expressed its belief "the iPhone 5 will infringe [the eight patents that Samsung is already asserting in a California lawsuit against Apple, two of which have been declared standard-essential] in the same way as the other accused iPhone models", and that it "plans to file a motion to amend its infringement contentions to address the iPhone 5 as soon as it has had a reasonable opportunity to analyze the device".

Here's the relevant passage (click on the image to enlarge or read the text below the image):

"Samsung anticipates that it will file, in the near future, a motion to amend its infringement contentions to add the iPhone 5 as an accused product. On September 12, 2012, Apple announced that it will release the iPhone 5 on September 21, 2012. Based on information currently available, Samsung expects that the iPhone 5 will infringe the asserted Samsung patents-in-suit in the same way as the other accused iPhone models. Samsung plans to file a motion to amend its infringement contentions to address the iPhone 5 as soon as it has had a reasonable opportunity to analyze the device. Because Samsung believes the accused functionality of the iPhone 5 will be similar to the accused functionality of other accused Apple products, Samsung does not believe that amendment of its infringement contentions should affect the case schedule."

The filing was jointly made by Apple and Samsung in their second California litigation, which started this year and is currently scheduled to go to trial in March 2014.

After bringing formal infringement contentions, Samsung could ask for a preliminary injunction against the iPhone 5. It does not mention that possiblity, but it's a procedural fact that a preliminary injunction can only be requested in connection with a lawsuit that will result in either the dissolution of the preliminary injunction or its conversion into a permanent one.

Last year, Samsung sought preliminary injunctions against Apple in other jurisdictions (including France, Italy and the Netherlands), but it has not yet done so in the United States. After its recent trial loss it may want to show that it keeps fighting back.

Apple has also continued to add new products to the list of devices accused in that lawsuit. Three weeks ago, Apple added the Galaxy S III, Note and Note 10.1. It appears that Apple has already served its detailed infringement contentions concerning the S III and Note, but still needs to do so for the Note 10.1. Apple furthermore notes that "the Android 4.1 Jelly Bean operating system" will become one of the accused technologies. That is interesting in light of Google's recent statement on the jury verdict in the first Apple v. Samsung litigation, where Google claimed that "[m]ost of these [patent claims] don't relate to the core Android operating system". I commented on the "core Android" question in a recent post.

Judge Koh will hold a hearing on Wednesday (September 26) to discuss the further management of the second Apple v. Samsung lawsuit she is presiding over. In the meantime, Apple and Samsung will file various post-trial motions in the first one. According to the Korea Times, Apple will seek triple damages: $3 billion. That amount would exceed the total cost of the Curiosity Rover, while the jury's damages award fell short of the cost of reconstructing the Golden Gate Bridge.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|

Samsung wasn't allowed to compare Apple's damages claim to cost of Curiosity Mars rover

Samsung is pretty much in "appeals mode" against Apple and just filed with the court a variety of exhibits and slides that Judge Lucy Koh had excluded from the Apple v. Samsung trial. I guess Samsung will reference some of this material in its forthcoming post-trial motion for relief (due on Friday) and, subsequently, in the opening brief for its appeal to the Federal Circuit. Apple has now also begun to file its excluded material and will certainly use it in similar ways.

One of Samsung's filings contains excluded slides that would have formed part of Samsung's closing presentation to the jury. And one of the excluded closing demonstratives juxtaposed, under the headline of "Apple's $2.75 Billion Damages Claim In Context", Apple's total damages claim to a diversity of investments and expenditures that have nothing to do with the legal issues in Apple v. Samsung but were just meant to underscore that $2.75 billion is a lot of money. These are the points of comparison Samsung wanted to show in a colorful bar chart:

• the Transamerica Pyramid skyscraper in San Francisco ($176 million)

• the HP Pavilion, a sports and entertainment venue in San Jose ($261 million)

• the AT&T Park, the stadium of the San Francisco Giants baseball team ($482 million)

• the StarPrincess cruise ship ($549 million)

• the 75-year-old Golden Gate Bridge (which did not cost $1.2 billion at the time it was built, but that amount is the estimated cost if it had to rebuilt nowadays)

• the proposed budget for the city of San Jose, where the trial took place, for 2013 ($2.6 billion)

• the Curiosity Mars rover ($2.6 billion)

Here's the slide (click on the image to enlarge):

It's fun to look at, but I think Judge Koh did the right thing by excluding it. This kind of argument would have confused the jury. Samsung would rather spend its money on some of the proposed alternatives, but the question the jury had to answer is what damages Apple managed to prove. There's nothing in the law that says patent damages can never exceed the cost of a Mars rover or be a multiple of the cost of a skyscraper or baseball stadium. That's why this kind of comparison is irrelevant. Irrelevant as it may be, Samsung's bar chart illustrates the economic dimension of the $2.75 billion Apple asked for (and presumably continues to demand) and provides some interesting points of comparison for the $1.05 billion the jury awarded to Apple.

The Curiosity Rover comparison is not the only outer-space kind of argument that Samsung was barred from making at the trial. Judge Koh also prohibited any invalidity arguments based on 2001: A Space Odyssey. Samsung was forced to focus on down-to-earth arguments.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Follow @FOSSpatents

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Share|