Profile picture
Dorothy M. Atkins @doratki
, 111 tweets, 14 min read Read on Twitter
Price gets Wagner to say that the prior jury found infringement, but never decided what constitutes an article of manufacture. Wagner also says it took him time to get data from Samsung because the data is highly confidential, and there were language issues.
Wagner says Samsung pays him $795 per hour, and Apple's damages expert Julie Davis charges $900 per hour. Wagner testified yesterday that he has worked over 8,000 hours on the case since 2011. So he's made about **$6.36 million** by my tally.
The parties finished with Wagner, and both parties have rested their case. Judge Koh says she needs some time to finalize jury instructions, so she let the jurors take a 15-minute break.
The parties will have an hour each to present their closing arguments, which will start sometime after the lunch break. Judge Koh is now considering objections to jury instructions, which she'll discuss after the break.
Judge Koh says a jury instruction on the remedy for one of Apple's two utility patents is not clear. (Samsung's phones that infringe the utility patent also infringe the design patents, so damages get complicated if the jury doesn't award Apple total profits on the phones.)
Samsung's counsel made one last stab at getting Judge Koh to change language in one of the factors in the 4-factor articles of manufacture test. Apple said the request is extremely prejudicial against Apple. After some argument, Judge Koh denied the request.
The parties sorted out their jury instruction issues. Judge Koh is bringing in the jury to read them instructions before lunch, so they can hear closing arguments on a full stomach.
Judge Koh finished reading jury instructions. She gave them a long lunch break. Closings arguments in Apple v. Samsung will begin at 1:45 p.m. PST.
The jury left the courtroom. Judge Koh says the parties used almost all of their time during their cases in chief. Apple's counsel had 28 minutes left and Samsung's counsel had 34 minutes left.
People are leaving for lunch but Judge Koh asked counsel to take back some of their hard copies of evidence. She says the courthouse has limited space and they're "overflowing with binders" in the back.
While we wait for closings, check out the verdict form. (Personally, I'm super appreciative that it asks the jury to give totals - I can just imagine the frantic number crunching that would've occurred without 'em.)
Closing arguments are about to start and the courtroom is full. William Lee and Joseph J. Mueller of WilmerHale are splitting closings for Apple.
Meuller tells the jurors to use their common sense when thinking about why Samsung's smartphone market share jumped in 2010. Meuller said 90 percent of the smartphones Samsung sold that year infringed Apple's design patents.
Meuller's now pointing to jury instructions describing the four-factor article of manufacture test. He reminds jurors no one has decided what the AOM is. The jury has been told this at least a dozen times now by counsel and Judge Koh, if not more.
Meuller says dotted lines in patent drawings are there to give context, and Samsung's design expert Sam Lucente ignored that context. "You can't do that," Mueller says.
Meuller says Samsung's counsel tried to argue the differences between its noninfringing phones and infringing phones were minor. But that's not the test, he says. What matters is if the claimed design is prominent in the product, he says.
"The fact that you can pull apart a phone means nothing. It means absolutely nothing," Meuller says.
"The bottom line is a phone is a phone, and Samung has been trying to disassemble them this week, but they apply the designs to the phones," Meuller says.
Meuller says the jury shouldn't deduct R&D and marketing costs, because Samsung didn't identify those costs that are specific to the infringing phones.
Meuller has wrapped with his argument. The parties are switching to Samsung's closings. ITMT, Judge Koh just asked everyone in the gallery to make room so that the man who was sitting on the courtroom floor could sit on a bench.
John B. Quinn of Quinn Emanuel kicks off Samsung's closing arguments, saying it can sometimes be difficult to tell what's covered by design patents and what isn't.
Quinn says unfortunately Samsung's smartphones used Apple's "very narrow" patented designs and points to the dotted lines in patent drawings. "These designs are narrow, because you've seen the non-infringing alternatives that are very very close," Quinn says.
Quinn says Meuller made it sound like it doesn't matter that phones can be taken apart. But factor 4 of the article of manufacture test is "all about the ability to separate."
"Focus on the language of the factor, not some of the spin that you’ve heard. Words here really matter," Quinn tells jury.
Quinn says it doesn’t even matter for the purposes of the case that Apple ever even made the iPhone. Apple would have been entitled to damages, if they had just owned the patents, he says.
Quinn tells jurors Apple's references to its alleged copying is "just intended to make you angry at Samsung, intended to make you want to punish Samsung."
Quinn is turning closings over to Bill Price of Quinn Emanuel, who will address damages. But Judge Koh let the jurors take a 10 minute break. Once Price wraps for Samsung, Apple will have 17 more minutes to argue and then it'll go to the jury.
Price tells jurors if they exclude Samsung's expenses, "you’re awarding profits to Apple that aren’t profits at all," because real money was spent on sales people, on accountants and on research and development.
Price wraps Samsung's closings and says he is turning it over to Apple's Lee, who Price says "has a way with words." Lee has 17 minutes.
Lee tells the jury Samsung's counsel have resorted to Apple and its experts, because the "law and facts are on our side." Lee says Samsung has also repeatedly tried to undermine the previous infringement verdict.
Lee says if VW's Beetle is an article of manufacture, it's not just limited to the shell of the car. And someone can take the Beetle's shape to sell cars, just like Samsung took Apple's shape to sell the phones, he says.
Lee emphasizes that Samsung made $3.3 billion in revenues off of infringing smartphones. "If they’re allowed to keep all of that money there will be celebrations in the halls of Samsung, I guarantee you that," he says.
And Lee wrapped. Closings are done! Judge Koh is giving the jury a verdict form and telling the jury they can go deliberate until 4:30 p.m. PST - very unlikely they'll decide a verdict in the next 25 minutes.
Samsung will present its motion for judgment as a matter of law, which is mostly just to preserve the argument on appeal. I'm taking a break from Twitter, unless something comes up with the jury. Happy Friday!
Jury is leaving, so there's no verdict today. They'll be back deliberating on Monday at 9.
The fate of Apple's $1 billion IP fight with Samsung is in a jury's hands. Here's my recap from the last day of the Apple v. Samsung trial:
Happy Monday! I'm sitting outside Judge Koh's courtroom waiting for a verdict to come down in Apple v. Samsung. Will the jury reach a verdict today?
Verdict watch update: Just spotted a juror wandering around the courtroom hallway. They took a break and he got locked out of the jury room for um a while.
It's still pretty quite here outside Apple v. Samsung courtroom. The jury had a working lunch though - hopefully that means they want to get this decided today.
Aside from the occasional pacing of fellow journos, it's still quiet outside the Apple v. Samsung courtroom. Note to self: Bring more snacks tomorrow.
OK, it's official. Jury's gone for the day. Back here tomorrow at 9 a.m. sharp for day 2 of deliberations in Apple v. Samsung.
It's day 2 of jury deliberations, and I'm back outside Judge Koh's courtroom waiting for the Apple v. Samsung verdict to come down. Will they decide this today?
Just in: the Apple v. Samsung jury has a question - people are heading into the courtroom.
The jury is asking to see a slide that was shown during the direct examination of Samsung's damages expert Michael Wagner. The slide showed a display assembly of a Samsung phone with a breakdown of the components that go into the display assembly, according to the jury note.
Apple's Joe Mueller of WilmerHale argues that Judge Koh shouldn't give the jury the slide, since none of the demonstratives were admitted as evidence. Samsung notes the slide is of a picture that is in evidence.
Mueller also repeatedly says Apple objects to identifying one exhibit in isolation, arguing it would give the jury the impression that the court is focusing on a particular piece of evidence. Judge Koh says she does think that's problematic.
Mueller tells Judge Koh at the last trial in 2013 the jury asked for a copy of a demonstrative and Judge Koh refused to direct the jury to evidence. Judge Koh says she wants to go back and take a look.
Judge Koh is taking a short recess to review the record, but she notes that one of the jurors has a job interview this afternoon, so they'll only be deliberating until 1:30 p.m. today.
Judge Koh is back. She says the 2013 instance was distinguishable from this instance, because the jury had asked to see a slide from closing arguments. This is a different situation, because this is a factual piece of evidence that the jury is already focused on, Judge Koh says.
Judge Koh suggests an instruction pointing to the exhibit, but also noting that all evidence must be heard. Apple still objects to the proposed instruction and asks that Judge Koh to also point to another jury instruction and exhibits.
Samsung's counsel says Apple's suggestion is inappropriate and doesn't address the jury's question. Judge Koh is mulling it over.
Judge Koh says she's going to respond to the jury's question the way she suggested, despite Apple's objections. "The jurors are already focused on this issue,"... "we're merely providing them a factual answer," Judge Koh says.
Judge Koh adds that there are "many many boxes" of exhibits in this case, so it would be helpful to just give the jurors a factual response to their question. And the court's in recess until TBD.
And another day of deliberations has gone by and there's still no verdict in Apple v. Samsung. I'll be back here tomorrow at 9 a.m. Hoping the third day's the charm!
Waiting for a verdict to come down can be painfully boring. But luckily there are other journalists outside the courtroom to talk with about the finer things in life.

Journo: I ate lunch for dinner last night.

Me: I ate half a pizza.

Journo: Decadence.
I'm back sitting outside Judge Koh's courtroom, waiting for a jury to decide Apple v. Samsung. Will the third day of deliberations be the charm?
For those following my Apple v. Samsung coverage closely: Here's the travel itinerary of witness Samsung dropped mid-trial. Judge Koh had ordered Samsung's counsel to provide the info., saying she wants to see if they're "playing games."
There's another jury note in Apple v. Samsung. Everyone's heading into the courtroom.
And here's the note from the Apple v. Samsung jury.
Judge Koh is in the middle of hearing her criminal calendar, so while counsel for both Apple and Samsung are in the courtroom. It's going to take a few before we get a response to the question.
Judge Koh is currently drilling an attorney on why the personal property of a prisoner who died in prison 4 months ago was never returned to his wife. Reminder that Apple v. Samsung isn't the only case on Judge Koh's docket.
Correction - Judge Koh is in the middle of hearing her civil calendar, not criminal. Even so, it's still gonna take a few before she addresses the jury's question.
And Apple v. Samsung is up! Judge Koh says first off, the jury numbered the note as note number 5, even though it's the 2nd note they've received. She also says she doesn't think they can answer the jury's question.
Apple's Joe Mueller of WilmerHale agrees with the judge. Samsung's counsel Victoria Maroulis of Quinn Emaunel disagrees and suggests they refer the jury to certain sentences in the jury instructions. Apple objects to that idea.
Judge Koh rejects Samsung's suggestion. She says she doesn't think it's appropriate to emphasize one jury instruction or explain what configuration means. Samsung says, for the record, they object. "Understood," Judge Koh replies.
Judge Koh sent the jury a note saying she can't respond to their question, but they have their instructions. The court is in recess again until TBD.
And the jury wrapped day 3 of deliberations in Apple v. Samsung. Tune back here tomorrow at 9 a.m. for more coverage. (My bet is they'll decide this thing tmr, because surely no juror - or journalist - wants to spend their Friday in a courthouse.)
No one really expected the Apple v. Samsung jury to deliberate past today, including Judge Koh. The question we're all asking now: Is there going to be a mistrial?
Well, my train to San Jose was cancelled this morning (of all days!) so I will be an hour late to Apple v. Samsung. But the judge required both sides to appear at 9 a.m. - today should be lively!
After a light sprint, I finally made it to the courthouse. I'm outside Judge Koh's courtroom now. Judge Koh sealed it and is talking to counsel for both sides. Stay tuned!
Counsel for both sides just filed out of Judge Koh's courtroom. Neither side is commenting. The jury is back to deliberating, and no one knows what all of the hubbub was about.
The jury has told Judge Koh they're "ready to return" to the courtroom. Not sure if that means we have a verdict. In any case, I'm here in the courtroom waiting for counsel for both sides.
Apple's counsel is back. Now we're just waiting on Samsung's team. Wondering if we've got a verdict or a mistrial on our hands.
John Quinn for Samung just walked into the courtroom. He's sitting alone at Samsung's table, waiting on the rest of his team.
And the rest of Samsung's team is filing into the courtroom. Judge Koh should be coming in soon.
Judge Koh is back. She says she doesn't know if the jury has a verdict, all they did was say they are ready to come back to the courtroom. They might have a verdict, but she said she wants to be sure there are no errors. She's calling them into the courtroom.
The jury's back and they have a unanimous verdict.
The foreperson is the Barnes and Noble store manager, btw. She's handing the verdict form over.
Samsung owes $533,316,606 for infringing Apple's three design patents, jury finds.
Samsung owes Apple $5,325,050 for infringing the two utility patents.
Judge Koh asked counsel for both sides to double check the jury's calculations, which both teams are doing now.
Apple finished checking the numbers, but Samsung is still number crunching.
Here's the full story.
The parties finished checking the jury's calculations. Judge Koh is back.
Apple's Joe Mueller of WilmerHale says there is "tiny and inconsequential issue" in the numbers, which he says are a dollar or two off.
Samsung's John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel says "we'll give them the dollar," but has no issues at the moment with excusing the jury.
Judge Koh asked for a quick recess.
Judge Koh said she wants to know what Samsung's issue with the verdict is, and she says she's open to sending additional instructions back to the jury to reconsider their verdict. We have a jury that we think can correct any inconsistency, she says.
Samsung's John Quinn says they don't think the verdict is supported by the evidence on what is the article of manufacture is. But he says they're comfortable addressing it in post-trial motions.
He's not waiving inconsistency arguments, Quinn says. Judge Koh says if there is any curative instruction that needs to happen she wants to do it now.
Quinn repeats that he thinks the jury should be excused and they're comfortable pursuing their challenges to the verdict in post-trial motions. Judge Koh says ok, and brings the jury back in to discharge them.
Judge Koh discharged the jury, and she's now setting post-trial hearing dates. Reminding us all that the fun doesn't stop here! Samsung is likely going to appeal basically all of it.
Apple's counsel says they need to talk with the client about whether they will file post-trial motions. If they do it will likely be in regards to supplemental damages - unsure how much Apple would be seeking.
"I'm not going to do a calculation of damages until I know this is a verdict that is going to be affirmed and going to be valid," Judge Koh says.
Judge Koh asks the parties again if they would be open to alternative dispute resolution - ie. settlement talk. Both parties said they are open to it. Woooow.
Judge Koh said if they want the settlement talks to be confidential, that's fine, but she wants it to happen within 30 days and she wants updates.
Judge Koh also unsealed the transcript from this morning's sealed session. One of us reporters is gonna have to go digging through transcript records to find out what the heck caused all the hubbub this morning.
And that's a wrap! Court is adjourned.
A sole juror is rehashing the rationale behind their decision. She says they determined that one patent design was the whole phone because you need the phone to see it and another patent covered parts of it including the internal circuitry.
Juror says the 4-factor test was challenging because you have to look at the patent and there were various words in the patent that had many meanings.
The juror says they thought the designs were very prominent because it's an iconic look that everyone recognizes.
The juror is a 26 year old technical writer who collaborates closely with designers, engineers and she says design dictates "so much," even in writing.
Juror is telling samsung's counsel John Quinn of Quinn Emanuel next time to have translators reiterate the questions after their answer, because it was confusing.
Juror says they spent most of their time arguing over the d'677 patent.
For the 305 patent they found the Aom was the entire phone and the d677 patent covered parts. She says she was the sole juror disagreeing with the others today and yesterday.
Juror says Samsung's damages witness Michael Wagner seemed to be an honest man, but Apple's counsel was better at defining certain words.
Juror says Apple was kind of like the good cop and Samsung was kind of like the bad cop.
Juror says she didn't think about the financials or about punishing Samsung and they all agreed pretty quickly that the d'305 covered the whole phone bc can't see the design without the phone.
Juror says the 4th factor was one she was "really stumped on."
Another juror, the Barnes and noble manager, is chatting outside about their reasoning.
And she finished chatting. That's all folks!
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Dorothy M. Atkins
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!