Continuing the Apple v. Samsung retrial, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh on Friday entered a motion that takes four patents-in-suit out of consideration for damages on lost profits, while Apple's Phil Schiller further explained how his company was harmed by Samsung's copycat devices.
Judge Koh ruled Apple cannot pursue damages due to lost profits for four out of the five patents leveraged in the retrial, though the inventions are still in play in regard to Samsung profits and possible royalties.
As noted by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, Apple complied with a pretrial order not to bring the four properties up for argument in regard to the $114 million it is seeking for lost profits, making Koh's order somewhat of a formality. The company, therefore, has one patent-in-suit for lost profits -- the '915 patent for "pinch-to-zoom" -- on which the jury can decide an appropriate payout.
Apple and Samsung are currently duking out a retrial over damages Judge Koh vacated in March after she found the Apple v. Samsung jury to have inaccurately calculated awards applied to 13 Samsung devices.
As for Schiller, the Apple executive finished up his testimony from Thursday, saying Samsung's copying of the iPhone and iPad's designs diluted the Cupertino company's cachet. According to in-court reports from Reuters, Schiller drilled home the idea that Samsung's patent infringement hurt Apple not only in the short term, but hurt consumer trust in the company
"It's much harder to create demand and people question our innovation and design skills like people never used to," Schiller said. "[Samsung] weakened the world view of Apple as this great designer and innovator."
Samsung counsel William Price went on the offensive in cross-examining Schiller, brining into question the validity of Apple's design patents.
"Apple doesn't own a patent on a product being beautiful or sexy, isn't that correct?" Price asked.
"The industry does tend to follow trends of products that are doing well," Schiller replied.
Price went further, hinting that the iPad mini was a direct response to Samsung's small-size tablet offerings.
"[The mini] had nothing to do with competition," Schiller said. "We were simply trying to make our product better."
Comparison of Apple and Samsung devices. | Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents
Apple argues that by copying its designs, Samsung has taken away a portion of the consumer base that would have otherwise purchased the iPhone or iPad. Before Judge Koh ruled that Apple could not seek damages for lost profits on four patents, the Cupertino company was seeking roughly $380 million from Samsung. For its part, Samsung admits infringement, but sees damages at a much less substantial $52 million.
As of this writing, Samsung is calling expert witnesses to the stand. So far, testimony has been in regard to correct damages payouts and Apple' production capabilities at the time of Samsung's infringement.
Judge Koh said witness testimony should conclude on Monday, with final arguments from both parties to be offered on Tuesday. The jury will then deliberate and render a verdict in due course.
Editor's Note: This article has been updated to clarify Apple's four patents are not to be considered for lost profits only, and are still active in other facets of the case.