Judge pleads for 'global peace' in Apple-Samsung fight

The two sides spent Thursday arguing over a $1 billion damages award to Apple for Samsung's infringement of its smartphone patents

By , IDG News Service |  IT Management

Other phones and patents were also debated and while the specifics were different for each, it often came down to the same question: should any errors be left as they were, should they be recalculated to correct them, or should the entire damages award be thrown out and calculated from scratch.

The arguments over damages didn't stop there. In August, the jury found that Samsung's infringement was willful, which allows Koh to increase the damages by up to three times.

"Apple has not come close to meeting the standard for willfulness," said Kathleen Sullivan, a lawyer with Quinn Emmanuel, representing Samsung.

She argued that of the $1.05 billion award, about 90% was immediately not applicable for an increase under law. Sullivan then argued down the remaining $101 million to about $10 million that could be trebled, and then offered reasons why even that should not be increased.

"We're looking at Samsung's state of mind," said Harold McElhinny, an attorney with Morrison Foerster, representing Apple. "This was an intentional attempt by Samsung to copy an electronic product that they knew was covered by literally thousands of patents."

Beyond the damages, Koh also has in front of her a request for an injunction to stop sales of the 26 Samsung handsets covered in the case.

Apple supports an injunction, but Samsung argued that most of the handsets aren't on sale anymore. It did reveal that 77,000 units of the Galaxy SII, one of the phones covered in the case, are still with retailers in the U.S.

The two sides also clashed over jury foreman Velvin Hogan. He was party to a lawsuit in 1993 against Seagate -- a company that last year acquired Samsung's hard-disk drive business in return for a 10% share of the company. Samsung contends that Hogan should have disclosed this before the jury was selected.

"We know that he was dishonest in a court question and we know from interviews he has given that he very much wanted to be on this jury," Samsung lawyer Tom Quinn said, referring to interviews Hogan granted reporters after the case.

"At a minimum, the court needs to hold a hearing, foreman Hogan be brought in and we have a chance to question him, and the other jurors be brought in and we have a chance to question them on his influence," said Quinn.

Koh expressed some skepticism at the argument.

"Hogan said he worked for Seagate, why didn't you ask him?"

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Answers - Powered by ITworld

ITworld Answers helps you solve problems and share expertise. Ask a question or take a crack at answering the new questions below.

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Ask a Question
randomness