Since the parties reunited in U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s courtroom last week to hash out damages, Samsung has repeatedly asked jurors to award damages of $52 million—nearly $330 million less than what Apple says it is entitled to. As he delivered his rebuttal Tuesday morning, Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny of Morrison & Foerster seized on the Samsung executives’ absence to offer his own explanation for the divide. Figuring jurors would want to grant an award that fell somewhere in between the parties’ requests, Samsung intentionally low-balled its calculations, McElhinny argued.
“How can they disrespect the process so much that they don’t even come to trial?” McElhinny asked jurors, reprising a theme that played well with a jury last year. “I will tell you plainly what their strategy is. They expect you to compromise their verdict.” But Samsung lawyer William Price insisted during his closing argument that Apple deserved nothing more because it holds narrow patents that his client could have easily designed around. He stressed that the other side had failed to prove that demand for the 13 Samsung products on trial was driven by the few features that infringe Apple’s patents.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
