updated 09:23 pm EDT, Fri August 17, 2012
Jury instructions, final arguments expected August 21
The final day of witness examination in the Apple versus Samsung patent trial has concluded, with both sides nearly exhausting their 25-hour allotment by Judge Koh. Most witnesses were return witnesses, with the sole exception being ex-Department of Justice Antitrust Deputy Attorney General Janusz Ordover taking the stand.
Susan Kare returned to the stand, rebutting Samsung's graphic designer and arguing that the Korean handset maker, like other companies, had options other than copying Apple intellectual properties in iconography and user interface elements.
British telecommunications expert Michael Walker reviewed Samsung's standards-essential patents that have been asserted against apple, concluding that Samsung violated protocols by failing to properly disclose its patents. Apple argues that Samsung waited until this lawsuit began to raise infringement claims as a legal weapon, without disclosing relevant patents to the ETSI European telecommunications commission responsible for fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing.
Patent lawyer Richard Donaldson lined up what he viewed as Samsung's obligations for FRAND licensing its standards-essential patents. Donaldson viewed Samsung's persistent efforts to license for more than the industry-standard rate was in fact discriminatory.
With no cross-examination of Donaldson, Apple rolled into playing a video deposition of Samsung's intellectual property chief, Seung-Ho Ahn. Ahn, the highest-ranking licensing official, stated that he took no steps to ensure Samsung complied with FRAND licensing requirements of the patents being applied against Apple. Ahn believed that Samsung's asserted patents weren't important from a technical perspective, nor did he know if Samsung had any role in developing the cellphone technologies used in the Apple iPhone line.
In another video snippet, Samsung licensing head Jun Won Lee stated that he had no involvement in patent application to ETSI, saying that it was left up to the patent prosecution team.
Following lunch, former US Justice Department antitrust deputy attorney general Janusz Ordover was called to the stand for the longest testimony of the day. In a analogy showing all the different electrical sockets in use in the United States before the standard was selected, the jury was shown the potential chaos if there isn't a clear standard in wireless technology.
Ordover claimed that Samsung had acquired patent "hold up" power with the "fact you can charge, or attempt to charge a non FRAND rate, is direct proof of market or monopoly power." When asked about Samsung's license fee, he called it "way out of line." Surprisingly, Samsung chose to not cross-examine Ordover.
The remaining witnesses of the day all testified briefly, with little or no cross examination. Apple re-called Peter Bressler to testify about how prior devices as shown by Samsung were irrelevant to the iPad's design. Karan Singh was also called to discuss prior art, but in this case refuting Samsung's clams about touchscreen zoom and scrolling features. Apple expert Ravin Balakrishnan rebutted Samsung's arguments about the Diamond Touch and Tablecloth inventions, and concluded Apple's witness depositions.
Samsung recalled damages expert David Teece to the stand, who argued that Apple paid nothing for Samsung's FRAND patents; but during cross examination, he admitted to having no knowledge of how ETSI regulation worked. Technical expert Tim Willams was questioned very rapidly and hastily cross-examined about the validity of the 3G patents asserted in the suit against Apple. The final testimony came from repeat witness Woodward Yang, who finished off both company's remaining minutes with a discussion about how he viewed Samsung's patents as both valid and properly applied against Apple. Samsung had less than a minute remaining at the end of testimony, and Apple left just over one minute unused.
Last-minute filings are expected over the weekend. Lawyers are scheduled to meet with the judge on Monday to detail the final instructions before the trial is handed to the jury. The trial resumes Tuesday with an arduous 100-page jury instruction read in court, plus closing arguments.