The specific amount owed by Samsung has been in dispute since.
Samsung isn't refuting the claim that it infringed on Apple's patents but instead of the latter's demand for $1 billion in damages, it's asking for a much smaller penalty of $28 million. There's no doubt that Samsung will have to pay Apple something, but exactly how much it will pay remains anyone's guess. Seeing its market share dwindle and hoping to resurrect its flagging fortunes, Lee said, Samsung copied Apple's emphasis on design and watched as its sales soar once again. 'It's a particularly significant period for Samsung to have been infringing, ' Vellturo said, given this is the point the customer enters such an ecosystem.
Meanwhile, the patent trial which kicked off yesterday with jury selection was proved so hard to find unbiased jurors that choosing eight of them from the 74 candidates took an nearly whole day. Lawyers for Samsung have argued that the damage amount should not be based on the profit of the entire device, but rather a portion, because only part of the phone was found to have infringed on Apple's design patents.
John Quinn, a founding partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who is representing Samsung alongside firm partners William Price and Victoria Maroulis, countered Lee's argument in his opening statements, arguing that Apple should receive the total phone profits. But the sum of damages Samsung must pay is yet to be agreed. "They are called to profits only on components, not the entire phone". The design patents that Samsung infringed concern the physical shape that would become the iPhone, the bezel, and the colorful grid of icons.
Under the United States patent law, infringement of a design patent can result in a plaintiff receiving total profits made through the product.
The $1.05 billion jury verdict of 2012 has been whittled down by a previous retrial in 2013, along with appeals and adjustments. Apple told jurors that Samsung should hand over all the profit it made on four devices that were heavily inspired by the iPhone. While Apple says that it constitutes the entire phone, Samsung disagrees, asserting that it could be applied specifically to separate components within a phone. It "does not exist apart from, and can not be separated from, the infringing Samsung phones."Koh will let Kare and other Apple experts cite evidence from the first trial of Samsung's deliberate copying of the iPhone design".