Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Dollar: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Lawyers from Morrison & Foerster LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP played their cards right in convincing a San Jose jury to award Apple Inc. $290.4 million in patent infringement damages against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

With MoFo and WilmerHale, the Cupertino-based iPhone maker has won a collective $929.8 million in San Jose-based proceedings against South Korea-based Samsung after factoring in the litigants' landmark trial in 2012.

Apple's outside counsel is keeping quiet on the most recent jury award in part because they are trying to convince U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh to grant additional damages. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, 11-1846 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 15, 2011).

The retrial asked jurors to determine how much Samsung owes for selling 13 products that infringed at least one of three Apple utility patents and two Apple design patents. Apple had sought $379.7 million in damages during the retrial, while Samsung believed it should pay only $52.7 million.

From the onset of the trial, Morrison & Foerster lawyers impressed upon jurors Apple's history of creating popular, groundbreaking products.

San Francisco-based partner Harold J. McElhinny began his opening statement by playing a 2007 video of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs introducing the first version of the iPhone at San Francisco's Moscone Center. McElhinny was highlighting the consumer buzz surrounding Apple smartphones and tablets.

He then shifted his focus to Apple's opponent and its infringing activity.

"We are here today not because of how the world reacted but because of how one particular competitor, Samsung Electronics, reacted," McElhinny told jurors.

William C. Price, Samsung's lead outside counsel for the damages retrial and a Los Angeles-based Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP partner, painted a very different portrait of Apple.

He asserted that Apple was trying to crowd out smartphone competitors and claim a monopoly on positive consumer experiences.

"You can't patent fun," Price said during his opening statement. "You can't patent sexy. You can't patent whimsical."

Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide marketing, testified on the stand early in the trial that he was "shocked" when he first saw the Samsung Galaxy smartphone and, later, the Samsung Galaxy Tab.

He also got a verbal jab in when Price approached him during cross examination with a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

"I can't tell from here. It looks like an iPad to me," Schiller said to some audience laughter.

As proceedings drew to a close, McElhinny and WilmerHale partner William F. Lee frequently contrasted Schiller's willingness to take the stand with the absence of Samsung executives testifying in court.

Jurors took nearly two full days after closing arguments to render a verdict that was closer to Apple's damages assessment.

Colleen Allen, 36, a registered nurse who served as jury forewoman, praised Apple's damages expert Julie L. Davis for her testimony, especially during questioning from Quinn Emanuel lawyers.

"Even when she was getting cross-examined, she never faltered," Allen said. "They tried to throw her off and I think she was a superstar witness."

- KEVIN LEE

<!-- Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Dollar: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. -->