Top plaintiffs' verdicts by dollar -- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

See correction below.

One of the most widely-watched trials of the year ended in an $1 billion win for Apple Inc. and its attorneys at Morrison & Foerster LLP over its fiercest competitor in the mobile device market, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

A San Jose jury in August concluded that Samsung infringed more than two dozen patent and trade dress claims asserted by Apple and in most cases did so willfully. The panel found all of Apple's patents valid, despite efforts by Samsung's attorneys at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP to convince jurors that features like rounded corners and large flat screens were common sense and should not be patentable.

Apple also defeated Samsung's own claims that its patents were infringed. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh of San Jose affirmed the verdict last month.

The trial was a courtroom showdown between two technology rivals battling for dominance of the smartphone and tablet computer market. Though the jury came out in Apple's favor in this round, Samsung and Apple continue to battle through post-trial motions and appeals and are prepping for a second trial over a different set of patents.

The prominence and importance of the trial led to high levels of courtroom drama and humor in front of newly minted U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh, a sharp-tongued and quick-witted jurist who aimed barbs at both sides. Quinn Emanuel partner John B. Quinn begged the judge to reconsider excluded evidence, incurring Koh's wrath after she refused and he released it to the media. Koh later asked an Apple attorney whether he was "smoking crack" by thinking he could get as many witnesses in as he wanted in the time remaining.

But those spats were mostly out of view from the nine-person jury, who listened to attorneys at MoFo, led by Harold J. McElhinny, spell out how Samsung had "slavishly copied" what he called Apple's world-famous designs. The San Francisco-based partner presented slide after slide depicting the two companies' smartphone and tablets side by side.

Apple called several of its top executives to the stand, walking the jury through the lengthy and until then private process of how the company developed its iPhone and iPad. In his closing argument, McElhinny pointed to his client's willingness to put top management up for questioning.

"They were willing to face cross-examination," McElhinny told the jury. "No Samsung executive was willing to come here from Korea and to answer questions under oath. Samsung had a chance to defend itself in this case. Instead, they sent you lawyers."

In an interview with the Daily Journal, McElhinny said those types of things are crucial in a trial.

"In some countries, executives are not used to being questioned, not used to explaining their activities," he said. "There is a temptation for some foreign companies, out of fear or out of ignorance, to disrespect the jury system, to refuse to participate. I think it's a real mistake."

MoFo did not handle the case alone. William F. Lee, a Boston-based partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, led Apple's defensive case, successfully persuading the jury that the Cupertino-based company did not infringe Samsung's patents involving the hardware on its mobile devices. Other members of the trial team included Mark D. Selwyn, partner-in-charge of the WilmerHale Palo Alto office, Joseph J. Mueller, Peter J. Kolovos, S. Calvin Walden and Lauren B. Fletcher.

McElhinny described the process of working with Lee and WilmerHale as "seamless."

"The firms sort of melded and operated as a single entity to the point we keep telling each other we'd like to do it again," he said.

Charles K. Verhoeven, San Francisco-based partner at Quinn Emanuel, led his team in the trial. He tried persuading the jury the patents Apple asserted were trivial and based on functional needs. For example, he said a smartphone must have rounded corners to properly slide in and out of pockets.

"Every single smartphone has a rectangular shape, rounded corners, and about 90 percent of the real estate of the front of that phone is the screen," he told the jury in his closing. "Is that because people are copying each other? No. It's because technology advanced and form is following function."

Verhoeven and his team declined to comment because post-trial motions and appeals are pending.

- HADLEY ROBINSON

Correction: In an earlier version of this article, the plaintiff's attorney list failed to include Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP attorneys Mark D. Selwyn, Joseph J. Mueller, Peter J. Kolovos, S. Calvin Walden and Lauren B. Fletcher. The Daily Journal regrets the error.

<!-- Top plaintiffs' verdicts by dollar -- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. -->