Samsung Electronics Co. would owe Apple Inc. $2.5 billion to $2.75 billion in damages for infringing the iPhone maker’s intellectual property, a witness said at the U.S. jury trial between the companies.
Terry Musika, a certified public accountant testifying today on Apple’s behalf in federal court in San Jose, California, said his estimate is based on Samsung’s sales of 22.7 million smartphones and tablet computers and revenue of $8.16 billion. The jury has yet to decide whether the patents and trademarks were infringed, which the expert assumed when making his estimate.
Apple, based in Cupertino, California, sued Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung in April 2011, accusing it of copying patented designs and technology. The dispute is the first to go before a federal jury in a battle being waged on four continents for dominance in a smartphone market valued by Bloomberg Industries at $219.1 billion. The trial is in its third week.
The damages estimate is large “because we’re dealing with a large number of sales,” Musika said, citing sales data since the introduction of allegedly infringing Samsung Galaxy products in 2010.
On cross-examination, Samsung lawyer William Price sought to cast doubt about how Musika arrived at his damages total. Price asked what would happen to his estimate if the jury finds Samsung infringed a single Apple patent covering “rubberbanding,” the way an iPad or iPhone screen seems to bounce when a user scrolls to the end of a file.
“You understand the jury could decide Apple is wrong about some of these things?” Price asked.
Musika acknowledged it could.
Under the assumption that Samsung infringes a single patent, “your damages aren’t close to two billion, or one billion or anything like that,” Price said.
“I agree,” Musika replied.
Boris Teksler, Apple’s director of patent licensing and strategy, completed his testimony earlier today. He told the court that Apple had an “anti-cloning” agreement with Microsoft Corp.
Last week, Teksler said Apple made a presentation to Samsung executives in August 2010 intended to warn the company against copying the iPhone. By contrast, Apple and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft cross-license each other’s patents, and the anti-cloning provisions are included “so we don’t copy each other’s products,” Teksler said.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11-cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).