Kevin Johnson Makes Closing Arguments for Samsung in Apple v Samsung Trial

This is a trial report of Kevin Johnson’s closing arguments. It is not a transcript. It is based on my typed notes of the trial. It primarily paraphrases Kevin Johnson’s statements. It may contain errors. Mr. Johnson’s closing arguments were devoted to Samsung’s infringement claims against Apple – called it’s “affirmative” case against Apple.

Apple v Samsung Closing Arguments: Kevin Johnson

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen  – 239 and 449.

Affirmative case went quickly not much time especially grossly inflated. But the quikc pace should not detract from importance of patent. I want you to remember case for what Apple did not do. Did not challenge validity patents. Mountain of evidence Apple source code and apple did not challenge calculation damages calculation. They didn’t bring single witness Dr. Curl, Dr. Rao damages. Curl calculated 6 million 115 thousand 449.

Nobody came to say damages wrong – nobody came straight forward flawed having never nobody so you will hear likely when Apple his part they infringe tech not old not used but even their expert admitted you are to compare asserted claims to accused products – you don’t compare the product to the product. If you look this patent was ahead of time shot straight forward ahead time.

We brought you Michael Freeman Tulsa lead told you video transmit technology with his family used by military, T.V. stations and Oklahoma City bombing rescuers – successful – won two Emmy’s.

Dan Shoenfeld Univ Illinois Chicago he explained Facetime cellular feature transmits email ?? infringing claim # walked you through confidential Apple documents and source code and third party documents. Video capture Apple says not required. Dr. Shoenfeld showed you – holy jury showed you apple source code apple capture source code segments you will have in the jury room all describe fact iPhones capture videos. You will recall did you rely on source code and rely on it he had to admit he did not (James Storer). So Dr. Shoenfeld also showed you source code for next – means for transmission – source code plaintiff exhibit that this part of limitation is made.

So apple expert in box what did they do he argued apple does not initiate ?port? well you will have dx351 page 1818 on page you will see apple says 3 ports. He also showed you parts source code . Well face time doesn’t transmit video. Well we know common sense it does. Walked through. And in fact when cross Dr. Sor?? and report early case face time transmit he had no choice to admit. Directly contradicts in this case where he says doen’s transmit video. Apple told you during opening statement Apple says sells some  misleading wrong. The fact Apple buys some Samsung not defense. You wont; find jury instruction defense. It isn’t a defense. As Shoenfeld Apple actually ?? ??? we also saw DX466 we’ll have jury. Apple said it designed its own 466 Apple rights its source code confidential you and court and they combine accused components and source code and it’s this combination of source code with components that infringes. Claim 27 starts with digital camera. Brought you Parulski digital camera more than 200 dig cam patents.

Apple brought Story admitted on cross examination he had no experience digital camera. Only digital camera expert was Purlulski. Walked through evidence # and @ look at walk through each limitation and he showed you patent all about searching photos videos . You can search ?pro? photo video looking for and he showed you how source ?vonf? confirmed in ?prmee? walked through limits and found each present in iPhone.

Damages. In this case disagreed did not bring single challenge damage. Prof economics even retained court neutral in another case. Curt. Dr. REao survey expert. Now Dr. Curl did simple straight forward analysis. Looked straight forward measure relative value used real world evidence real world price 99 cents Facetime price download desktop. that what economist real world prices – for 239 patent $6M + for all three important ?? ?? ? his damages cal 391 a exhibit.

Now again you didn’t Vellturo ?curt? wrong. Not a single witness challenge methods. Or Dr. Rao’s survey. 449 lower. 158K two reasons. Video album patent. Not as value Facetime ? Second 449 there are non-infringing alternative can design around. Design around easy lowers value. Dr. Kurl used real world evidence.

Also used patents interested in buying Samsung 2.3 million paid. He used that has reality check. He also used fact that Hitatchi Samsung entered agreement Samsung purchased 449 as bundle 106 35 million dollars another reality . Expect closing issue Samsung purchase. Nothing wrong purchasing. You won’t hear me say purchasing defense to infringement. Expired. Doesn’t relieve Apple liable while active.

So with that I go back to the fact real world serve as reality check what common sense. 6 million 158 K 449 makes sense they are real world numbers apple does not dispute.

Turned over to next Samsung attorney.

© 2009-2014 Alta Financial & Insurance Services, LLC
Google