William Lee Makes Closing Arguments for Apple in Apple v Samsung Trial

These are my trial notes on the closing statements of William Lee for Apple. They are based on my typed notes of the trial. They are not a transcript. In many cases they consist of paraphrases of what took place. And there may be errors. They have been produced for those who might find them useful in the time period before official transcripts are made public. Mr. Lee was the last attorney to speak and the trial ended after he was finished.

 

Closing Arguments of William Lee in Apple v Samsung Trial

I am the last person – I am going to ask. You’ve heard five lawyers talk – complicated I have 29 minutes. Twenty-nine minutes or less. Hang in there with me – I have important things say. It goes like this. If the facts are good for you focus on facts. Law good on facts. If law and facts are bad. Attack. That is what it [Samsung] has done. It has attacked ???? It has – [here there was an objection about scope which was overruled].

You’ve heard opening again today argue this was a dishonest misleading sham. Why Samsung? Because I will show you facts and laws are with Apple ???

I’ll let you just whether fair. I am going to concentrate on evidence and law. Address Samsung claim. Focus on Samsung – says defend when it plaintiff. Because you will find position irreconcilable except one thing. One exception. Samsung’s constant effort cheapen value patents. Mr. Johnson got stared talking about Apple’s damage claim. We do have. We believe it we stick by it. I began my opening that Samsung patents august 2010 hear[here?] .

As you’ve not heard  from June Won Lee Apple Apple told Samsung it infringed.

[Here an objection was made and overruled by Judge Koh].

Apple asked Samsung to stop. As I said to you critical moment in time. It could have stopped it could have innovated on it’s own or chosen an alternative. This is the alternative – was after they were asked to stop infringing – after we sued Samsung they decided to purchase patent – they selected two old patents and Samsung chose those patent for a reason and evidence makes clear just why. Samsung has 2nd most patent received for a given year. As we told you you will not see one of those patents. Not seen single Samsung patent or single Samsung engineer. Single result Samsung. Reason as we said – reason is Apple has been innovator in this field not Samsung – has been fast follower. Don’t have to take my word for it. This is # Samsung about itself. Fast follower. Pendleton said under examination. Mr. Pendleton admitted just this. Question fast follow – quickly follow. It’s correct. Samsung fast follower – yes. Called yes. (“called”). Second reason Pendleton gave same answer.

Would not license for pennies – Samsung’s own work near field 35 cents unit it wouldn’ t say it couldn’t say. Mr. Pendleton told you. Samsung purchased selected 2 older patents claim patents not worth much. Effort ?? evidence iPhone iPod touch different technology. Garcia and Millet came and appeared – described investment time and effort to develop these two technologies there is not a shred of evidence patent was copied, technology copied,  products copied. I should say parenthetically. File issue in meantime [at this point an objection was made and overruled].

The evidence has revealed Samsung ?? damages total just over 6M lets start with 449′ remember he told you 250K paid does it make sense to you would pay to an expert to pursue 168K claim? It makes only sense to convince folks like you patents not worth anything. 4 Schoenfield and Rao more total over $5 million. Again without lawyer to pursue 6 million? Only makes sense if one’s purpose is to devalue patents. Intentional strategy as Dr. Pearl testified. He used 99 cent upgrade. But on cross agreed actual value many times higher. Why would you use an artificially low umber  Only one reason. Devalue cheapen ??  patent not worth much. This strategy not in isolation. Price told you opening important to look what was going on December 2011 what else was Samsung doing?

Let me show you have seen and had it described Dale ?Soehn? – exactly time purchase. On October 4, 2001..

[At this point there was an objection which Judge Koh overruled – Judge Koh threatened to give Apple an additional 4 minutes because John Quinn had gone four minutes over – if Samsung kept objecting.]

On October 4 ?? continues to avoid Apple 2011 – right in middle. Three days later they changed their mind. Three days later this is our best opportunity – attack. Not my word their. What’s changed? Email tells you  First tell you October 4 launched  successful tells you explicitly Jobs died. Here is what email 3 days later said – we are going to attack aggressive and this spending millions on patents that don’t have much value – part of plan. Turn quickly – patent – you’ll actually be able to see if you’ll – Peralsky Shoenfeld they testified fundamental and revolutionary – Samsung characterized fundamental revolutionary even though never heard of it before they went never heard of inventors before – Samsung characterize fundamental and revolutionary even though could not provide single modern day product to use these inventions – characterized as  fundamental  and revolutionary even though no evidence that anybody copied – copied product or copied technology. Then they say Apple’s patent is trivial and narrow.

I’ll ask you same question they ask you. Does that make sense? Now the 239′ – first of two patents it is now 20 years old –  I would not disagree does not mean no damages. This is as Mr. McElhinny said, important. It is so important to look at what they did rather than what they say they could have done. What happened 15 years prior. Did ?? ever suggest to ??? h?? once suggest infringing? There is a reason patent it covers a very specific implementation of technolgy you don’ t need today. You may recall Schoenfeld I crossed – yes or no in patent. Trouble getting there. Because patent gives you . Analog video or old analog phones – video came – it has figure in patent tells you everything you need to know that figure 1 describes remote unit does not record pictures that has been recorded elsewhere and then and only then does it do something with it. You saw the inventors .. now I am not suggesting to apple iPhone but it tells you a lot about – it was designed in 90, weighs 28 pounds android videoe cameras say right in brochure VHS, Beta 8mm this is the only product that practices. Other than accusing products has not identified a single other product that used this invention. Did they show you single Samsung invention they call it fundamental they didn’t tell you why because technology has moved forward and Dr. ?? claim .

Put on screen claim 15 focus on Johnson – never use ?closing? video capture model that confirmed in ?? your honor explained you are to use plain ordinary meaning in 1994. What was plain ordinary meaning? What was video capture module? The patent and evidence tell it was a ??? snap on video card and installed on computer?? ??? ?? Dr. Store even Garcia’s college roommate used it. These specifications are not random these are put on original app. This is what they wrote. Described video capture module type of hardware card installed on computer. Patent tells Dr store told you as well. iPhone don’ have one don’t need. We take digital video. We have take???????

that is why apple capture video and they never use word video capture model simple reason we don’t have it.

Dr. Schoenfoeld Dr Schore both look at ?? has every to last screw. There is no video capture module – why? Because records video we don’t capture from somebody else. I have to say this to guide you in your deliberations – means for transmission – when you look at final 27 you will see this claim special – they have to show the specific structure they described 20 years ago in our product that is what your instruction says – they can’t do it. Because there are no -we don’t need them there are no modems outside phone we don’t need them . The specific thing ?honor? we don’t need them.

??? Dr. Store qualifications. Data compression decompression . Peralski store – two of them compression decompression store but you don’t have to take my word when NASA needed to someone for data decompression  and compression who did they go to – Dr. Storer. Now Dr. Storer -there are five separate reasons modern day Facetime and iPhone does not use – i am not going to go through 5 i am going to do 2. First requirement of a ??????  ???? – patent says Peralski says in trial testimony exactly. You can’ t put all pictures all at once technology won’t allow have list and search mode and that is what show 4 and 7 and Dr. Storer also explained single compressor compression technique still overlapping? – today they are different completely different dsc 225 jus? you will see three different ?? ?? three different suppliers don’t get close they are different reason. ?Moen? ?tehc? need to be different can be 20 year old. Johnson said he agree some components came from Samsung . Imporant reasons. – selling us billions of components and then they sued and they now claim infringing this patent they purchased by using the component they sold us. They want 6 million they sold to us. Now its important  – second reason here is what it is. It is not ??? infringement. He is right. It is is not defense if you ??? It applies to our purchase of component –  Google software. If you are person use it.

Now here is the most important thing about damage claim. You’ve heard Mr. Quinn attack Hauser – dishonest sham. What does Samsung do when it’s turn to remember shoe on foot. Did they do Erdom eye tracking? No. Did they do Chevalier line counting to prove damage? No. Did they do Wagner conjoint? No.

Instead, Rao eight minute presented survey maximum difference like ?Urbn? like Erdem like ?? never us. Showed you survey sheet describe data point that’s enough. When yu retire jury when you consider attack Hauser ask yourself this. If Dr. Rao enough – if Rao enough how can it possibly Hauser not be enough? Remember last cross –  Rao did ? anybody ask you to perform a maximum diff[eerence? erential?] a conjoint any other that would have shown Apple feature – as answer – no nobody – one reason is that they did not want to know the answer. Before I sit down I want to thank you – all of us careful time burden upon you and families. On behalf of Mr. McElhinny and all our colleagues and apple ?floid? .

Now I am going to ask you last that’s this before you retire – continue deliberations put yourself design Christie, Garcia, Mellet, etc… ladies and gentleman came to work before sun came up and left after sun went down [at this point an objection was made – a direct challenge- which was overruled].

Tirelessly Garcia – Facetime others iPhone iPod touch these are people innovated fundamentally changed the way communicate. These five underwent cross exam. Now your one of those people and you’ve heard Samsung say patents are revolutionary patents none used none had heard of before no evidence – but your work trivial unimportant. Does not make sense to you. You say to yourself Garcia Millet how can that be that our work trivial unimportant but these patent nobody using fundamental. Common sense tells you – we would all agree global economy innovation – we depend upon patents issued by the PTO under our Constitution. We depend upon fair and square competition. We depend upon others – Denison not unfair. Most of all we depend upon people like you recognize the difference between fair and square competition and unfair competition – unfair competition – infringement – do not allow that to happen – that is what we ask you to do now here.

 

Judge Koh announced it was 2:46. An oath was issued to the security officer. They went through accpeting verdict forms and carts of binders.

 

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