In a filing on Wednesday, Apple made the case that it shouldn’t have to wait to collect on the $600 million in damages that the judge upheld. Judge Lucy Koh had encouraged both sides to exhaust any appeals before returning to discuss the damages issues.

“Apple takes seriously the Court’s encouragement, but after careful analysis, Apple believes that until the damages retrial is held and supplemental damages are decided, appellate review of the March 1 Order will not be obtainable,” Apple wrote in its court papers.

Plus, Apple said, “Samsung benefits enormously from any delay, even delay resulting from a failed attempt at an immediate appeal.”

“Samsung must now pay $600 million, and it faces the prospect that it will be liable for hundreds of millions more following a new trial,” Apple wrote. “Moreover, despite the jury’s verdict and Samsung’s representations to the Court that an injunction was unnecessary because Samsung was discontinuing all infringing products and implementing design-arounds, Samsung continues to sell the same and additional infringing products without making any payment to Apple. Every day that a final judgment is deferred, Samsung benefits.”

Samsung not only opposes the request, but in paperwork filed on Thursday, the company asked for more than its allotted five pages because of the substantive issues raised in Apple’s motion.

“Samsung respectfully submits that Apple’s motion, which involves fundamental questions involving the scope and timing of any new trial, is not a proper use of the rule governing Motions for Administrative Relief, which may address ‘miscellaneous administrative matters,’” Samsung said in its filing on Thursday. “Samsung respectfully requests that it be allotted 10 pages for response.”

The ball is now back in Koh’s court to see just what sort of filings and hearings will be allowed.

The Joy of Tech

That’s what U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had to say last month about a second patent suit Apple had brought against Samsung. Now, less than a month later, she appears to have reconsidered her position — with a caveat or two.

Late Friday, Koh ruled that Apple’s second suit against Samsung — this one involving alleged infringement of a group of patents, including one related to the company’s Siri voice search technology — can move forward.

Evidently, Koh decided there’s little to gain by postponing Apple’s second suit against Samsung until an appeals court renders a decision on the first. What she did decide was that the case would benefit from a little streamlining. In her ruling, Koh told both companies to “significantly” reduce the scope of the case by trimming down its claims and expert witness testimony.

Welcome news for Apple, which had been pushing aggressively for the case to proceed, arguing that postponing it was injurious to its business. “This case must proceed now in order to stop the ongoing sales — and relentless launch — of Samsung’s latest infringing devices, which have caused, and every day continue to cause, continuing harm to Apple,” the company said in its argument against postponement.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in March of 2014.

Judge Lucy Koh ordered a new trial to determine damages for certain of the products in the case, a move that affects $450 million of the jury’s $1.05 billion award.

“Because the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the
jury, the Court hereby orders a new trial on damages for the following products: Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform,” Koh wrote in her ruling.

The move means that, unless a settlement is reached, a new trial will have to be held to figure out what Samsung owes Apple for infringement of those products, as opposed to the $450 million awarded by the initial jury in the case. The judge did not throw out the ruling those products infringed, but rather disagreed with how the jury calculated the amount of damages.

Koh left intact the ruling and damages on 14 other products, upholding nearly $600 million in damages.

An Apple representative declined to comment. A Samsung representative was not immediately available for comment.

Update: In a statement, Samsung praised Koh’s move to toss out part of the verdict.

“Samsung intends to seek further review as to the remaining award,” the company said. “We are also pleased that the court earlier found that Samsung had not acted willfully, denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction, and denied Apple’s motion for increased damages.”

Here’s the full ruling:

Judge Koh Orders New Trial for Some Damages in Apple-Samsung by Ina Turpen Fried

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Thursday said it would stand by an October decision rejecting Cupertino’s demands for a ban on the Nexus ahead of a March 2014 intellectual property infringement trial.

The appeals court’s decision is a clear win for Samsung, which can now keep its products on store shelves in the crucial U.S. market while it slugs it out with Apple in the pair’s smartphone-IP Hundred Years War.

News of the decision follows Judge Lucy Koh’s finding this week that Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple patents, and her denial of Samsung’s motion for a new trial in the $1 billion verdict issued against it last August.

Judge Lucy Koh said that the jury’s $1 billion verdict was supported by the evidence, adding that “the trial was fairly conducted, with uniform time limits and rules of evidence applied to both sides.”

“A new trial,” Koh wrote in the ruling, “would be contrary to the interests of justice.”

Both sides are likely to appeal various parts of the verdict, with some appeals in the case already filed.

For those who want to read the whole ruling, The Verge has posted a PDF.

Lucy Koh, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the companies’ battle, this week ruled that Samsung cannot seal an exhibit describing total unit sales of some of its products.

“[The exhibit at issue] contains no information about pricing or profits; it only lists the number of units sold in each of several recent months,” Koh wrote. “Samsung has not asked the Federal Circuit to rule on whether sales figures that do not reveal anything about revenue and pricing can be sealed, and this Court has concluded that such data may not be sealed.”

So it looks like that sales data is going to be made public at some point. And while it’s not clear exactly what devices it’s for, it’s likely to be interesting. Certainly, the mere fact that Samsung is fighting so hard to keep the data out of the public eye makes it more than a little intriguing.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple’s request on the grounds that Apple had failed to prove the infringing products harmed iPhone sales enough. She also said the Cupertino, Calif., company failed to prove that the features the jury found Samsung infringed — including some that covered the appearance and design of Apple mobile devices — were enough of a reason consumers bought Apple devices to warrant banning the Samsung ones.

In a separate filing, the judge also denied Samsung’s request to seek a new trial.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Samsung will be seeking to get a new trial and to have the award reduced, while Apple will be looking to have the damages heightened and to see injunctions imposed against various Samsung products found to infringe Apple products.

While such procedural motions often follow large damage awards, Thursday’s hearing is shaping up to be a doozy. Here are three things in particular worth watching for:

1. Will any of Samsung’s arguments for a new trial catch on?
Samsung is arguing, among other things, that the jury foreman’s failure to mention a past lawsuit amounts to jury misconduct and should be grounds for a new trial.

Even if Judge Lucy Koh rejects Samsung’s motions, the company will also be making many of these arguments in its inevitable appeal.

2. What will happen to the damage award?
Koh could leave the judgment unchanged. She could also reduce it, finding that the jury used the wrong calculations. And she could increase it up to threefold, finding that Samsung’s infringement was willful.

3. Will the judge order a sales ban on any Samsung products?
Apple is seeking permanent injunctions on a variety of Samsung products, probably the most important of which is the Galaxy S II, which is still sold in volume at many carriers. Samsung doesn’t feel any injunctions are warranted. Even if a permanent injunction is granted, Samsung believes it has workarounds that should allow sales of its products to continue.

4. What will be revealed about Apple’s recent pact with HTC?
After getting its outside lawyers a peek at the deal, Samsung has sought to have the document entered into the case. Though Apple and HTC might prefer to keep the document sealed entirely, Judge Koh has indicated that the only parts that can be kept secret are the royalty rates and other pricing terms, but not other issues including the patents that have been licensed.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Thursday denied Apple’s request to seal many of the documents the company used to make its damages case, ordering it to release key financial information regarding “product-specific unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin, and cost data.” Koh argues that Apple cannot both use its financial data to seek multibillion dollar damages and product injunctions, and keep that data secret.

“Apple’s motion seeks to permanently enjoin the sale of 26 Samsung products that have already been on the market for varying lengths of time, and seeks an enhancement of $535 million on top of the $1.05 billion in damages awarded by the jury,” Koh said in her ruling. “Such remedies would have a profound effect on the smartphone industry, consumers, and the public. As the extensive media coverage indicates, this is a truly extraordinary case of exceptional interest to the public. Apple’s reasons would have to be very compelling indeed to overcome the unsually robust public interest in access.”

And, in Koh’s opinion, they’re simply not. Apple’s main argument for protecting this data is that they are trade secrets that would provide its rivals with a competitive advantage. But evidently that’s not reason enough. And while Koh agreed to a temporary stay, pending federal court appeal, Apple may soon find itself forced to reveal important sales data that it has long kept private. A blow to the company, but great news for investors and analysts that have long guessed at what it might be.

The move, which was expected, comes just one business day after a jury found Samsung liable of infringing on a number of Apple’s protected designs and features, and awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages.

As noted by FOSS Patents, Apple is seeking an injunction on at least eight of the products that the jury found to infringe on one or another of Apple’s intellectual property holdings. The phones include several flavors of the popular Galaxy S II, as well as the Verizon Droid Charge.

Apple also wants a ban on products similar to those in question, a request that could strike even deeper, should the judge extend the injunction to any newer models.

Judge Lucy Koh has set a hearing for next month to deal with a number of matters, including Apple’s requests for injunctions and other penalties, and Samsung’s inevitable request to have the verdict tossed.

Samsung, meanwhile, is aiming to have one existing sales ban overturned — the one that Koh placed in June on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The jury found that the tablet did not infringe on an Apple design patent, so Samsung is seeking to have the ban lifted, and to be compensated by Apple for sales lost while the injunction was in place.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

One of the few things that might be considered a victory for Samsung was the fact that the jury found that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn’t violate an Apple design patent related to the iPad.

Samsung is now hoping that Judge Lucy Koh will overturn an earlier sales ban on its tablet. In June, Koh had issued a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, ruling that Apple was likely to prevail on the design patent infringement claim.

However, with the jury having found differently, Samsung argues the ban should now be reversed — and soon. Its papers call for Koh to demand a speedy reply from Apple and rule quickly on the matter.

Samsung could even get some money from Apple for sales it lost during the time that the injunction was in place.

“The jury found that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 does not infringe the D889 patent,” Samsung said. “Since the purported infringement of the D889 patent was the only basis for the preliminary injunction, the jury’s finding means that Samsung had a right to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 during the period in which the injunction has been in effect. Samsung is therefore entitled to recover damages caused by the improper injunction.”

Of course, the jury did find lots of other types of infringement in its verdict on Friday, meaning that Apple will be seeking injunctions against a variety of other Samsung products. And Samsung is in no rush to have Koh rule on those issues.

At issue in the case: Whether Samsung “slavishly” copied the design of Apple’s iPhone and iPad, and whether Apple infringed a handful of Samsung patents covering mobile communications technology. At stake, upward of $2.5 billion in damages and, to some extent, the future of mobile device industrial design.

First to present closing arguments was Apple, beginning only after a somnolent reading of 109 pages of Byzantine jury instructions by Judge Lucy Koh, who prefaced it by saying, “I need everyone to stay conscious during [this] — including myself.” That was a tall order given the 84 instructions read, which covered everything from the minutiae of patent and antitrust law to a discussion of willful infringement and the dilution of trade dress. But the jury managed to stay awake through all of it thanks to a series of brief breaks during which Koh asked the entire court to stand to “get the blood flowing again.”

Apple’s Closing Argument

Apple attorney Harold McElhinny kicked things off with a chronology. “If you want to find out what really happened, if you want to see the truth, you need to make a chronology,” he said, before running through a now familiar argument. The smartphones Samsung offered between 2004 and 2007 looked nothing like the iPhone. But after Apple launched the device and “shocked the world” with it, Samsung’s smartphones appeared to adopt a similar design.

Faced with a “crisis of design” inspired by the iPhone, said McElhinny, Samsung “copied and emulated” Apple’s designs without taking any of the risks that Apple had taken. “They were copying the worlds most successful product,” McElhinny said. “How do we know that? We know it from Samsung’s own documents. We see how they did it.”

“Samsung’s leadership was bound and determined to cash in on the iPhone’s success,” McElhinny continued, running through a series of internal Samsung documents revealing the company’s discussions of the iPhone and how best to match it. The end result of those talks: The Galaxy S, which did far better at market than Samsung’s earlier post-iPhone smartphones. “Samsung got what it wanted,” McElhinny said. “Its smartphone sales, which had been stagnant, suddenly took off when its first iPhone knockoff was introduced into the mix.”

Infuriated by Samsung’s actions, Apple challenged the company. “But instead of doing the right thing, Samsung decided to gin up claims of its own,” McElhinny said. “And that has taken us down the road that has led us to this courthouse.”

And still, he said, Samsung stonewalled.

“No Samsung executives were willing to come here from Korea,” McElhinny noted. “We called some of their top people. … Samsung had a chance to defend itself in this case; instead they sent you lawyers. Instead of witnesses, they brought you lawyers.”

“There is no question that Samsung’s phones are substantially similar in design to the iPhone,” McElhinny said, referring to a key patent infringement test. “And no ordinary observer could detect the difference in their overall appearance. … they sat with the iPhone and copied every detail, feature by feature.”

Next McElhinny attacked Samsung’s arguments that the iPhone’s features are obvious, functional and based on prior art. “There has been a complete failure of proof on that issue,” he said, arguing that Samsung has not supplied evidence that meets the legal standards for obviousness.

“Samsung was the iPhone’s biggest fan,” McElhinny said. “They knew a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn’t, they copied it.”

On the issue of Samsung’s alleged violation of Apple’s trade dress, McElhinny touched on the various documents entered into evidence that suggest Samsung’s devices caused consumer confusion because of their resemblance to Apple’s products. Among them, a Best Buy survey that showed some consumers returned the Galaxy Tab tablets they’d purchased because they mistook them for iPads. “There was real world confusion,” he said, adding that Samsung’s alleged copying of Apple’s designs paved the way for others to do the same. Said McElhinny, “Samsung spent a billion dollars mimicking our designs and holding it out to the world so the Apple design is no longer seen as unique.”

On the utility patents at issue in the case (pinch to zoom, bounce back), McElhinny employed the same argument he used to dispatch Samsung’s claim that the iPhone’s features are obvious: “Again, we have a complete failure of proof.”

“We have demonstrated that Samsung has violated each and every one of our intellectual property rights,” McElhinny said, before moving on to damages.

“Samsung makes fun of our damages claim, but there are two factors driving those damages,” he explained. The first: Samsung has sold 22.7 million infringing handsets to date. The second: Sales of those handsets generated $8.16 billion in revenue for it. “The damages in this case should be large, because the infringement has been massive,” McElhinny said.

He then presented four damages scenarios, ranging in size from $2.48 billion to a minimum of $519 million. Then, with a reminder that the jury must consider whether Samsung acted willfully when it allegedly copied Apple’s IP, McElhinny wrapped up. “Samsung acted with reckless disregard,” he said. “Think about copying documents … Think about that Google meeting.”

Samsung’s Closing Argument

Samsung’s closing argument began with a criticism of Apple’s case and its competitive strategy.

“Apple’s here asking for what it is not entitled to,” Charles Verhoeven said. “It’s here asking you to prevent its largest competitor from giving consumers want they want. … Rather than competing in the marketplace, they are trying to win in the courtroom. … It’s attempting to block its most serious competitor from even playing the game.”

“Your decision, if it goes Apple’s way, could change the way competition works in this country,” Verhoeven said.

The crux of Verhoeven’s argument: The smartphone as we know it today is the product of the same natural design evolution that we saw around the flat-screen TV and other common consumer electronics. Apple’s iPhone design isn’t unique, Verhoeven said. “Guess what, every single smartphone has a rectangular shape with rounded corners and a big screen,” he quipped. “Just walk through Best Buy. … So Apple is here seeking $2 billion in damages for what? That little ornamentation on the screen. It’s amazing, really. Apple thinks it’s entitled to have a monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a touchscreen.”

Verhoeven continued his closing, taking a scalpel to Apple’s argument that Samsung’s products created confusion in the marketplace, asserting that no ordinary observer could possible confuse Apple’s mobile devices with Samsung’s.

“Is anyone really deceived by Samsung’s devices that they were buying Apple devices?” he asked. “There is no deception, no confusion, and Apple has no evidence of it. Consumers make choices, not mistakes. These are expensive products and consumers do a lot of research before they purchase them. There is no deception, no confusion, and Apple has no evidence of it.”

Verhoeven’s next target: Apple’s collection of expert witnesses. One after the other he picked apart their testimony, at one point noting that one of Apple’s witnesses unwittingly bolstered Samsung’s case. Said Verhoeven, “When you have a paid expert on Apple’s side that gives testimony that’s favorable to Samsung, well that’s very credible evidence.”

Throughout his takedown of the design patents Apple believes are key to its case, Verhoeven reiterated the “Apple didn’t invent the rectangle” refrain heard throughout the case. “The only way you’re going to find substantial similarity between these products is if you think having a device with a rectangular screen and rounded corners is unique,” he said.

Building on this idea, Verhoeven spoke about the distinguishing features of Samsung’s devices — the Droid start-up sequence, the size of their screens, their user interface icons, etc. — again arguing that the devices Apple claims mimic its designs are actually very different. “That’s not substantially similar,” he said over and over again, slicing away at a key infringement argument.

Talking about the Galaxy Fascinate UI and the icons that Apple argues Samsung cribbed from it, Verhoeven said, “There are only two icons that Apple’s expert witness said were similar — the phone and the clock. And I would submit that the vast majority of the icons are substantially different. … Let’s not pretend you can patent a colorful row, a colorful matrix of icons.”

And then onto a new tack. Verhoeven took issue with Apple’s characterization of Samsung as a “copyist.”

“What they’re suggesting is that Samsung’s phones looked one way before the iPhone and another way after it,” Verhoeven said. “I submit to you that this is an intentional attempt to mislead the jury.” And with that he displayed a massive chart showing a few dozen Samsung phones. On it were a few phones that boast that same rounded rectangle design seen on the iPhone — phones that Apple did not include while making its case. “They’re intentionally ignoring an entire category of phones,” Verhoeven said. “This is a shell game. They’re pretending these phones never existed.”

Rather than rely on the testimony of Samsung’s own witnesses to make his case, Verhoeven spent much of his closing argument working to discredit Apple’s witnesses and suggest that the iPhone maker’s own case includes quite a bit of misdirection.

“Counsel for Apple is trying to mislead you,” Verhoeven said to the jury. “There is no bad intent. There is no copying. … Samsung is a good corporate citizen. All it wants to do is make products that consumers want. … All this copying evidence is hand-waving by Apple. Why? Because they don’t have anything else.”

As the allotted time to make his closing argument began to run out, Verhoeven quickly reviewed a number of patents at issue in the case, asserting again and again that Apple did not meet the burden of proof to support infringement.

He then moved on to Samsung’s own infringement claims against Apple. Because time was short, Verhoeven was forced to do a simple refresher on evidence already presented before moving on to the issue of damages. “We don’t think we should pay any damages,” Verhoeven said. “We don’t think we’re liable.”

And more to the point, Apple’s damages number is “ridiculous.”

“$2.75 billion,” Verhoeven continued. “Really?” Then, after reminding the jury that Apple’s damages expert was paid $1.75 million to come up with that estimate, he pointed out that the expert failed to deduct advertising and R&D costs from his report, something Samsung believes he should have done.

Verhoeven closed with a last shot at Apple’s damages claim.

“Apple’s damages numbers are not reasonable,” he said. “Apple didn’t invent touchscreen. Apple didn’t invent the rectangular smartphone with rounded corners. And the intellectual property it is asserting in this case is not worth the money Apple is asking for.”

Rebuttals

Verhoeven’s closing argument was rebutted by Apple attorney William Lee, who upbraided his rival for the tenor of his closing. “There’s a saying among attorneys,” Lee said. “If you have the facts, stand by the facts. If you don’t, attack your rival’s clients, attack their witnesses and attack their lawyers. And that’s what Samsung has done.”

Contrary to what Verhoeven argued, said Lee, Apple isn’t trying to stifle competition. “We’re just saying, compete on your own innovations,” he explained. “We have to protect our investment in these innovations. Because if we don’t, we won’t have people like Apple spending five years in a room coming up with a device that revolutionizes the mobile phone. … Apple took five years to bring this revolution to us, Samsung took three months to copy it. That’s truth, and that’s simple, clear, and undisputed. … Samsung copied our products, and they made $8 billion dollars doing it. What they’re saying to you is this: we don’t want to pay.”

Lee continued, rebutting Verhoeven’s argument that Apple’s patents are obvious and/or invalid, with a particularly brutal takedown. “The difference between the Apple patents that Samsung has taken two hours to belittle today and Samsung’s patents is this,” Lee said. “The Apple products that make use of those Apple patents are commercially successful and have been universally praised and copied. The Samsung products that make use of the Samsung patents at issue in this case haven’t been praised or copied by anyone.”

“Competition and innovation in this field has been accomplished by real innovators and scientists, not lawyers,” Lee said by way of conclusion. “Apple wants to compete fairly and squarely. Taking someone else’s intellectual property as Samsung did is not fair and square.”

Verhoeven returned to the floor for a 14 minute rebuttal of Lee’s arguments focusing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing issues — an odd choice of topic on which to run out the clock, considering its complexity. He concluded with this appeal: “Let’s let the innovators compete. And let’s allow Samsung to compete in the marketplace without Apple trying to stop it in the courtroom.”

Jury deliberations in the case will begin at 9 AM PT Wednesday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Image by Joy of Tech

Ahead of the jury deliberations that will begin this week, Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the case, agreed not to tell jurors that Samsung failed to preserve evidence that may have been helpful to Apple, effectively tossing the Adverse Inference Jury Instruction the iPhone maker had won from a magistrate judge earlier this summer.

The reason? Apple and Samsung asked her to.

Late last week, Samsung managed to convince Koh that Apple may not have complied with its obligation to preserve relevant evidence, either. So Koh on Sunday overruled the magistrate’s order and replaced it with a new one, ruling that the jury should be told that Apple and Samsung are equally guilty of so-called “evidence spoliation.”

Rather than see that happen, and the integrity of both companies impugned in court, Apple and Samsung proposed that Koh refrain from giving the jury any Adverse Inference instruction at all. And she agreed. No need to burden the jury with dueling instructions that cancel one another out — particularly when they have so much material to wade through already.

Though not a huge win for Samsung, the scrapping of the Adverse Inference instruction is still a victory for the company. It now heads into closing arguments and jury deliberation without that specter of evidence-tampering hovering around it, as does Apple.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Their ultimate fate: Trudging through a document dump of the worst kind — one for a patent trial.

There are, of course, two lawsuits in question — Apple’s suit against Samsung and Samsung’s countersuit against Apple — so the jury will have to review both companies’ claims for merit. That means sorting through the 20-odd Samsung-manufactured cellphones and tablets and checking off whether each violates one of the handful of patents in question. It also means deliberating on damages award amounts, should either side score a victory.

Each side has their own version of what document the jury should receive, and they’re spending most of Monday afternoon arguing the finer points of the document that will be give to the jury before it starts deliberations later this week. Judge Lucy Koh will make the final decision on the content and on Monday afternoon filed another version of the verdict form for both sides to take a look at. Aside from the form, jurors will also get upward of 100 more pages of instruction documents.

Such is the case for gnarly technology-based patent lawsuits, especially those that cover multiple devices and potential violations. Plainly speaking, it’s complicated.

Remember, for either party to be found in violation of a specific patent, the jurors are required to rule unanimously. And with so many options to sift through, it’s not a sure bet on whether the jury can agree on any potential violation in full.

Here’s the tentative verdict form. Below it are the proposed forms submitted by Apple and Samsung.

Tentative_Verdict_Form –

103353251-1825-1 –

103353272-1825-2 –

But let’s be clear. There has also been a lot of downtime. As a result, there has been quite an opportunity for those in the court to familiarize themselves with both their surroundings and the main voices in the trial.

The Setting
All the action is taking place on the top floor of the Robert Peckham Federal Building and Courthouse, a drab five-story building in downtown San Jose.

Though known as the “ceremonial courtroom,” and larger than Judge Lucy Koh’s normal digs, Courtroom 5080 is nothing special. It’s filled with wood and paneling in various shades of brown, along with well-worn carpeting, also of the brown persuasion. Another sign of its age — aside from the decor — is the broken microphone that prevented the judge from easily conferring with lawyers outside the jury’s earshot.

Just beyond the area for the court reporter and other of Koh’s staff sit the large wood tables so packed with lawyers that the opposing sides are practically touching one another. At one point in the trial, there weren’t enough flash drives for both sides to have one. Judge Koh suggested the two sides could push their tables together and share. Apple lawyer Bill Lee said it was fine to leave the drive on Samsung’s table.

“I think we are close enough already,” Lee said.

Behind the main tables are a second row of smaller metal tables for a second group of lawyers. Given the fact that lawyers still outnumber available chairs, it is common to see a changing of the guard as one witness steps down and another takes the stand. For football fans, it looks kind of like when the offense leaves the field and the kicking team comes on after a failed third-down conversion.

The Judge
The most prominent figure in the case is Lucy Koh, the federal judge presiding over the case. A 2010 appointee of President Obama, Koh is a former intellectual property attorney herself, and knows all the tricks. She’s a stickler for deadlines and the clock, putting both sides on a tight schedule, with just 25 hours each to make their case to the jury.

Throughout the trial, Koh has shown an incredible attention to detail, keeping detailed notes on exactly which promises are made and which items are due when. Koh has also displayed remarkable recall, frequently proving to have a better memory of witness testimony than any of the lawyers.

Patient only to a point, Koh has lost her cool on a number of occasions, most often due to a barrage of filings from one side or the other.

The first notable outburst came on the opening day of the case, as a Samsung lawyer literally begged Koh to allow in some late-disclosed evidence relating to phones that Samsung had in development before the iPhone. After his begging failed to elciit a reversal, Quinn made a further motion for reconsideration.

“You’ve made your record for appeal,” Koh said. “Don’t make me sanction you, please.”

Later that morning, Samsung issued a press release commenting on some of the information that Koh had excluded, suggesting that “fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.” That infuriated Koh, who demanded to know who authorized the release.

There were other temper flares from Koh. Most famously, she asked Apple’s lawyers if they were smoking crack when they planned a long list of witnesses for the short amount of trial time they had remaining. Koh also lashed out at Samsung for poor management of their time, saying it was the company’s own choice to use more than half its time cross-examining Apple witnesses rather than building its own case.

But Koh has also been the voice of reason at times, urging both sides to either narrow their case or else to consider settling.

“I see risk here for both sides if we go to a verdict,” Koh said late in the trial.

The Many Lawyers
While in-house lawyers are present for both companies, all the speaking parts are handled by the companies’ outside lawyers. And, man, are there a lot of them. Apple is represented by two firms — Morrison Foerster and WilmerHale. Samsung is represented by Quinn Emanuel.

While there are dozens of lawyers of record for each side, most of the arguing and questioning of witnesses is handled by just a couple of attorneys per side.

For Apple, the lead counsel is Harold McElhinny, who projects a balance of folksy charm and technical sophistication. Among his trial credits is leading a case where a jury found Samsung guilty of willfully infringing a Pioneer patent, awarding the company more than $59 million in damages. During the earlier part of his career, McElhinny was also part of a team that represented Fujitsu in a major copyright case with IBM.

On some of the patent issues, Bill Lee of WilmerHale is on point.

Bill Lee

The middle-aged, mild-mannered Bostoner is the one who replied that he was not using crack, when Koh suggested Apple’s lawyers were high if they thought they could call all of their witnesses in the time they had remaining.

Rachel Krevans brings two decades of patent knowledge to her questions, able to make the most of just a few minutes of questioning of a witness.

Samsung is most often represented by Quinn Emanuel partner Charles Verhoeven, a fast-paced trial lawyer.

Hard-charging Tom Quinn has been heard from less often, but has had some notable clashes with Judge Koh, in some cases drawing her ire after only having spoken a handful of words.

Quinn Emanuel partner Victoria Maroulis has been the Samsung lawyer most likely to pop up when the judge needs the legal basis for a motion or other quick answer.

A dead ringer for “Lost” star Titus Welliver, salt-and-pepper-haired Kevin P.B. Johnson took a no-nonsense approach in his questioning and cross-examination of several witnesses.

Actor Titus Welliver (but it is also a darn good likeness of Samsung lawyer Kevin P.B. Johnson)

The Jury
After a full day of jury selection, seven men and three women were chosen to hear the case of Apple versus Samsung. However, on the first day of trial, one woman asked to be excused, noting that she hadn’t fully appreciated just how long things would run.

That leaves nine people to decide the multibillion-dollar case. To find infringement on any of the counts, all members of the jury must agree on that matter. It’s an eclectic group, including a 35-year hard-drive industry veteran, a bicycle-store manager and a youthful videogame enthusiast with a penchant for wearing rock-band T-shirts.

The Star Witnesses
Apple’s case began with a bang, as iOS chief Scott Forstall, top marketing exec Phil Schiller and designer Christopher Stringer all told tales of the iPhone’s early days, or “project purple,” as it was initially known. Stringer even took the jury inside Apple’s design studio, explaining the kitchen table around which Apple designs virtually all of its products.

Several Samsung executives also testified, though none really spilled any secrets or told any captivating stories. The most impressive was Jeeyuen Wang, a young woman on Samsung’s design team, who told of the long hours she spent creating icons for the Galaxy, shortly after giving birth.

“I slept perhaps two hours or three hours a night,” she said. “That was about it.”

Wang recalled how she couldn’t breastfeed regularly because of the heavy workload.

“Those were difficult times,” she said.

The Experts
Most of both sides’ cases consisted of expert testimony. For every patent at issue, it seemed, there was another highly paid professional or academic to take the stand. Most had racked up hundreds of hours in bills, with rates ranging from a low of $250 per hour to a high of $1,000 an hour.

“I’d estimate that Apple and Samsung collectively spent more on experts than is normally spent on lawyers in the average mid-sized patent case,” said Santa Clara University Professor Brian J. Love.

The verdict hinges, in significant part, on which set of experts the jury finds most credible.

The Supporting Cast
Judge Koh is assisted by a small “ragtag” bunch — her words. They include her usual staff, as well as a few borrowed hands. Despite the help, and long, long hours, Koh has frequently complained that Apple and Samsung are drowning the staff in paperwork.

Most frequently heard from among the staff has been the court reporter, Lee-Anne Shortridge. Despite the barrage of technical jargon and acronym soup, not to mention some fast talkers and soft speakers, only a few times a day does Shortridge have to ask a witness to repeat an answer.

Each day, there is room in the courtroom about two dozen press and a roughly similar number of members of the public. There is also an overflow room for additional reporters and trial watchers. Two different courtrooms, also on the fifth floor, have alternately served as the overflow room.

The “public” section actually consists of rather few ordinary Janes and Joes. Many of the seats each day are taken up by lawyers for other tech companies with peripheral ties to the case, including companies such as Research In Motion and Intel, that have been seeking to avoid having their secrets spilled.

One of the few regulars not representing any outside entity is Deborah Burns, a recent law school grad and self-professed Silicon Valley bystander. Arriving early each day to get a seat, Burns said that the trial is giving her a chance to view theory turned into reality.

“Where else would you better see what you’ve studied?” she said.

The press section is composed largely of a group of regulars who have been there throughout the trial, including reporters from Forbes, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, the San Jose Mercury News, CNET, several legal publications, and assorted others, along with — of course, AllThingsD.

Another seat is reserved for the courtroom sketch artist, whose images have been carried by Reuters. Her work is especially valuable in federal court, where cameras are generally not allowed. Both photography and audio recording are verboten in the San Jose courthouse.

Like all good Broadway shows, the current production of Apple versus. Samsung must come to an end. Final arguments over jury instructions are scheduled for Monday, with closing arguments slated for Tuesday. But if you missed this trial, there are dozens of similar cases winding their way through court dockets across the globe. Plus, regardless of which way the jury goes, there’s a good chance that some of the same players will reprise their roles in front of an appeals court.

After roughly fifty hours of testimony, hundreds of exhibits and millions of dollars worth of expert opinions, both Apple and Samsung have rested their case in their mega patent suit against one another.

“We are done,” Judge Lucy Koh said as Apple lawyer Bill Lee ended his cross-examination of Samsung’s last rebuttal witness.

Testimony ended with a rapid-fire succession of witnesses as both Apple and Samsung raced against the clock. Koh limited each side to 25 hours of testimony before the jury.

The two sides still have to finalize the instructions that will be given to the seven men and two women who will decide the case. Each side will also be able to deliver two hours of closing arguments on Tuesday before the jury starts its deliberation.

Apple has sued Samsung for violating several patents as well as infringing on several protected design elements, known as “trade dress.” Samsung denies those charges and has countersued Apple for infringing on three feature patents as well as some core wireless patents.

The jury will have to unanimously agree that a particular patent is valid and infringed by a particular device in order for a finding of infringement. There are dozens of different phones and tablets at issue in the case, in addition to the many patents.

Judge Koh has pushed both sides to consider narrowing their case against one another, even suggesting some “horse trading” could be in order.

Things had grown increasingly testy, particularly outside the jury’s presence, as the trial drew to a close.

Samsung, in particular, has been tight on time for several days. Judge Koh warned Samsung on Thursday that she wouldn’t be entertaining a motion that it didn’t have enough time to make its case. Samsung, she said, chose to use more than half its time questioning Apple’s witnesses.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Samsung is alleging that Apple infringed on two kinds of patents, some feature related and others related to wireless standards.

On those patents, Apple is alleging both that the company had a duty to disclose the technology rights before the 3GPP standard was adopted and that Samsung had a commitment to license any such intellectual property on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

The company called Michael Walker, a former chairman of ETSI, the European standards body that ultimately adopted the 3GPP standard.

Walker testified on Friday that Samsung didn’t provide timely disclosure of the standards-related patents it now is accusing Apple of infringing.

Samsung is arguing, in part, that it didn’t have a duty to disclose its intellectual property because it was confidential. Apple argued that Samsung didn’t treat the information as confidential before ETSI.

Apple is also making the case that Samsung hasn’t offered fair and reasonable terms.

Ahead of the trial, Samsung sought 2.4 percent of the cost of an iPhone or iPad to license its standards-related patents. In court, Samsung’s expert said the Korean company is entitled to 2 percent to 2.75 percent of iPhone sales if the jury finds that Apple infringed on either or both of the two standards-related patents in the case.

For its part, Apple called Richard Donaldson, a former Texas Instruments patent lawyer, who testified that Samsung’s demands were neither fair nor reasonable. Donaldson disagreed with both the percentage Samsung sought as well as the fact that it was seeking that percentage for the entire sales price of the iPhone.

He also noted that were others with UMTS-related patents to seek same amount as Sasmung, patent licenses would add up to more than half of the cost of an iPhone.

Just before lunch, Apple played deposition testimony from Seung-Ho Ahn, in which the Samsung top licensing official said he had not familiarized himself with requirements of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing nor did he know of any steps taken to ensure that Samsung meets any FRAND obligations.

Both sides are running short on time, given the strict 25 hours that Judge Lucy Koh has given each side to make their case.

As of 10:45 am, Apple had only about two and a half hours of time remaining to make its case before the jury. Samsung has just more than half an hour after using more than half its time cross-examining Apple witnesses in the early part of the case.

Given that, testimony in the case should end later on Friday. The jury is likely to get Monday off while the lawyers and Koh haggle over the final legal instructions that will be read to the jury.

On Tuesday, the jury will hear closing arguments — two hours per side — as well as the final jury instructions before beginning their deliberations.

Update 1:28 p.m.: Now on the stand is Janusz Ordover, an NYU economics professor and former assistant Attorney General in the antitrust division. He’s talking about the economic benefits and downsides of standards. One of the downsides, Ordover said, is that the owner of technology that becomes a standard can hold-up others that adopt the standard.

1:44 p.m.: Ordover says that Samsung has basically gotten monopoly power with its technology having been adopted as a standard.

2:24 p.m.: We’re in rerun season, with Apple calling back two of its earlier experts–Peter Bressler and Karan Singh–to rebut Samsung’s expert witness testimony. Bressler argued that the Fidler mock-up and Compaq tablet don’t invalidate Apple’s trade dress. Nor does he see the LG Prada and various Japanese and Korean patents as invalidating the iPhone-related trade dress.

Singh, meanwhile, took issue with the examples Samsung used to make its case that the tap-to-zoom and center patent was invalid. The LaunchTile program, Singh said doesn’t actually enlarge anything but rather launches related content.

With respect to Apple’s scrolling-versus-zooming patent, Singh took issue with Samsung’s use of the Mitsubishi DiamondTouch as an example of prior art.

Apple’s remaining two scheduled experts (if they have time for them) are also repeats–patent expert Ravin Balakrishnan and Terry Musika, Apple’s damages expert.

2:39 p.m.: Balakrishnan back on stand to talk about the bounce-back patent and rebut Van Dam’s testimony that the Tablecloth app on DiamondTouch represents prior art that would invalidate Apple’s patent.

He talks about some ways that both LaunchTile and DiamondTouch are doing things differently than is spelled out in Apple’s patent.

Samsung has 20 minutes remaining while Apple is now down to 16 minutes. “Six more witnesses,” jokes Apple attorney Harold McElhinny, eliciting a laugh from Judge Koh and others.

3:10 p.m.: Apple rests its case following the afternoon break. Samsung’s first witness is David Teece, who is testifying as to whether Samsung’s disclosure of its patents was timely. Teece shows a study he did showing various lengths of time from months to years from other companies.

Teece also testified that he believed that Samsung’s FRAND offer was reasonable and noted that Samsung also offered to engage in cross-license agreements with Apple. Teece also took issue with Apple’s antitrust arguments saying that the company had not established a monopoly.

3:28 p.m.: Both sides have six minutes left. Samsung is calling its last witness Woodward Yang.

3:34 p.m.: Samsung wraps up its questioning of Yang just as time expires. Apple lawyer Bill Lee now has six minutes to either cross-examine Yang or take a hit off the crack pipe.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Judge Lucy Koh said, outside the presence of the jury, that Samsung chose to use the bulk of its time questioning Apple witnesses rather than presenting its own case. By the time Apple rested its case, Koh noted that Apple had used 13 hours and 37 minutes of its 25 hours, while Samsung had used 13 hours and 50 minutes of time.

Koh said she would not entertain any motions from Samsung that it lacked time to present its case and entered her statement into the record, should the matter come up on appeal.

“Samsung made a strategic decision to spend more time to [cross-examine] than Apple used to present its affirmative case,” said Koh, who has grown increasingly frustrated with lawyers on both sides.

Samsung had to speed through its final few expert witnesses on Wednesday and, with precious few minutes of jury time left, has also chosen not to cross-examine many of Apple’s rebuttal witnesses.

Apple is finishing up that portion of the case, with the final testimony expected to conclude Friday. The court will finalize jury instructions on Monday, with closing arguments slated for Tuesday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

A big part of Koh’s displeasure focused on the long list of witnesses that Apple said it intends to call in its few remaining hours of time before the jury.

“Unless you are smoking crack you know these witnesses are [not] going to be called,” Koh said, conferring with lawyers before the jury returned from a morning break.

Apple attorney Bill Lee defended Apple’s proposed witness list.

“First, I am not smoking crack, I can promise you that,” Lee said. While a few witnesses might or might not be called, he said the majority would be called and he said Apple had timed their testimony to make sure they would be able to get it all in.

Koh disagreed, quite adamantly, and grew frustrated with the time it was taking to sort out the matter.

“We’re wasting the jury’s time,” she said. “You are being unreasonable.”

In recent days, Koh urged the parties to narrow their case and to again pursue settlement before the case goes to the jury.

Koh called Apple’s proposed witness list unrealistic.

“Come on, come on,” she said. “This is ridiculous.”

Apple said it would even waive some of its objections if needed. “We didn’t mean to burden the court.”

That didn’t appear to curry any favor.

“What are you talking about you don’t want to burden the court,” she said, pointing to 75 pages worth of new objections filed by the parties in the case related to the remaining witnesses.

Update, 11:16 a.m.: Samsung now rushing to get its final experts on the stand to establish the damages it believes it is owed if Apple is found to infringe on Samsung’s patents at issue in the case.

Samsung expert Vincent O’Brien testified that, for the feature patents in question, Samsung would be owed roughly $22.8 million in “reasonable royalties.”

As part of his calculation, O’Brien likened each of the feature patents to an app that someone might download for 99 cents from the App Store. He only gave Samsung a small part of that, with his ultimate royalty ranging around 11 cents to 19 cents per device per feature.

“These are nice features,” he said. “They are desirable features, but they are one of many features on the phone.”

Samsung may also try to use O’Brien’s estimates to show it being reasonable and Apple wanting excessive royalties.

He also based that in part on the fact Apple has paid $1.4 billion in patent royalties to other companies whose patents it has licensed. “These are typical.”

11:27 a.m.: On cross-examination, Apple again pointing out that Samsung doesn’t use some of the patents in its products that it accuses Apple of infringing.

11:40 a.m.: Samsung called another expert, David Teece, to asess how much the company would be owed if the jury finds Apple infringes on the cellular standard-related patents.

Teece calculated that Samsung should be paid between 2 percent and 2.75 percent of net sales on the iPhone and iPad. Based on iPhone sales of $12.23 billion and iPad sales of $2.29 billion in the period in question, Teece estimated a reasonable royalty due Samsung ranging from $290 million to $399 million.

11:49 a.m.: Teece is explaining to the jury how he arrived at that royalty rate, pointing to a bunch of other confidential patent licensing deals. Unfortunately, only the jury gets to see the actual license terms. These are some of the documents that got all the other tech companies hot and bothered — folks like Nokia, RIM, Intel, Microsoft and others.

1:07 p.m.: Back from lunch and Teece is back on the stand for more cross-examination by Apple’s lawyer. Apple gets Teece to agree that no one has ever paid Samsung directly for the standards-related patents Apple is accused of infringing.

1:13 p.m.: Apple’s lawyers get Teece also to agree that he is recommending that Samsung be paid more for the one or two patents at issue, should they be found infringed than the 2.4 percent that Samsung offered to license its full standards-related portfolio of 86 patents.

With that, Samsung rests its case, with a couple minor stipulations

1:16 p.m.: It’s Apple’s turn again. Apple calls Tony Blevins, its vice president of procurement and a 12-year Apple veteran. He oversees getting parts for the iPhone, iPad and iPod lines and supervises some 300 employees.

He’s testifying about the baseband processor, the product that does the functions that is accused of infringing Samsung’s standards-related patents. Apple gets its processors today from Intel and Qualcomm. Historically, Intel was only provider of those chips.

1:24 p.m.: Blevins testifies that Apple pays intel an amount that varies per quarter, but is on the order of $12 per chip. He then shows a few example reciepts.

1:25 p.m.: Next up is former Apple software engineer Emilie Kim. Kim now works at Path after leaving Apple last month. Among her duties at Apple was working on the photos and camera app for iOS.

Kim is describing how the photo and camera apps work, with Apple’s lawyer aiming to draw a contrast between how things are done in iOS and the way they are described in two of the Samsung feature patents that Apple is accused of infringing.

One interesting note here: One of the Samsung patents relates to being in the photo library, taking a photo and then returning to the same photo in the gallery. Apple has Kim show a scenario in iOS where that wouldn’t happen, such as when the device runs low on memory or is restarted.

On cross-examination, though, Kim agrees that under other conditions the user will return to the photo they were looking at.

1:40 p.m.: The parade of witnesses continues with Apple-hired expert Paul Dourish, a UC Irvine professor and former researcher at Apple and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center.

Dourish is on the stand to testify that Apple doesn’t infringe on one of Samsung’s digital image-related patent and that the patent should be declared invalid.

2:14 p.m.:We’re back to super nerdy patent stuff, so sparing the details. Now up is another UC Irvine professor–Tony Givargis–who will testify about the validity of another of the Samsung patents at issue.

As expected, Givargis testifies that the Samsung patent he studied–one that covers background playback of music–is not infringed on by Apple and should also be declared invalid.

2:36 p.m.: As an example of prior art, Givargis shows the Sony Ericsson K700i and demonstrates it playing Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World.”

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

In part, that’s because Samsung and Apple are quite literally running out of time to make their case. The judge in the trial, Lucy Koh, has given each side just 25 hours of time before the jury to make their case. And, in recent days, that has been further limited to also include certain extra legal arguments that either side wants to make.

By the end of the day on Wednesday, Samsung had less than three hours remaining of its time, while Apple had just under seven hours left. Both sides still have a number of live witnesses they would like to call, along with video depositions.

The clock was ticking particularly loudly on Wednesday afternoon as Samsung lawyer Ed DeFranco tried to get Steven Gray to quickly make his arguments that several Apple patents were invalid. At times he cut off his own witness as he sought to speed through the legal arguments.

Lawyers for both sides were often reminding witnesses that they were “on the clock” and frequently sought “yes” or “no” answers, though rarely did the highly paid experts offer such simple responses.

Samsung noted at the end of the day that it was still trying to sort through which of its remaining live and deposition witnesses it had enough time to call. And Apple is only somewhat better off.

Although it has nearly seven hours remaining, it must still make its case that Samsung violated antitrust law in the way it handled its standards-essential patents. Apple has listed 21 witnesses (including those testifying by deposition) that it might want to call. It, too, knows there isn’t that much time.

And there are a lot of issues in this case, not to mention billions of dollars at stake. Apple is accusing roughly two dozen Samsung phones and tablets of infringing various patents and protected designs, while Samsung has counter-sued alleging that Apple products infringe its patents.

Beyond the witnesses that need to be called, time is also running short to settle a number of remaining legal disputes including over what evidence remains under seal and over the final legal instructions and verdict form that will be given to the jury.

At one point, attorneys for Samsung warned that they could have pages and pages of objections if Apple didn’t narrow its witness list.

“Please don’t do this to me,” Koh said. “I’ve cried uncle.”

Koh pleaded with the lawyers yet again to reduce the number of filings in the case.

“There is just a human limit to what a rag tag (group) can do,” she said referring to her own small staff as compared to each side’s “legions of lawyers.”

“I’m trying to do this as expeditiously as humanly possible,” Koh said. As it is, Koh said she has several outstanding motions to deal with along with the 300 pages of disputed jury instructions. She’s hoping to rule on those by Sunday night to allow some time for oral arguments on Monday.

Earlier in the day, Koh urged both sides to make one last attempt at a settlement, arguing that both sides were at risk if the case was left to the jury.

Late-day discussion of the legal matters turned testy with Koh and both lawyers at times growing frustrated.

The jury is expected to start deliberating by next Wednesday, following closing arguments and jury instructions on Tuesday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

“I see risk here for both sides if we go to a verdict,” Judge Lucy Koh said on Wednesday. She said that if the companies were just seeking to show the world they both have intellectual property positions relative to tablets and smartphones, then “message delivered.”

Koh also noted that if what the parties were seeking is an external valuation of their portfolios, they are also getting that from trial courts worldwide.

“It’s time for peace,” she said.

Attorneys for both companies agreed to at least a telephone meeting between the two companies. Executives for both sides have previously met, to no avail, at the court’s direction.

Apple is suing Samsung for infringing on patents and designs related to the iPhone and iPad and seeking more than $2.5 billion in damages. Samsung denies those charges, and has countersued Apple for patent infringement.

Testimony in the case is due to wrap up on Friday or Monday, with closing arguments planned for Tuesday.

That said, there is still a way to go, including testimony on Wednesday that is likely to be some of the most dry and highly technical, as the focus shifts to the Samsung utility patents it accuses Apple of infringing. Unlike the rest of the patents at issue, which relate to either designs or features the average person can see and touch, these patents cover core wireless technologies.

Samsung is beginning its case on that front by playing video deposition testimony from some Intel workers. In just the first couple of minutes, the jury has heard about such riveting topics as “E-DPDCH transmit power gains.”

There was a lighthearted moment just before the jury arrived: Some technical problems meant there was only one copy of a flash drive or other electronic element for the attorneys.

Apple attorney Bill Lee said that it was fine to put it on Samsung’s table.

“You can put your tables together and share,” Koh said. As it is, only about a foot separates the counsel tables in the case.

“I think we are close enough already,” Lee said.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

On Tuesday, the issue at hand was whether a Samsung-hired expert, Tim Williams, was given access to Intel source code without fully disclosing his potential conflicts of interest.

Lawyers for Intel brought up the issue on Tuesday, saying that they had just learned that Williams had been given access to the code earlier this year. Under a court order, parties such as Intel are supposed to be given notice when their confidential information is shared.

Intel asked that Williams be precluded from testifying, something that from Judge Lucy Koh would be an extreme remedy at this point. However, Koh decided that she needed more details, declaring that Williams would not testify as scheduled on Tuesday, and ordering both sides to produce the relevant documents and their legal arguments.

“I want to see papers,” Koh said. “I don’t trust what any lawyer in this courtroom tells me.”

With that, the jury was brought in to hear testimony. The first new witness of the day was Clifton Forlines, a former Mitsubishi Electric Research Lab employee, who is testifying about the DiamondTouch system.

Forlines began offering up answers in rapid-fire succession, before being asked to slow down. The clearly nervous Forlines noted that it was his first time in court.

His testimony is being used to bolster Samsung’s contention that the DiamondTouch and its accompanying software represents “prior art” that should render some of Apple’s patents invalid. Samsung began laying the groundwork for this on Monday, with the testimony of another former Mitsubishi employee.

After just a few minutes, Forlines was done.

Update 9:40 am PT: After some legal wrangling away from the jury, Samsung was allowed to call expert Woodward Yang, a Harvard computer science professor, to testify whether Apple is violating Samsung’s patents.

Yang is explaining the three patents that Samsung has accused Apple of infringing. The first covers having a separate method for handling plain-text emails and those with a photo. A second patent covers being able to send a photo and return to the same place in the photo album. The third patent that Samsung alleges Apple has infringed covers a means for playing music in the background on a phone.

10:24 a.m.: Yang has methodically outlined how he believes Apple’s iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad infringe on the various patents (though not all versions of all products for all three patents).

The biggest excitement is that some of the music being demoed is from Bruce Springsteen. Also, Apple’s lawyers are ready to pounce if Yang goes into some of the testimony the judge has excluded.

10:54 a.m.: Asked by the judge the status on the Intel matter, Intel’s lawyer said that the company would seek sanctions and a contempt finding against Samsung but is no longer looking to keep him off the witness stand.

“I was never going to grant that,” Koh said. “That was (an) extreme and unwarranted sanction.”

Meanwhile, back in the trial, Samsung’s lawyers have finished their questioning of Yang, with Apple lawyer Bill Lee now starting his cross-examination. Lee starts by getting Yang to agree that he never talked to any of the Samsung inventors even though they were in town recently.

Apple’s lawyer is getting to mention, despite Samsung’s objections, the fact that certain Samsung executives aren’t being called in the case. Lee is noting that Yang is the only one testifying regarding the Samsung patents that Apple is accused of infringing.

Lee also showing that Samsung isn’t using two of the patents at issue in its own recent products.

11:35 a.m.: Lee still hammering away at Yang. Current focus is on whether Apple’s products follow the specific steps outlined in the ’460 patent. That’s the one that covers separate email modes for standard email and those with photos.

11:52 a.m.: Apple wraps its questioning of Yang just ahead of the noon lunch break, with Samsung now asking a few on re-direction.

1:11 p.m.: We’re back from lunch, but the jury is still away while the attorneys hash out what Samsung’s next witness Jeeyuen Wang can and cannot testify about.

1:24 p.m.: Legal matters finally settled, Wang is now on the stand. Wang is a user experience designer for Samsung Electronics and is testifying in Korean via an interpreter.

Asked whether, in designing icons for the Galaxy products she copied any of Apple’s icons.

“Not at all,” she said.

And, if you just cant get enough Apple v. Samsung, here’s a video interview I did with the Wall Street Journal’s Digits show this morning:

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Now, Apple and Samsung are fighting over the legal instructions that the jury will get just before it begins its deliberations. Those deliberations are still at least a week away, with each side having used up roughly half of their allotted 25 hours of time before the jury.

But the battle over those instructions is heating up.

The two parties agreed on a number of instructions contained in a 30-page filing on Monday. However, a second, 273-page filing contains all of the matters that are in dispute.

Jury instructions are often a source of debate in a lawsuit, especially in a high-stakes, complex case like this, where the jury will be asked to sort through complicated notions such as patent validity and willful infringement. There are also other kinds of disputes, with each side trying to use the legal instructions as a final way to help make their case.

Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over the San Jose, Calif., case, said in a weekend order that she was disappointed that there wasn’t more agreement on the matter.

“The Court is disappointed by the parties’ respective reports regarding their meet and confer efforts on final jury instructions,” Koh wrote in a weekend order requiring the two sides to meet.

On Monday morning, she asked the sides to provide the disputed instructions (in Microsoft Word format) as well as six printed copies, so that the court can start settling the matter.

Koh said she hopes that testimony will wrap up on Friday, with discussion of jury instructions on Monday, and closing arguments to take place on Tuesday.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage

Now, it’s not much of a raise, mind you. The seven men and two women hearing the case will now get $50 per day instead of $40 for each day they serve beyond 10 days.

That’s barely enough to cover lunch and parking, never mind missing work. And it’s truly a pittance when you compare that amount to the hundreds of dollars per hour being billed by the myriad attorneys, consultants and experts in the case.

Just this week, several of Apple’s experts testified they are being paid $500 per hour for their work in the case, and one can assume that many of the lawyers are somewhere in that ballpark.

You could argue that the lawyers and experts are being paid for their legal expertise, but it is the jurors who are being asked to wade through hours of testimony, sort through complexities of the law and technology, and render a verdict.

Not only are they being asked to evaluate whether patents are being infringed, they are also being asked to ascertain whether they should have been granted in the first place, essentially becoming underpaid patent-office employees in addition to poorly compensated jurists.

But at least they are getting a raise.

Apple versus Samsung Full Coverage