Apple has twisted Samsung’s words to make it appear that it was looking to copy the iPhone, but that wasn’t the case, lawyers for the Korean electronics giant argued Tuesday in closing statements in the companies’ patent infringement case.
The iPhone, Samsung argues, doesn’t even employ at least three of the specific patents for which infringement is claimed in the case.
“You can’t copy if it’s not there,” said Samsung attorney Bill Price, one of four lawyers that will tag-team the company’s closing argument.
In the case, Apple has accused a number of Samsung phones and tablets of infringing five patents and argued it is due more than $2 billion in damages.
The pursuit of that large amount is what prompts Apple to talk about copying and stealing, Price said: “They have to get you a little angry to justify this number.”
Price also made the case that all Samsung did is what most other phone makers did — start using Google’s Android to compete with the iPhone.
“The Android platform is the world’s alternative to iOS,” Price said.
Every patent that Apple is saying was infringed is part of the core Google experience, Price said, noting that the Galaxy Nexus, whose software was developed entirely by Google, is accused of violating all five patents at issue in the case.
After Samsung concludes its defense, it will also make its case that Apple devices infringe two of its patents. Apple will then be back to address just Samsung’s counterclaim.
The eight-member jury will then start its deliberations later on Tuesday, having gotten its final instructions from the judge on Monday.
Samsung’s closing, which is still under way, follows Apple’s final argument in the case. Check back for frequent updates.
Update, 11:30 am: Another Samsung attorney, David Nelson, is now up to talk about the specific patent issues.
Only one patent, covering automatic word correction, has been ruled ahead of the trial to infringe on Apple’s patents.
“The rest, that’s up to you,” Nelson said. The jury, he said, also has the option to decide the issue of validity on all five patents.
11:35 am: Nelson is starting with the ’647 “quick links” patent, the same one about which the jury heard additional testimony on Monday.
He is making the highly technical but important case that Samsung doesn’t use an analyzer server as required by the patent. The shared libraries that Apple contends do so aren’t the same thing, he says.
11:48 am: Still deep in the weeds. Sure I am not the only one whose thoughts have turned to lunch.
12:04 pm: Lunch break. Samsung has 57 minutes left for closing, while Apple has 29 minutes left for its response on counterclaim.
1:11 pm: Back from the lunch break with Dave Nelson still talking patent specifics. Still up will be other lawyers on damages as well as Samsung’s arguments for why Apple infringes on two of its patents.
1:15 pm: Still going through each of the patents. Nelson reiterating one of his better lines of the trial, drawing the distinction between synchronization and causing to be synchronized.
If my son came to me and I said “Did you do your homework?” and he said, “Well I caused it to be done,” that would be different than having done it (and also kind of strange), Nelson noted.
1:24 pm: Nelson wraps up his part, thanks the jury and cedes the stage to Kevin Johnson, who will address the two patents that Samsung is countersuing Apple over.
Johnson starts by acknowledging that Samsung spent fairly little time on its counterclaim.
“We didn’t have much time, especially when you are defending against Apple’s grossly exaggerated damages claim,” he said.
Apple, Johnson says, didn’t challenge the validity of Samsung’s patents, only whether Apple infringes the patents.
Johnson, by the way, bears a striking resemblance to “Lost” star Titus Welliver.
1:32 p.m. Great chart with Samsung comparing Apple’s expert and Samsung’s expert. Has check boxes for a variety of things, including “spent 32 years working at Kodak.” Not sure if that is a plus or minus, but only Samsung’s expert gets a check mark.
1:37 p.m.: Samsung is only seeking for about $6.2 million for infringement on the two patents. (Samsung using this, by default, to bolster case that Apple is asking for too much.)
As for the fact it bought the two patents it is suing over, Johnson says that there’s nothing wrong with purchasing patents.
“Companies buy and sell patents all the time,” Johnson said. That’s not a defense.
1:39 p.m.: John Quinn is up to talk damages, notes he doesn’t have a lot of time.
“We don’t think we owe Apple a nickel,” Quinn said.
But even if the jury disagrees, Apple’s claims are erroneous and based on the flawed work of John Hauser, Quinn said.
“His survey was useless to accomplish the purpose that (it was done for),” Quinn said. “This survey is just an effort to mislead you.”
Quinn also argues that Hauser’s survey overstates the scope of Apple’s patents, saying Apple doesn’t own all ways of background synchronization but that is what Hauser’s survey makes it seem like.
Returning to another powerful image, Quinn again likens Hauser’s survey to asking car buyers about cupholders. Such surveys are fine for comparing cupholders, but not determining which car someone will buy, Quinn said.
“This is a sham survey,” Quinn said, working himself into quite a lather. “He did this for money… It’s absurd.”
The features at issue in the case, Quinn argues, aren’t the kinds of major ones that show up in surveys of what buyers actually choose a smartphone based on.
1:52 p.m.: Quinn returns to theme that Apple itself doesn’t practice three of five patents and that, in iOS 7, it doesn’t even do slide-to-unlock in the patented way. (Apple disputes that characterization.)
1:55 p.m.: Not sure Quinn has taken a breath since he started talking. (His colleagues didn’t leave him much time.)
He’s still making the case that Apple damages are overblown, currently taking issue with Apple’s contention that Samsung needed four months to redesign around Apple’s patents.
“Four months to do that? Give me a break,” Quinn said.
By changing that “off the market” period from four months to one month, Quinn says Apple’s damages for that lost profits number would go from $500 million to just $17 million.
As for Apple’s reasonable royalty estimates, Quinn lashes out at the notion that Apple’s expert put forth that Samsung would just take Apple’s bottom line and pay it. Samsung’s expert, by contrast, looked at hundreds of patent contracts, Quinn said.
“She gave you real world data,” Quinn said.
Quinn also made a big deal out the fact Apple’s damages expert didn’t retake the stand at the end of the trial.
“He left so many questions unanswered,” Quinn said.
As for the $2 billion that Apple is seeking, Quinn said Apple was simply trying to suggest a big number to get it in their head.
“They will be dancing down the streets of Cupertino if you give them $100 million,” Quinn said. “They want to monopolize this market.”
Quinn suggested that rather than suing Samsung, Apple should get to creating products, like maybe the watch, big-screen phone or set-top box that have been rumored.
With that, and the clock running out, Quinn finally takes a breath and sits down.
2:33 p.m.: Bill Lee is up for Apple, ostensibly just to respond to Samsung’s countersuit. However, he has shrewdly found ways to argue Samsung’s overall approach to patents and credibility. Samsung has objected several times, but Judge Koh has overruled each objection.
Though he has addressed the specifics on why Apple believes it doesn’t infringe on the specific Samsung-owned patents, Lee has used more of his time to paint Samsung’s entire counterclaim as simply an attempt to devalue patents as a whole.
Lee points out that Samsung is only seeking $6 million for one patent and less than $200,000 for the other but has spent millions on experts, not counting what it has spent on lawyers.
Lee notes that Samsung chose two sue over two older patents and seek minimal damages makes sense for only one reason, that is “if you are trying to devalue all patents.”
“This was an intentional strategy,” Lee said.
2:45 p.m.: Lee is wrapping up, thanking the jury and asking them to think of all the innovators at Apple as they begin their deliberations. Samsung lawyers again object that this isn’t about Apple’s defense to Samsung’s countersuit, but Koh again overrules.
“We depend on people like you” Lee said to help draw the line between fair and square competition and unfair competition.
With that, Apple has the final word in the case.
This article originally appeared on Recode.net.