We know how much Apple thinks it should be paid for Samsung’s alleged infringement, and now Samsung is making its wants known: according to two witnesses today, Apple should pay Samsung as much as $421.8 million if infringement is found.
Dr Vincent O’Brien testified about three utility patents covering email, photo browsing, and music playback functionality.
SInce Samsung hasn’t lost any sales due to the alleged infringement, monetary damages come down to reasonable royalty rates: an estimate of what the two companies could have arrived at if they’d negotiated licenses themselves.
O’Brien looked at a number of factors, including Apple’s own history of royalty payouts (according to his testimony, Cupertino has paid $1.4 billion in royalties to dozens of companies in connection with patents and intellectual property).
That chip was manufactured by an Intel unit, but Samsung claims Apple infringed its patents by using it.
Dr David Teece offered his analysis, which revolved around a percentage of net profits, ranging from 2 percent up to 2.75 percent.
The result would be between $290 million and $399 million dollars owed in royalties.
The two UMTS patents Apple is accused of infringing are standards essential patents, and as such should be offered under fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory licensing terms.
The devices that appear to be the most infringing are the original Galaxy S (i9000) and Galaxy S 4G , both of which violate three Apple utility patents, three design patents, and three trade dress claims, according to Cupertino.
Apple’s attorneys laid the groundwork that Samsung wasn’t following those guidelines, first showing a letter the company had sent to Apple in July of 2011.
The document proposed the same 2.4 percent royalty rate per device — but for the use of Samsung’s entire library of 86 UMTS patents, not just the two involved in the case.
Teece then later admitted that he hadn’t seen any evidence confirming that Samsung had ever used the 2.4 percent rate with other licensees at all.
Samsung had never published the rate, andyou have “no evidence that Samsung has ever asked any othercompany for such a rate,” Mueller said.
It seems clear that both sides are going to be asking for as much as they possibly can, and with Samsung attacking Apple’s claims we wouldn’t be surprised to see Apple do exactly the same when it starts its rebuttal.
Samsung rest its case following Teece’s testimony, and we’ll be keeping you updated as things progress.
Alicia Yarnold is a business journalist based in San Francisco, California. Alicia has a passion for financial markets and breaking news stories and loves writing about business news, stock market, and economic opinions that matters most to its audience. Alicia spends a lot of time discovering and researching latest financial markets and industry news stories in order to make sure the latest and greatest stories are brought to you first on BigBoardNews.com.