Yep.. that was when judge Koh refused to grant injunction against Samsung - which was later overturned. It's difficult to tell Koh is really biased - seems like the mainstream media coverage of the case is overly favorable to Apple, while others, Groklaw for instance, seem to side with Samsung. Then you have self-claimed patent-expert Florian Mueller, a paid anti-Android shill, whose commentaries routinely show up on Cnet, AI, etc..
I don't think there is any denial that Samsung tries to emulate Apple's success (and packaging designs), but consider the following "... When Apple was developing its campaign to promote the first iPhone, it considered – and rejected – advertisements that touted alleged Apple ―firsts with the iPhone. As one Apple employee explained to an overly exuberant Apple marketer, I don‘t know how many things we can come up with that you can legitimately claim we did first....
I said less than $15.. Microsoft's initial asking price was $15, but nobody pays the asking-price - HTC was known to have struck a deal with Microsoft for $5. Samsung makes low / high end smartphones and is known to be paying anywhere between $1 - $5 per unit (or ~1% of total cost). You seriously don't think Microsoft is collecting $5B in Android patents licensing fees alone, do you?
I believe the licensing fee Microsoft is collecting is quite trivial - less than $15 per unit. The presentation doesn't seem to cover any design patents (look & feel) in question - so I'm guessing that the patents listed in the presentation are either trivial or invalidated. If I remember correctly from last year's lawsuit in Austrialia, Apple was willing to license non-core/junk patents only. Well, consider that no courts in Netherland, Austrialia, Germany or UK...
there, I found Nielson's Q2 2012 data.. so that's 8% in Q2, 2011 to 17% in Q2, 2012 - that's still 100+% gain. Apple's share increased from 28% in Q2, 2011 to 34% in Q2, 2012 - that is only 20+% gain. Nielsen's numbers are ased on # of US mobile subscribers.