Samsung expert says Apple patents worth $38.4M, not $2.2B
In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung patent trial in California on Monday, a Samsung damages expert said Apple should be granted $38.4 million for all five alleged-infringed patents, far from the $2.19 billion Apple is seeking.
Samsung expert witness Judith Chevalier, an economics and finance professor at Yale University, said her calculations of reasonable royalty rates came out to 35 cents per patent per infringing device, reports CNET. If a lump sum payment were to be doled out to Apple, Samsung would pay around $38.4 million for more than 37 million devices.
"My analysis compensates Apple through a reasonable royalty and...I have determined Apple has not lost sales as a result of Samsung's practice of the patents," Chevalier said, explaining why she did not include damages for lost profits.
The number is leagues away from Apple's patent valuation arguments that put total damages at $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. That equates to an average $40 per infringing Samsung device.
"We have to conclude that the differences in profitability across these products is being driven by something else other than the practice of these patents," Chevalier said. "The value created by these products is really negligible."
On cross-examination, Apple attorney Bill Lee went after Chevalier's methods. In her evaluation, the Yale professor incorporated reviews from customers, one of which came from an iPhone user who claimed "Seerei" shot him with a gun.
Apple is asserting five patents against various Samsung products running Google's Android operating system, including "swipe-to-unlock," data detectors and universal search.
For its part, Samsung calls Apple's patent damages claims a "gross exaggeration" of their actual worth and has been presenting testimony in line with that thinking. Last week, Samsung experts presented studies that sought to prove Apple was "elevating artificially the importance" of certain features covered by the five patents.
Following Chevalier's testimony, Samsung rested its defense case and proceeded to call witnesses for a countersuit against Apple. The Korean company is leveraging two patents against a number of Apple products.
Samsung expert witness Judith Chevalier, an economics and finance professor at Yale University, said her calculations of reasonable royalty rates came out to 35 cents per patent per infringing device, reports CNET. If a lump sum payment were to be doled out to Apple, Samsung would pay around $38.4 million for more than 37 million devices.
"My analysis compensates Apple through a reasonable royalty and...I have determined Apple has not lost sales as a result of Samsung's practice of the patents," Chevalier said, explaining why she did not include damages for lost profits.
The number is leagues away from Apple's patent valuation arguments that put total damages at $2.19 billion for patents infringed between August 2011 and the end of 2013. That equates to an average $40 per infringing Samsung device.
"We have to conclude that the differences in profitability across these products is being driven by something else other than the practice of these patents," Chevalier said. "The value created by these products is really negligible."
On cross-examination, Apple attorney Bill Lee went after Chevalier's methods. In her evaluation, the Yale professor incorporated reviews from customers, one of which came from an iPhone user who claimed "Seerei" shot him with a gun.
Apple is asserting five patents against various Samsung products running Google's Android operating system, including "swipe-to-unlock," data detectors and universal search.
For its part, Samsung calls Apple's patent damages claims a "gross exaggeration" of their actual worth and has been presenting testimony in line with that thinking. Last week, Samsung experts presented studies that sought to prove Apple was "elevating artificially the importance" of certain features covered by the five patents.
Following Chevalier's testimony, Samsung rested its defense case and proceeded to call witnesses for a countersuit against Apple. The Korean company is leveraging two patents against a number of Apple products.
Comments
“We din do nuffin’!"
“No, you did.”
“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”
“No, they can.”
“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”
Yes. It is.
It's how all crime drama interrogations unfold with the less intelligent criminals.
First they claim to have no idea what the detectives are talking about. Then once they are caught they finally admit they did know or see whatever was previously mentioned but that they didn't know them that well or see much of anything. The only part that is different is when they get pinned for the murder (usually) they finally come clean about some other bad crime they were committing that is less than murder.
“We din do nuffin’!"
“No, you did.”
“Okay, we did it, but what we did wasn’t wrong because they can’t protect it!”
“No, they can.”
“Okay, they can, but what we did isn’t as bad as what they said!”
Yes. It is.
It's how all crime drama interrogations unfold with the less intelligent criminals.
First they claim to have no idea what the detectives are talking about. Then once they are caught they finally admit they did know or see whatever was previously mentioned but that they didn't know them that well or see much of anything. The only part that is different is when they get pinned for the murder (usually) they finally come clean about some other bad crime they were committing that is less than murder.
They are waiting for the plea bargaining phase.
Maybe Samsung will turns state's witness against Sony.
Every criminal needs to watch The Usual Suspects to learn how to deal with interrogations.
She is an Yale professor? Does she know the smartphone history? There are smartphones before 2007 iPhone. To start a phone you press a button. Jobs and teams designed iPhone so it operates with full screen multi-touch methods. In order to begin use the phone user has to swipe to unlock it. So this method is a standard for multi-touch full screen smartphone. Apple patented this. Since this standard no reviewer or user ever cared to mentioned it. Her argument is naive and stupid.
They are waiting for the plea bargaining phase.
Maybe Samsung will turns state's witness against Sony.
They already tried something similar against Google in this trial. "You got the wrong guys. They did it, not us, we just reused their stuff. We are not innovators, we are just a marketing company. Its not about features. We will prove it to you, we will bring in Google and they will tell you that we just copied from them, we are not innovators. You got to believe us!!! The NeXT big thing is other people's stuff. We were just protecting ourselves from the evil iPhone tsunami. Apple hates Google. They are doing this to us because they hate Google. Protect us, we are weak and innocent."
Of course, Apple's intellectual property is completely worthless! It's so obvious! /s
I think jury will be so confused with Samsung's continued changes in strategy (we didn't do it, Google did it, if we did do it, then it's not worth much. Did we mention Google and Samsung works very hard?) that the jury will just do this complex formula.
judgement to Apple:
($2.2B - $0.038B)/2
Hey, jurors... Don't forget to treble the damages.
Just pay the F up.
I can't help but wonder what would really happen if Apple decided to make a line of cheap plastic iPhones (maybe call them something else for the low-end market) to utterly gut Samsung's worldwide position as "top Android phone."
I can't help but wonder what would really happen if Apple decided to make a line of cheap plastic iPhones (maybe call them something else for the low-end market) to utterly gut Samsung's worldwide position as "top Android phone."
rumor has it, Amazon will have that covered.
"My analysis compensates Apple through a reasonable royalty and...I have determined Apple has not lost sales as a result of Samsung's practice of the patents,"
Doesn't that work the other way - if Apple has not lost sales then wouldn't it follow that Samsung will not lose sales by ceasing to practice those patents?