"But they're both taking a risk that the jury won't go their way".
Lee, who has figured prominently in Apple's motions and appeals, is picking up the role of lead trial counsel.
Now, the company is appealing the damages in a new case, which began on Monday.
The launch of the iPhone was a pivotal moment for Apple, he said. "But that's why it's critically important for us to step back in time". Yup, this looks like the gymnast of the foldable phone world.
Samsung's pre-iPhone devices had keypads and smaller screens, while later models are screen-focused with app icons and no keypad.
It's not like that Apple has accused Samsung of copying, Samsung has also accused Apple of copying its designing features. But, it seems like that Apple is targeting Google by means of Samsung by demanding $1 Billion amount from Samsung.
The 2012 case resulted in a jury ordering Samsung to pay more than $1 billion in damages to Apple for infringing on patents for the iPhone. Samsung argues, however, that it should pay up just $28 million.
Despite the high-profile court battle, Samsung keeps maintaining complex business relations with Apple.
He said that Samsung should only be required to pay for profits earned due to the part of the phone that infringed Apple patents.
Frances Bean Cobain Loses Historic Nirvana Guitar in Divorce Battle
Silva had previously claimed that Cobain's Martin D-18E from the famed performance was gifted to him by Bean as a wedding present. Frances' mother Courtney refuted Isaiah's story at the time, telling TMZ the instrument was "a treasured heirloom of the family".
The trial first erupted in 2011, just a year after Apple released the original iPhone 4.
Apple, on the other hand, asserts the article of manufacture is the entire phone.
It argued that consumers had not bought the phones for their aesthetics alone, but also their functionality. "They are entitled to profits only on [infringing] components, not the entire phone".
"What was Samsung's solution?" he asked the jury rhetorically. The first request followed an objection from Apple to Quinn's reference to slides showing pre-2010 phones.
Apple is seeking about $1 billion (roughly Rs. 6,700 crores) from Samsung in another go-round stemming from a long-running smartphone patent-infringement dispute. In its opinion, lower courts should not always consider that the end product is the "relevant article of manufacture" in patent infringement cases. The case is Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics Co, 11-cv-01846, US District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
The Supreme Court's ruling allows Samsung to argue that damages should be based on the profits it made off the specific components that were found to infringe Apple patents - rather than the entire device. Koh has forbidden that argument on the ground that Samsung didn't raise it in the previous trial or on appeal.
The Apple-Samsung patent fight has been going on a long time, and the third time the matter is before Koh.
Apple has described how the iPhone and overall product design became embedded in the company's DNA. But she's blocked Apple's argument that the phones should be viewed from the perspective of a "designer of ordinary skill in the art", saying there's no basis for importing the "person of ordinary skill in the art" to the design context.