SAN JOSE, Calif. — Samsung's lead attorney cross-examined Apple's best witness, sparking some lively exchanges in court on Friday. Christopher Vellturo, an economist and Apple's expert witness on damages, testified Samsung owes $2.191 billion for infringing five patents.
In direct testimony this week, Vellturo said Samsung owes royalties on average of $33 per infringing smartphone and tablet sold (totaling $1.12 billion) plus $1.067 billion in lost Apple profits for other units. After a sometimes heated cross-examination, Apple rested its case following two weeks of testimony.
John B. Quinn, Samsung's lead attorney, tried to undermine the basis for Vellturo's figures and undermine his credibility as a witness. He noted in the last five years Vellturo made 80% or more of his income as an expert witness. Apple has paid $2.3 million for his work to date on this case and retained him 14 other times.
"You are a professional witness for Apple, aren't you," asked Quinn.
"I work for Amazon and Microsoft as well. I work for very direct rivals of Apple," Vellturo said.
"Apple lawyers give you some documents, you select passages from them and present them," said Quinn.
"That isn't what I do at all -- the very first step of that isn’t right," said Vellturo who calculated Apple's damages based on a variety of reports and exhibits.
Earlier, after replying to one of Quinn's questions, Vellturo added additional details in support of Apple. Quinn paused, then asked, "Do you see your role here as being in any way an advocate for Apple?"
Attacking Vellturo's conclusions on damages, Quinn suggested there are as many as 250,000 patents on smartphones. "You propose roughly $8 per patent [per unit] -- that would be a pretty expensive phone," Quinn told Vellturo.
"That's not a meaningful calculation. That calculation doesn't have any meaning, but that's the math," Vellturo said.
In a break in testimony, Quinn asked Judge Lucy H. Koh to admit details of a separate case between Apple and Motorola that discussed a patent licensed for 60 cents. Without that information, "the jury will have to make a decision without any real world information about licensing for a smartphone," he told Koh.
Judge Koh said the Motorola case was very different in many respects including patent claims, claim construction, alternatives to infringement and other factors. "I think [introducing the Motorola materials] would be very confusing for this jury, they already have a lot to absorb," she said.
Next page: More fiery exchanges