Later, Quinn noted Vellturo's damage calculations were based in part on a separate user survey by an expert named Hauser. "If the jury concludes Hauser is unreliable, if they reject his number than this [royalty] formula works out to zero," said Quinn.
"Apple would not grant this [license] for nothing, that's why the calculation you are proposing doesn't make sense," Vellturo said.
Later Quinn criticized the Hauser study because its findings focused on what he called "small software features" related to the Apple patents. The study's findings did not address features where Samsung showed leadership such as large displays and LTE.
"Does it seem right if you survey people about very small features and leave out the large ones that will make small ones seem bigger?" Quinn asked.
"No, that doesn't seem right at all," Vellturo said.
"You rely on this survey to tell the jury Samsung owes $2 billion and you are not willing to express an opinion" on the survey, Quinn said.
"Dr. Hauser is the expert" on the user survey, Vellturo said
"Are you trying to distance yourself from Dr. Hauser?" Quinn asked.
"No, I definitely used his numbers," Vellturo said.
Later Quinn noted that Apple's lost profits damages were based in part on an assumption it would take Samsung four months to design around some of the patents. Quinn suggested Samsung created a work around for the slide-to-unlock patent in less than one month. The time difference could reduce a $507 million damage claim to about $17 million, Quinn said.
Quinn spent significant time reviewing a timeline Apple showed of Samsung's rise in market share from 2010-2013. He suggested a variety of reasons for the increases apart from the five accused patent infringements including Samsung's use of larger displays and LTE.
"If you were trying to educate the jury, if you were being independent and fair, would you also call to juror's attention these other things that were going on -- would that be fair?" Quinn asked. "You were trying to help the jury understand why Samsung's market share was going up related to these small software features [in the patents not] why Samsung's market share was going up," he added.
"No, that's not what I was saying," Quinn said.
"Do you think it would be fair to take into account these things from Apple's own documents?" Quinn asked, citing an Apple's sales document suggesting consumer want Samsung's larger displays and lower prices.
"Yes, and I did," said Vellturo.
"You take them into account but when you prepared the chart you only referred to [other] things because you thought they would help Apple which has come back to hire you for the fifteenth time," Quinn said,
"No, that's not why these are here," Vellturo said.
Apple rested its case Friday afternoon. Samsung begins its case in earnest next week. The case is expected to go to the jury by early May.
— Rick Merritt, Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, EE Times