Mr. McElhinny painted a compelling narrative for what happened in the case. He didn't spend any time talking about Samsung's infringement as he will be spending time on that in his rebuttal after Samsung's Charles Verhoeven has spoken.

Main points of his argument

1) Trust the documents
2) Put events into a chronology
3) You heard no defense from Samsung

By trusting the documents, he referred to relying on Samsung's internal documents of comparison and feature evaluation rather than testimony. For the event chronology, he presented a compelling picture of how Samsung reacted to the iPhone's launch: recognizing threat, declining sales, deliberate process of evaluation and copying.

Lastly he stated that "Samsung had disrespected this process from the start. Apple provided two of it's most senior executives, Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller. No Samsung executive was willing to travel here from Korea. Instead of witnesses, they sent you lawyers."

When it came to the issue of willful infringement, he picked out certain actions of Samsung: "Think of the meeting with Google, think of blowing off any attempts to negotiate a resolution and find that their infringement was willful." The "Google" meeting referred to when Google first raised concerns about Apple's patent.

Detailed notes:

Apple: This is my opportunity to remind you of the evidence you heard, why you heard and to put it in to context.

Big pictures points:

1) Documents are the most valuable key to the truth-finding function. Witnesses can be mistaken, in good or bad faith. Documents created for trial can be misleading but historical documents are key

2) If you want to understand, put the evidence into a chronology.

• Steve Jobs started the iPhone project in 2003
• The years of work in the purple room
• Phil Schiller, enormous risks that Apple took
• Showed pre-2007 phones
• Apple demo'ed the iPhone Jan 2007
• Debuted on Time magazine, made invention of the year
• Most famous product in the world
• In 2007 start, Samsung started analyzing the impact of the iPhone
• Feasibility Review: Samsung refers to the iPhone as the most important trend in the industry
• F Review: Easy & intuitive UI and beautiful design
• 2008, Samsung hired consulting company to assess impact of iPhone
• Page 20: Pundits tell us that the iPhone is a revolution..., quotes David Pogue raving about the iPhone
• User reactions including "love" and "awe"
• Page 36: The iPhone wasn't just easy, "it's sexy to use"
• Page 31: "Screen-centric design has set the standard for touch"
• Shows phones from 2009 when Samsung was "fairly competing with the iPhone"
• After declining share, internal doc states JK Shin: "It's a crisis of design" Feb 10, 2010, suggest that they "Make a phone like the iPhone"
• Google? document states that Google warned Samsung of copying but they went ahead anyway
• JK Shin testified emotionally that the Samsung Galaxy effort was a 3-month design effort
• They did in 3 months something that took Apple years and with no risk.
• Direction for improvement "Insert effect of light for luxurious, softer feel"
• Shows how GT-i9000 changed between development and release, copying the icon design
• Result of Samsung's 3-month crash project was released as the Samsung Galaxy in Jun 2010.
• Samsung's sales suddenly increase, so Samsung continued releasing iPhone copies.
• Apple put Samsung on notice Aug 2010, calling foul on Samsung's actions.
• Samsung chose to gin up claims of their own, which is what led us down this to the courthouse.

3) From the very beginning, Samsung has disrespected this process:

• Apple provided two of it's most senior executives, Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller.
• No Samsung was willing to travel here from Korea.
• Instead of witnesses, they sent you lawyers.
• Samsung had a chance to defend itself but instead they sent you lawyers.
• Jinyeun: never referred to Apple icons but here's a document of the Apple human interface guidelines
• Jin Soo Kim: even though Google warned Samsung, that message never reached Jin Soo Kim, so they continued using the designs. No told them to stop or be careful.

1) Trust the documents

2) Put events into a chronology

3) You heard no defense from Samsung

Patents:

1) Infringement
2) Validity

We think you will conclude that they are more than similar to the designs.

D'677 design patent. You will have the opportunity to examine them one by one and determine if the designs are similar.

They then went over a number of patents.

For the app screen, "This one is easy, just look at the pictures"

Apple: Non-obvious, I'll admit is a little tricky.

Comparison of Industrial Design Witnesses: We brought an industrial designer, Samsung brought you an Electrical Engineer.

He then talked about the chronology of prior art designs, referencing the LG Prada.

For the LG Prada, it was released after.

"It becomes why there wasn't any designer that was willing to come here and testify that there existed a primary reference" - prior art for design patent?

A real world check on what is obvious:

• Initial Skepticism
• Acclaim
• Commercial Success
• Copying

They knew a good thing when they saw it. They tried to compete with it. When they failed, they started copying it.

Trade Dress.

Greatest number of customer returns was from people confused that they thought it was the iPad2. Over half of the consumers who recognize the Samsung.

We believe we've shown you ample real world evidence to demonstrate that the Samsung design was confusing and therefore infringed on Apple's trade dress.

The critical difference on dilution is timing. We have to prove that they were famous before Samsung's product.

On bounceback, zoom / center and scroll / zoom patents:
Samsung again did not put up a non-infringement defense. Instead they claimed they were invalid.

It is really hard to imagine holding the Diamond Touch in your hand and making a phone call.

This is Samsung itself recognizing the novelty of Apple's inventions.

Samsung makes fun of our damages. Makes fun for $1B.

1) Samsung has 22.7M infringing devices between June 2010 and today.

2) Samsung's revenues of infringing products stands at $8.160B for sales in the United States.

We're asking you to calculate how much Apple should receive of that $8.16B.

Samsung's Profits: $2.24B
Apple's Lost Profits: $489M
Reasonable Royalties: $21M

Congress awards the entire profit of the product, not just part of the product.

Samsung's "Indirect Cost" allocations should be disregarded:

• Produced key info at the last minute
• Nine different versions
• Even Samsung's export couldn't tie data to a reliable source
• Spreadsheet made up solely for this litigation

Once you've decided on Notice and deduction of profits. There's four possible outcomes:

Apple's Notice period with no indirect costs: $2.4B
Apple's Notice Period and all indirect costs: $1.1B
Samsung's Notice period with no indirect costs: $1.4B
Samsung's Notice Period and all indirect costs: $0.5B

Mr. Musika conservatively estimated Apple's lost profits: $0.5B

Made a point that if you find in Apple's favour, the damage calculations are available in Apple's claim for damages exhibit.

Think of the meeting with Google, think of blowing off any attempts to negotiate a resolution and find that their infringement was willful.

Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven didn't argue that the phones weren't similar. Instead, he countered that similarities in the design were due to natural product evolution in the phone industry and that no evidence was presented showing consumers being confused by phones from the two companies.

"The reason they didn't provide any evidence is because there is none," he said. Apple is "asking you to prevent its biggest competitor from giving consumers what they want -- smartphones with big screens."

Verhoeven framed the case as a battle that could affect the entire business of innovation in the U.S.

"The real reason Apple is bringing this case is because rather than compete in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge in the courtroom."

Verhoeven told the jury that no damages are due because there was no infringement, but if they disagree and decide money should be paid then they shouldn't pay attention to Apple's figures because they are based on revenue and not profit.

Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven countered by saying consumers are not confused between the products from the two mobile companies. He urged jurors to consider that a verdict in favor of Apple could stifle competition and reduce choices for consumers.

"Rather than competing in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge in the courtroom," Verhoeven said. Apple thinks "it's entitled to having a monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a large screen. It's amazing really."

But, as if you’d expect anything else, Samsung disagrees. Quinn Emanuel lawyer Charles Verhoeven argued in his closing statements that Apple is simply attempting to stifle competition. He noted that all companies look at competitors, that all companies check out what other products are in the market — including Apple. He recalled an internal Apple email that said employees retrieved competitor phones, including Samsung’s for its own research.

“Apple here is asking for what it’s not entitled to,” said Verhoeven, “Consumers deserve a choice. Sure, Apple has great products. We don’t deny that. But consumers deserve a choice between a lot of great products. Competition is what built this country.”

McElhinny also discussed trade dress, or the nonfunctional, completely design elements of the smartphone. Apple argues that Samsung’s products look so much like the iPhone that consumers could be confused into thinking Samsung’s advertising is Apple’s, or even go so far as to purchase a Samsung product thinking it was Apple’s.

“Is anyone really deceived by Samsung devices? Consumers make choices, not mistakes,” rebutted Verhoeven.

In order to prove his point, he turned on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple filed an injunction against at the beginning of this trial. He turned it on to show a Samsung boot-up screen, an ad for Verizon, and finally the home screen. It’s important to note that Apple does not believe the home screen infringes on its patents, but rather the app display screen does. In order to get to this screen, the customer must first find the button for it, which lives at the upper right hand of the home screen.

This is a full four steps before the consumer gets to the “confusing” screen.

McIlhenny ended the day for Apple by reminding jurors of their enormous responsibility in the case.

"The world is watching, and the nine of you have the power to determine the laws of competition," the Apple lawyer told the jury. "Samsung will not change the way they operate if you slap them on the wrist."

The seven men and two women begin their deliberations Wednesday. Given the complexity of the evidence, the instructions and their verdict form, no decision is likely soon.

Update: And here's bruno's second and final report, once again with a summary, and then more detailed notes:

It's now off to the jury. Being decided at the rate of $300M per juror.

Verhoeven made the closing statements for Samsung. He focused on the evidence and picking holes in Apple's logic rather than appealing to narrative like McElhinny. His presentation wasn't quite as smooth and fluid as Apple. There were a number of notes to Verhoeven, this didn't happen at all with McElhinny but then since he's going first, McElhinny was adapting on the fly.

He firstly made a strong argument against the lack of deception in the device stating the users didn't get confused. He made a big statement shortly therafter: "It's seeking to block its most serious competitor from even attending the game. Look out at the reporters. Why are they here? They're here because if you go with Apple, it could change the nature of competition in this country. Do you want a country full of conglomerates armed with patent arsenals preventing competition?"

He went on: "Consumers deserve choice between products. Competition is what built the country. It's not against the law to be inspired. It's not against the law to do a feature comparison."

He then made an interesting comparison to the relatively more mundane area of TVs: "Go in to Best Buy and look at the TVs. They all look the same. Look at what happened: form followed function." His argument here was that as technology developed enough to allow large screens and faster processors, then naturally you'd want to maximize the screen to be as large as possible. Therefore a design with a large screen, minimal border and rounded edges naturally follows.

When it came to damages, he made the argument that Apple doesn't deserve damages but if they did then it should be smaller: "We don't think we have to pay any damages but we have to address the issue of damages as this is our only chance. We have to take this opportunity that if you disagree with us, we need to explain why Apple's damages numbers are ridiculous. What does it take to make a damages claim of $2B? It takes $1,750,000." Pointing to the damage model created by Apple's expert witness Mr Musika.

He picked holes in the demonstrative evidence of infringement of the bounceback, tap / zoom / center & scroll / zoom, arguing that the videos of each device showing 5 phones to a screen wasn't sufficient. The alternative of a detailed analysis of each and every one of the 24 phones would probably take a month and send the jury (and audience) to the pits of boredom.

On the rebuttal, another Apple lawyer, William Lee, had a few good statements to kick off the rebuttal to Samsung's statement:

1) "If you have the facts, count on the facts. If you have the law, count on the law. If you have neither, then focus on attacking the competition"

2) "No one is saying to Samsung to get out of the marketplace. What Samsung said is intended to frighten the audience and frighten you. If you follow what they say, then we would throw all the patents out the window. But we can't do that. Our Constitution says that patents are protected.... They all need protection for a limited time."

3) "Second startling thing: they talked repeatedly about $2.7B. What they didn't talk about was the $8B in profits that they made. Do they deserve to keep all that $8B?"

He then repeated McElhinny's narrative, that Samsung competed and failed, had a "crisis of design" then copied the iPhone in a 3-month intensive effort. He also talked at length about the standards essential FRAND patents: "Samsung has not lived by the rules. Let me show you the disclosure history of the '916 patent. The pattern is file a patent, present a standard and then wait for years before revealing it... [a] violation of ETSI IPR policy.... This was a corporate strategy."

McElhinney then took over and made an emotional appeal as to why patent protection is important for innovation: "If you find for Apple, you will have reaffirmed the American patent system. If you do this, then the people in Silicon Valley will continue innovating knowing that they're protected. If you award the damages we asked for.... then you will have determined the rules of competition for a long time to come in this country."

[Speaking as a software engineer from Silicon Valley, I'd say much of Silicon Valley would hold the opposite view to that. For example, even as Apple argues for infringement, they have just crossed over $600B in market capitalization. They're doing fine with or without patent protection.]

Verhoeven had the final say. He spent a lot more time looking at witness testimony rather than the historical documentation that McElhinny presented. Apple alleged a number of things, such as "intentional delay" in revealing standard essential patents. He presented the Apple witness testimony where they conceded that they didn't have evidence and weren't asserting intentional delay. In a number of cases this didn't affirm that Samsung was in the right but instead showed the Apple hadn't built up the solid chain of evidence that it needed. Apple continued to make this and other claims but Samsung was good to pick holes in this. Verhoeven finished out talking about Samsung's fairness in regard to the FRAND patents. [This surprised me as I thought he would've been more focused on the overall case.]

[PJ: The reason he didn't focus on the overall at this point is because they split up the topics to be handled in the closing statements, so he was following that setup and presented the argument in this segment only on FRAND issues.]

Detailed Notes:

Verhoeven: I submit to you that the reason that Apple didn't provide any evidence of deception is that it didn't happen. Apple wants to prevent its biggest competitor from selling what consumers want: phones with big screens.

It's seeking to block its most serious competitor from even attending the game. Look out at the reporters. Why are they here? They're here because if you go with Apple, it could change the nature of competition in this country. Do you want a country full of conglomerates armed with patent arsenals preventing competitors?

Consumers deserve choice between products. Competition is what built the country. It's not against the law to be inspired. It's not against the law to do a feature comparison.

Go in to Best Buy and look at the TVs. They all look the same. Look at what happened: form followed function.

Technology enabled you to send emails and texts on your device. Blackberry released a device with a keyboard and larger screen and was extremely successful. What happened with the competition? They all came out with devices that had a keyboard. Were they illegal copyists? No, we all benefited from this.

Apple's here seeking $2B from Samsung for the alleged ornamentation around the screen. According to Apple, they should be allowed to have a patent on a rectangle with a border.

Is really anyone deceived by the two devices? Consumers don't get confused, they make choices.

I've got a different style to Mr. McElhinny. I believe in cross-examination.

Asking Peter Bressler about whether consumers get confused. Bressler answered: "I do not know if they get confused."

It's Apple's burden of proof to provide the evidence to prove this, and this evidence doesn't meet that standard.

Talking about Anticipation:
We have to look for the small differences between the product and the claimed design.
Infuse 4G: "Clearly it doesn't have a bezel."

Notably absent is the iconic single button of the iPhone.

In fact, members of the jury, every single design element that Mr. Stringer said to me is not present in the accused devices.

Bressler: I can see that light is reflective.

Verhoeven: "D'305 claims electronic device and specifically claims a graphical user interface."

Counsel then showed the startup sequence, commenting how many steps that a user would have to go through for startup.

Susan Kare: "I don't know about user confusion."

There's only 7 icons similar to the iPhone that are on the "Fascinate" out of the total of 36 icons on the Fascinate. Susan Kare can only state that the "Clock" and "Phone" icons are similar. The phone icon is similar but he asked Kare rhetorically if "Apple owns the design for a retro phone?" Susan acknowledged no, but got confused about ownership of the 'clock' image.

Showed the startup sequence for the Galaxy Tab and showed how it's not credible that a consumer would be confused.

I want to talk about Apple's counsel's repeated accusation of Samsung being copyists.

I submit to you that it's an intentional attempt to mislead the jury. Counsel then brought out a large board with a display of Samsung's history of phone releases. Samsung had a rectangular phone with larger screens and rounded corners before the iPhone came out. Apple is being selective about what phones to show.

Talking about the another phone [Galaxy Tab 7? - I missed it] Verhoeven: "They're trying to confuse you by taking a document that they like that covers a product that's not even part of this case."

PX34: Feasibility Review on Standalone AP Business for Smart Phone Market. Verhoeven: "This is the study that came up time and time again as evidence of copying. Apple counsel argues that benchmarking isn't common within the industry." Then shows internal Apple email talking about benchmarking and teardown of competitive products. Shows an example of an internal Apple teardown for the Galaxy Tab. "Does that mean that they're copyists, and we can sue them?"

What did they do? They flashed 5 or maybe 10 devices at a time on the screen. They're demonstratives and don't make it in to the jury room. They haven't met the burden of infringement by entering them in evidence with analysis. You'll have to go back in to the jury room without any of that information."

"Bounceback isn't valid because of the prior art from Diamond Touch... the patent office didn't know about the Diamond Touch. Had they known about it, they would not have granted that patent."

For the 915 phone. What did you see? Six phones at a time, flashing a bunch of phones on the screen as a demonstrative doesn't meet their burden.

Samsung then went through their own "offensive patents". Argued how Apple placed great importance on following the 3G standard, marketing the "iPhone 3G" as "twice as fast".

We don't think we have to pay any damages but we have to address the issue of damages as this is our only chance. We have to take this opportunity that if you disagree with us, we need to explain why Apple's damages numbers are ridiculous.

"What does it take to make a damages claim of $2B? It takes $1,750,000." Pointing to Apple's expert witness Mr Musika. The only one who ignored billions of dollars in costs is Mr. Musika. DX 781.

"Mr Musika states that 100% of the people would switch over to Apple if these Samsung phones weren't available."

Verhoeven speaking about Michael Wagner's expert testimony: "Samsung research shows 75% of Android purchasers didn't even consider the iPhone. Samsung is asking for $312M but Apple is asking for $2.75B, which is not reasonable... We hope you don't get there [calculating damages] but if you do, you've got to use your common sense."

Apple's lawyer [Lee]:

I see that I get you at the end of a long day. I want to start by thanking you for your time. For all of Apple's lawyers and myself, I want to thank you.

You've heard that we've misled, had ridiculous numbers. I've been doing this [lawyering] for 37 years. If you have the facts, count on the facts. If you have the law, count on the law. If you have neither, then focus on attacking the competition."

No one is saying to Samsung to get out of the marketplace. What Samsung said is intended to frighten the audience and frighten you. If you follow what they say, then we would throw all the patents out the window. But we can't do that. Our Constitution says that patents are protected.... They all need protection for a limited time.

Second startling thing: they talked repeatedly about $2.7B. What they didn't talk about was the $8B in profits that they made. Do they deserve to keep all that $8B?

If they had all this, why did they have a "crisis of design"? Apple took 5 years to bring this revolution to us. Samsung took 3 months to copy.

What really happened is that Samsung tried to compete with its own design in 2007-2009. In 2010, it had a crisis of design and started copying.

Samsung patents: none of the 13 inventors were willing to enter the witness stand. [PJ: Note that Samsung tried to find the inventors, and a number of them were not to be found. These are old patents, and even finding documents was tough. You can see that in the hearing transcripts where the sides argued about what Samsung needed to produce in discovery, and you'll find those in Groklaw's Apple v. Samsung Timeline page.]

Samsung wants to take that $8B and walk away. That's not how the system works.

Good indication is that Samsung doesn't use them.

Better indication is that when they came to design these new products, they didn't call up the old inventors -- they instead looked at Apple's.

'893 patent refers to modes many times over. Samsung not claiming anything about airplane mode or any other mode. Samsung expert doesn't identify these modes.

"The difference between the 5 patents that Samsung have belittled today and our patents. The products with the Apple patents have been commercially successful, they've been widely praised. The Samsung patents haven't been used by anyone, they haven't been praised, they haven't had unusual results."

'516 patent. "Did he try to compare the claim? He compared a picture and not the claim.

Samsung has not lived by the rules. Let me show you the disclosure history of the '916 patent. The pattern is file a patent, present a standard and then wait for years before revealing it.

Violation of ETSI IPR policy.... This was a corporate strategy. Jun Won Lee: I'm not sure if that has ever happened. If it did then that was a stupid thing."

They made a demand of 2.4% of Apple's revenue. Samsung has not been paid one red cent for any of their standard essential patents. It's also a violation of the antitrust laws. You can't come in and walk over our antitrust laws and then get a get-out-of-jail-free card.

"Their response over and over again is competition. They claim that Apple is trying to monopolize the market. Make no mistake, Apple wants to compete. You think that the two people who started Apple didn't want to compete?"

One of the marvellous parts of our jury system is that it brings you fine 9 folks together. You can bring your common sense and wisdom to bear. "Samsung said 'We didn't copy'. We know that's not true. Samsung then said, 'if we copied then the patents are invalid'. Samsung then said 'if we copied Apple and the patents are valid, then the damages should be small.'"

McElhinny re Trade Dress: Jury Instructions for Trade Dress are for overall impressions, not individual icons.

The judge will give you a model.

If you find for Apple, you will have reaffirmed the American patent system. If you do this, then the people in Silicon Valley will continue innovating knowing that they're protected. If you award the damages we asked for.... Then you will have determined the rules of competition for a long time to come in this country.

The other way Samsung wins is if you compromise on the damages. Samsung already spends a $1B on advertising. You see it all around outside the court room.

Verhoeven:
Let me address Apple's accusations that the inventors intentionally mislead people. There's no evidence of that. Let's go to the evidence. The IPR rules [have no duty to share confidential information]. The Samsung applications were confidential and there was no duty to share it.

He then showed testimony from Apple's expert witness: "Are you offering an opinion that there was intentional delay?" Apple witness: "No, I'm not".

Shows diagram of the Samsung chips being made in Germany and delivered to China. You can't show infringement when it didn't take place in the United States.

Verhoeven thanked the jury.

That completed the closing statements.

Judge Koh to the jury:
You will have to communicate by paper. Please don't communicate with Miss Parker or the bailiff or anyone else. You're going to communicate by paper. You will receive a copy of all the exhibits that were entered into evidence. Koh: She next talked about how to handle communications from the jury, meaning lawyers. No need to stay in the court, but please give contact information to Miss Parker.

You will get ECF notices that the jury is deliberating or has finished for the day. Hours of deliberation are 9 to 4.30.