Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) used âmonopoly powerâ to make exorbitant licensing demands of Apple Inc. (AAPL) over two patents the South Korean company accuses the iPhone maker of infringing, a witness told a jury.
Janusz Ordover, a New York University economics professor, said Samsung âdistortedâ the process through which a standard- setting body in Europe set industry requirements based on its wireless-technology patents. Ordover testified yesterday at the end of a three-week long intellectual-property trial in San Jose, California.
Ordover, hired by Apple as an expert witness, said Samsung âacted in a way that evidences it has gained monopoly power by making licensing demands to Apple that are inconsistentâ with reduced licensing rates required of patents used by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to set technological requirements.
Samsung has declared the patents âessentialâ and is seeking as much as $399 million in royalties from Apple for infringing them, according to court testimony. Apple has argued in court filings that Samsung canât assert its claims on the two patents because it didnât properly disclose them to the institute.
Testimony concluded yesterday at the trial. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh limited each side to 25 hours and Samsung told the court that it declined to cross-examine Ordover due to the time constraints. Koh said she aims to finish with jury instruction arguments by the end of Aug. 20 and to have the companies present closing arguments Aug. 21. Jury deliberations may begin later that day.
Apple, based in Cupertino, California, sued Samsung in April 2011, accusing it of copying patented designs for mobile devices, and Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung countersued.
Four Continents
The case is the first to go before a federal jury in a battle being waged on four continents for dominance in a smartphone market valued by Bloomberg Industries at $219.1 billion.
Ordover said his conclusions relied on testimony from Michael Walker, former chairman of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, who was called by Apple as a witness. Samsung filed a Korean application for one of the two patents in April 2006, Walker said. It was required to disclose that application to the standard-setting body by early June 2005 and didnât until May 16, 2006, Walker said.
âI concluded in both cases that they did notâ make timely disclosures about the intellectual property, Walker said of Samsung.
Licensing Rate
Ordover said he was also drawing on testimony by former Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN) executive Richard Donaldson, who said a 2.4 percent licensing rate Samsung demanded of Apple for the patents didnât comply with the âfair reasonable and non- discriminatoryâ rates required by patents used by the institute.
Under cross-examination by Samsung lawyer Charles Verhoeven, Walker agreed that he didnât know if Samsung intentionally missed its patent disclosure deadlines.
Samsung also called a damages expert, David Teece of University of California, Berkeleyâs business school, to refute Ordoverâs claims.
Walker hasnât done the âbackground work necessaryâ to conclude Samsung possesses monopoly power with its patents at issue, Teece said.
250 Days
Teece said he did a study of how long companies take to disclose their patents after ETSI adopts standards that may be covered by the intellectual property. He said Apple has taken as long as 250 days and other companies such as units of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (ERICB) and Google Inc.âs Motorola Mobility Holdings unit may take weeks, months and sometimes years to make their disclosures.
The 2.4 percent licensing rate Samsung offered Apple for the patents was âin the range of rates that Iâve observed from other companies,â Teece said.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
To contact the reporter on this story: Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco at jrosenblatt@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
No comments:
Post a Comment