13-12-13 Apple's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

8/13/2019 13-12-13 Apple's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

1/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)[email protected] A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)[email protected] J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)[email protected] & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

Attorneys for Plaintiff andCounterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

WILLIAM F. [email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000

MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)[email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Yorkcorporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIALMOTION FOR JMOL,

SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, ANDPREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Date: January 30, 2014Time: 1:30 p.m.Place: Courtroom 8, 4th FloorJudge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 15


2/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) i

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard before the Honorable Lucy Koh in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled

Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (Apple) will

move, and hereby does move, for judgment as a matter of law, supplemental damages, and

prejudgment interest against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung).

This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and

authorities; supporting declarations filed herewith and exhibits attached thereto; and such other

written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under

submission by the Court.

Dated: December 13, 2013 WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP

By: /s/ William F. LeeWILLIAM F. LEE

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC.



3/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. APPLE IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ONSAMSUNGS PROFITS. .................................................................................................... 2

III. APPLE REQUESTS AN ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGESAND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTSPRIOR ORDER. ................................................................................................................. 5

A. Supplemental Damages ........................................................................................... 6

B. Prejudgment Interest. .............................................................................................. 8

IV.

UPON REMAND FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, APPLE WILL ASK THECOURT TO ENTER A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SAMSUNGSINFRINGEMENT OF THE 381, 915, AND 163 PATENTS. ........................................ 8

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9



4/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)C ASES

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. ,735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 8

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. ,486 U.S. 196 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 2

Dimick v. Schiedt ,293 U.S. 474 (1935) .................................................................................................................. 5

E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. ,117 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. 5

Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. ,772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................. 3, 4

LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies., LLC ,734 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 4

Manhattan Industries, Inc. v. Sweater Bee By Banff Ltd. ,885 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................................... 4

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ,545 U.S. 913 (2005) .................................................................................................................. 4

Orenshteyn v. Citrix Systems, Inc. ,691 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 2

Ostad v. Oregon Health Sciences University ,327 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 2

Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc. ,691 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 5

Sgaraglino v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. ,896 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................................... 9

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ,464 U.S. 417 (1984) .................................................................................................................. 4

Torres v. City of Los Angeles ,548 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 2



5/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) iv

R ULES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 ................................................................................................. 2



6/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , AND PREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCase No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) 1

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 15, 2011, Apple filed this lawsuit to put an end to the widespread violations of

its intellectual property rights caused by Samsungs copying of Apples enormously successful

iPhone and iPad products. After a three-week trial in August 2012, a jury vindicated those rights

by returning a verdict finding that Samsungs sale of twenty-six products had willfully infringed

six Apple patents and diluted Apples iPhone trade dress. Following a week-long retrial on a

portion of the damages award in November 2013, a second jury confirmed the substantial

damages that Apple has suffered from Samsungs infringementbringing Apples total damages

in this case to over $900 million.

The time has come to conclude the proceedings before this Court. As the Court recently

recognized in denying Samsungs motion for a stay, it would be most efficient for this Court to

move forward with post-trial motions concerning the damages retrial and finally enter a judgment

in this case so that the Federal Circuit may review the entire case on appeal as soon as

possible. (Dkt. 2831 at 8.) In the same spirit, Apple asks the Court to tie up the few remaining

loose ends as the surest way to bring the proceedings in this case to a close.

First , Apple seeks judgment as a matter of law on the issue of Samsungs profits.

Because Samsung presented no evidence at the retrial that would permit a reasonable jury todeduct Samsungs expenses beyond the costs of goods sold, the Court should award Apple the

entire amount of Samsungs profits for Samsungs infringement of the D305 and D677 patents.

Second , Apple renews its request that the Court enter an order awarding Apple

supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. The Court has already determined that Apple is

entitled to supplemental damages and prejudgment interest and has already decided how they are

to be calculated. Now that the retrial has concluded and Samsung has stopped selling the specific

products found to infringe, determining the amounts is simply a matter of arithmetic.

Finally , Apple plans to renew its request for a permanent injunction against Samsungs

infringement of Apples utility patents upon issuance of the Federal Circuits mandate. The

record is already fully developed, and the Court may promptly enter an injunction consistent with



7/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


the Federal Circuits decision when the mandate issues. Apple is prepared to submit its brief in

support of its renewed request for a permanent injunction at the Courts earliest convenience. 1

II. APPLE IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ONSAMSUNGS PROFITS.

Although the jury awarded Apple all its requested lost profits and reasonable royalty

damages at the retrial, the jury did not award Apple the full amount of Samsungs profits for

Samsungs infringement of the D305 and D677 patents. 2 The only reasonable conclusion that

the jury could have reached, however, was that Apple is entitled to the full amount of Samsungs

profits. The Court should accordingly grant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to Apple on

that issue. See Ostad v. Oregon Health Scis. Univ. , 327 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2003) (Under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), [j]udgment as a matter of law is proper when theevidence permits only one reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by

the jury.); Torres v. City of Los Angeles , 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (same).

As the Court correctly instructed the jury, Apple is entitled to all profit earned by

Samsung on sales of articles that infringe Apples design patents unless Samsung met its burden

of proving deductible expenses . . . directly attributable to the sale or manufacture of the

infringing product resulting in a nexus between the infringing products and the expense. (Dkt.

2784 at 43 (instructing that [p]rofit is determined by deducting certain expenses from gross

revenue).) There was no dispute at trial that Samsung had gross revenue of $854 million from

1 Apples pending motion for attorneys fees as well as the ongoing sanctions proceedingswill not impede appellate review of a final judgment resolving the liability and damages issues inthis case. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 486 U.S. 196, 202-203 (1988) ([A] decisionon the merits is a final decision whether or not there remains for adjudication a request forattorneys fees attributable to the case.); Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc. , 691 F.3d 1356, 1358

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (final judgment on the merits appealable where district courts decision grantingsanctions [wa]s a separate order which [wa]s not final and appealable until the district court hasdecided the amount of sanctions).2 The damages awarded for the six products for which Apple sought only Apples lost

profits and a reasonable royalty were identical to the damages calculated by Ms. Davis. (Applesought Samsungs profits were in every instance less than the damages calculated by Ms. Davis.(Compare PX25F.4, with Dkt. 2822.) For those seven products, the jury did not award the fullamount of Samsungs profits. Compare PX25F.4, with Dkt. 2822.) However, the damagesawarded for the seven products for which



8/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


its sale of products that infringe Apples D305 and D677 patents. ( See Dkt. 2840 at 692:5-11

(Davis); Dkt. 2841 at 1014:20-22 (Wagner acknowledging agreement with Davis); Dkt. 2843 at

1116:16-17 (same); PX180A; PDX100.17.) There further was no dispute at trial that Samsung

was entitled to deduct $623 million in expenses for costs of goods sold. ( See Dkt. 2840 at

692:25-693:8 (Davis); Dkt. 2843 at 1116:18-19 (Wagner acknowledging agreement with Davis);

PX180A; PDX100.17.)

The only purported dispute at trial concerning Samsungs profits was whether Samsung

was entitled to deduct approximately $179 million in additional purported operating expenses.

(See Dkt. 2843 at 1116:20-22 (Wagner).) But with regard to this issue, the dispute was not about

the total dollar amount associated with such expenses. Rather, the issue was whether Samsungs

method of deducting costs satisfied the directly attributable test. As to that method, Samsung

did not introduce any evidence at trial that it directly attributed costs at the product level as

required by Courts jury instructions. Samsungs Vice-President of Finance and Operations, Mr.

Sheppard, merely testified that Samsung allocated costs across products. ( See Dkt. 2841 at

964:18-965:16.) But Samsung offered no evidence that any of those allocated costs were directly

attributable to the sale or manufacture of the infringing products. Samsungs expert Mr. Wagner

admitted that he was not aware of any such evidencetestifying that he had not found anyevidence specifically attributing a single penny of any of Samsungs operating expenses at issue

to a specific product. (Dkt. 2843 at 1124:23-1125:9, 1127:2-9, 1127:23-1128:4, 1129:20-24,

1130:20-1131:2.) Accordingly, Samsungs cost deduction method was insufficient as a matter of

law. See Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. , 772 F.2d 505, 516 (9th Cir. 1985)

(rejecting cost allocation method where copyright infringer failed to provide evidence that any of

the allocated costs actually contributed to sales of the infringing work), revd after remand on

other grounds , 886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989).

The decision in Frank Music , a copyright infringement case, is instructive. 3 In that case,

the infringer (MGM) introduced evidence at trial that segregated overhead expenses into general

3 Given the close relationship between patent and copyright lawwhich derive from thesame clause of the Constitutioncourts routinely apply principles from patent law to copyright



9/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


categories, such as general and administrative costs, sales and advertising, and engineering and

maintenance. MGM then allocated a portion of those costs to the production of the infringing

production, Hallelujah Hollywood , based on a ratio of the revenues from that production as

compared to MGMs total revenues. See id . The district court adopted MGMs approach, but the

Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district courts finding that MGM had established that its

overhead contributed to the infringing show was clear error:

We do not doubt that some of defendants claimed overhead contributed tothe production of Hallelujah Hollywood . The difficulty we have,however, is that defendants offered no evidence of what costs wereincluded in general categories such as general and administrativeexpenses, nor did they offer any evidence concerning how these costscontributed to the production of Hallelujah Hollywood . The defendantscontend their burden was met when they introduced evidence of their totaloverhead costs allocated on a reasonable basis. . . . That is not the law ofthis circuit. [A] defendant additionally must show that the categories ofoverhead actually contributed to sales of the infringing work . We canfind no such showing in the record before us.

Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Manhattan Indus., Inc. v. Sweater Bee By Banff

Ltd. , 885 F.2d 1, 7-8 (2d Cir. 1989) (rejecting evidence of overhead pertaining to overall selling

expenses as grossly inadequate because the infringer did not indicate whether and to what

extent those expenses were specifically attributable to production of the products at issue).

Accordingly, because Samsung failed to meet its burden regarding deductible costs as amatter of law, the Court should award Apple the full amount of Samsungs total profit for

infringing the D305 and D677 patents, i.e. , $231,373,554. (Dkt. 2840 at 702:20-703:3

(Because I dont think theres any evidence for expense amounts that can be considered directly

attributable to the sale of these seven products, other than the costs of goods sold, I think the total

Samsung profit number is $231 million . . . .); PX180A; PDX100.20A.)

law, and vice versa. See, e.g. , Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 U.S.913, 936-937 (2005) (applying patent law inducement principles to copyright law); Sony Corp. of

Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , 464 U.S. 417, 439 (1984) (noting that it is appropriate to referto patent law in copyright cases because of the historic kinship between patent law and copyrightlaw); LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Techs., LLC , 734 F.3d 1361, 1375 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(The Supreme Court has frequently explained that copyright cases inform similar cases under

patent law.).



10/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Apple recognizes that the Court previously denied its motion for additur after the first trial

on the ground that the amount of damages was an issue for the jury. ( See Dkt. 2271 at 2 (citing

Dimick v. Schiedt , 293 U.S. 474, 486-87 (1935)).) Courts, however, recognize an exception to

Dimick where the jury has found the underlying liability and there is no genuine issue as to the

correct amount of damages. E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. , 117 F.3d

1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 1997) (district court had authority to increase jury award for liability under

the ADEA where the employer did not meet its burden of proving lack of diligence by the

employee in failing to obtain work); see also Roman v. Western Mfg., Inc. , 691 F.3d 686, 702 (5th

Cir. 2012) (These instances of uncontested damages do not technically involve additur, because

the correct figure is divined as a matter of law . . . . (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here,

there is no dispute about the measure of damages based on the factual evidence presented at trial.

Rather, the only dispute was whether the cost allocation method adopted by Samsung is sufficient

as a matter of law. Because the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion regarding the

amount of Samsungs profits, the Court should grant Apples motion and award Apple its full

damages requested at the retrial, i.e. , $379,776,091. (PX25F.2.)

III. APPLE REQUESTS AN ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGESAND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS PRIORORDER.The Court previously determined that Apple is entitled to both supplemental damages and

prejudgment interest and further explained how those amounts are to be determined. (Dkt. 2271

at 2-8.) Although the Court indicated in its March 1, 2013 Order that it would defer calculation

of supplemental damages and prejudgment interest until after the completion of the appeals in this

case ( id. at 6, 8), circumstances have changed since then. Samsung has stopped selling all the

products that the jury found to infringe, and supplemental damages may now be calculated from

easily obtainable historical sales figures.

Accordingly, Apple renews its request for the Court to award supplemental damages and

prejudgment interestthe only damages issues that remain to be resolved now that the damages

retrial has concluded. There is no reason to delay those calculations, which will permit the

complete and efficient review of all damages issues in this case together on appeal. Given the



11/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


ease of these calculations (as explained below), substantial efficiencies will be gained by

computing the amounts and entering an order awarding supplemental damages and prejudgment

interest at this time.

A. Supplemental Damages

In March 2013, the Court resolved all issues relating to supplemental damages except the

final arithmetic. Because the Court must make an award for any sale for which the jury did not,

an award of supplemental damages is required. (Dkt. 2271 at 2.) The Court has determined the

period to be used for the calculation and the method by which supplemental damages should be

calculated. As stated in the Courts March 1, 2013 Order: [C]onsistent with the Presidio

Components decision, the Court intends to calculate the supplemental damages award beginning

on August 25, 2012, the day after the verdict. ( Id. at 3.) Because the jury returned an award for

each product separately, the Court can simply divide the jury award for each product by that

products number of sales to calculate this per-product amount. ( Id. at 5.) The Court further

decided that Samsungs actual unit sales should be used for the final calculation. ( Id. )

When the Court issued its order regarding supplemental damages in March 2013,

Samsung was still selling three of the infringing products. That is no longer the case, and the

Court can now readily compute a final total, which will permit complete review of all damagesamounts by the Federal Circuit in a single appeal.

Under the method specified by the Court, the per-product damages for each infringing

product sold after August 25, 2012 are as follows: Galaxy S Showcase ($52.70); Galaxy S II T-

Mobile ($66.95); Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch ($59.89); Galaxy S II Skyrocket ($50.72); Droid

Charge ($75.31), and Galaxy Prevail ($9.81). 4 (Robinson Declaration in Support of

Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest (Robinson Decl.), Ex. 2.1.)

4 The supplemental damages amounts in this brief are calculated based on the August 2012 jury verdict for products not involved in the damages retrial and based on the November 2013verdict for those that were. Apple has provided additional calculations that reflect the amount ofsupplemental damages and prejudgment interest in the event that the Court grants Apples motionfor JMOL. ( See Robinson Decl. Exs. 5-8.)



12/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


The only remaining piece of information necessary to calculate supplemental damages is

the unit sales of these six products after August 25, 2012. Samsung has already provided that

information for all these products for August and September 2012. (Dkt. 2060, Kerstetter Decl.

15 & Ex. 2.) That data permits the calculation of supplemental damages for the Galaxy S

Showcase and the Droid Charge, which Samsung stopped selling in September 2012. Applying

the methodology from the Courts March 1, 2013 Order, the supplemental damages are $191,133

for the Galaxy S Showcase and $484,674 for the Droid Charge. (Robinson Decl., Ex. 2.)

For the remaining four products, additional unit sales information is required to calculate

the entire amount of supplemental damages. However, in April 2013, Samsung provided the unit

sales for these products through February 2013 in the 630 case. Apple has asked for Samsungs

agreement to use these unit figures for this limited purpose in the present case, but Samsung has

refused to permit any cross-use of that information. (Selwyn Declaration in Support of

Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest (Selwyn Decl.), Ex. 1.) The sales data that

Samsung has already produced in the 630 case will permit the calculation of supplemental

damages for the Galaxy Prevail, which Samsung stopped selling in October 2012. Apple requests

that Samsung be ordered to produce to Apple the data necessary to resolve the issue of

supplemental damages now.The only additional information that Samsung must provide to complete the calculation of

supplemental damages is unit sales for three products (Galaxy S II T-Mobile, Galaxy S II Epic 4G

Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket) from March 2013 through summer 2013, when Samsung stopped

selling those products. That information should be readily obtainable from Samsungs sales

database. Apple has requested that information from Samsung, but, again, Samsung refused to

provide it. (Selwyn Decl., Ex. 1.) Apple therefore requests that the Court order Samsung to

provide any unit sales information not already provided for these three products so that the Court

may resolve the issue of supplemental damages.

The following table summarizes the calculation of supplemental damages based upon the

information that Samsung has produced in this case:



13/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Infringing Product Units Per UnitDamagesSupplemental Damages

(Units x Per Unit Damages)

Galaxy S II(Epic 4G Touch)

195,413 +Additional Sales $59.90

$11,704,578 +Additional Damages

Galaxy S II(Skyrocket)



Galaxy S II(T-Mobile)



Galaxy S Showcase(i500) 3,660 $52.76 $193,133

Droid Charge 6,435 $75.32 $484,674

Galaxy Prevail 17,257 +Additional Sales $9.82$169,456 +

Additional Damages

Total 406,998 +Additional Sales $24,337,154 +Additional Damages

B. Prejudgment Interest.

The calculation of prejudgment interest is even simpler. The Court has found that Apple

is entitled to prejudgment interest. (Dkt. 2271 at 7.) [T]he Court will award prejudgment

interest at the 52-week Treasury Bill Rate, compounded annually. ( Id. at 8.) Using that formula,

Apple has provided a calculation of prejudgment interest to date based on the two existing

verdicts and the supplemental damages through September 2012. (Robinson Decl., Exs. 3, 4.)

Once Samsung provides the unit sales data necessary to complete the calculation of supplemental

damages, Apple will also provide an updated prejudgment interest calculation and a calculation of

the daily amount of interest accrued so that the Court does not need to perform any additional

calculations to determine the amount of prejudgment interest.

IV. UPON REMAND FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, APPLE WILL ASK THECOURT TO ENTER A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SAMSUNGS

INFRINGEMENT OF THE 381, 915, AND 163 PATENTS.On November 18, 2013, the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of a permanent injunction

against Samsungs infringement of Apples utility patents and remanded for further proceedings.

See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. , 735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Upon issuance of the

Federal Circuits mandatewhich could occur as soon as December 26, 2013the case will



14/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


return to the district courts jurisdiction. See Sgaraglino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 896 F.2d

420, 421 (9th Cir. 1990). At that time, Apple will ask the Court to enter a permanent injunction

against Samsungs infringement of the 381, 915, and 163 patents. The record is already fully

developed from the prior proceedings in this case, such that Apple expects that only minimal

additional briefing will be required. Apple is prepared to submit its brief in support of its

renewed request for a permanent injunction at the Courts earliest convenience and will count the

pages in that brief against its total allotment of pages for post-trial briefing.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant JMOL in

favor of Apple on the issue of Samsungs profits, bringing Apples total damages for the retrial to

$379,776,091, and enter an order awarding Apple supplemental damages and prejudgment

interest. A proposed order is attached.

Dated: December 13, 2013 WILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP

By: /s/ William F. Lee WILLIAM F. LEE

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC.



15/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been

served on December 13, 2013 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to

electronic service via the Courts ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5-1.

/s/ William F. Lee William F. Lee



16/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28SELWYN DECL . ISO APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , ANDPREJUDGMENT I NTEREST CASE NO. 11- CV-01846-LHK

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)[email protected] A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)[email protected] J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)[email protected] & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522


WILLIAM F. [email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000




SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Yorkcorporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF MARK D.SELWYN IN SUPPORT OFAPPLE INC.S POST-TRIALMOTION FOR JMOL,SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES,AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-1 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 3


17/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28DECLARATION OF MARK D. SELWYN ISO APPLE I NC .S MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , ANDPREJUDGMENT I NTEREST CASE NO. 11- CV-01846-LHK

1

I, Mark D. Selwyn, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,

counsel for Apple Inc. (Apple) in the above-captioned action. I am licensed to practice law in

the State of California, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and State of New York, and am

admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. I make

this declaration in support of Apples Motion for JMOL, Supplemental Damages, and Interest. I

have knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration, and I could and would testify

competently thereto if called to do so.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence

from Carl Anderson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP dated December 11, 2013.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief. Executed this 13th day of December 2013 at San Antonio, Texas.

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn Mark D. Selwyn



18/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28DECLARATION OF MARK D. SELWYN ISO APPLE I NC .S MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , ANDPREJUDGMENT I NTEREST CASE NO. 11- CV-01846-LHK

2

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

I, William Lee, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mark D. Selwyn has

concurred in this filing.

Dated: December 13, 2013 /s/ William F. LeeWilliam F. Lee

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC



19/51

EXHIBIT 1



20/51

1

From: Carl Anderson Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:46 AMTo: Selwyn, Mark; Anthony AldenCc: Samsung Damages TrialTeam; 'AvSS Damages Trial'; WH Apple Samsung Damages

Retrial

Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung -- Supplemental Damages

Mark,

The Courts March 1 Order delayed any consideration of post-verdict sales until after resolution ofappeals. Dkt. 2271 at 5-6 (the Court finds that it would be appropriate to delay the consideration of evidenceof actual post-verdict sales until after the completion of the appeals in this case."). Please confirm whetherApple intends to move for reconsideration of the Court's ruling, and if so explain your basis.

In light of the Court's ruling, your request is premature. At this time, Samsung cannot stipulate to use of

evidence outside the record in this case, which would require further wasteful investigation and therefore wouldcause the same risk of unnecessary expenditures of time and money that the Court's order is intended toavoid. See id.

The parties should discuss any production of additional sales information after post-trial appeals have beenresolved, as expressly contemplated by the Court.

Very truly yours,

Carl

Carl Anderson Partner,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

50 California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111415-875-6328 Direct415-875-6600 Main Office Number415-875-6700 [email protected] www.quinnemanuel.com

This message was sent by an attorney and may contain confidential information protected by a legal privilege. If you arenot the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us by phone or e-mail that you have done so.

From: Selwyn, Mark [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:32 PMTo: Anthony Alden; Carl AndersonCc: Samsung Damages TrialTeam; 'AvSS Damages Trial'; WH Apple Samsung Damages RetrialSubject: Apple v. Samsung -- Supplemental Damages



21/51

2

Anthony and Carl:

Under the Courts March 1 Order, Apple is entitled to supplemental damages on Samsungs actual sales of products found to be infringing in the 1846 case from August 25, 2013 to the present. Mr. Kerstetters declaration in the fall of 2012 provided the unit sales figures through September 2012. Samsung produced the unit sales for the relevant products through February 2013 in the 630 Action in two spreadsheets labeled SAMNDCA63006642236 and SAMNDCA63006642236. Based on public information, sales of three products (Galaxy S II TMobile, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch) continued after February 2013 until sometime in the summer or fall of 2013.

Accordingly, Apple requests the following: (1) that Samsung confirm that Apple may use the unit sales information from the two spreadsheets identified above to avoid a duplicative production of the same data; and (2) that Samsung providethe unit sales information by month for Galaxy S II TMobile, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch from March 2013 until the last sales date. For the supplemental damages calculation, Apple does not need revenue, COGS and operating expense information.

Thank you for your assistance. Please confirm by Tuesday morning that Samsung will provide this information.

Mark



22/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28R OBINSON DECL . ISO APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , ANDPREJUDGMENT I NTEREST CASE NO. 11- CV-01846-LHK (PSG)



SAN JOSE DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

DECLARATION OF MARYLEEROBINSON IN SUPPORT OFAPPLE INC.S POST-TRIALMOTION FOR JMOL,SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, ANDPREJUDGMENT INTEREST

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)[email protected] A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)[email protected] KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)[email protected]

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522


WILLIAM F. [email protected] CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109

Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000




23/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28R OBINSON DECL . ISO APPLE I NC .S POST -TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES , ANDPREJUDGMENT I NTERESTCASE NO. 11- CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

1

I, Marylee Robinson, hereby declare as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

1. I am a Director with Invotex Group, a national accounting, economic, financial

consulting and intellectual property management firm that specializes in providing financial

analyses related to complex financial transactions, disputes and litigation, investigations,

reorganizations, insurance and valuations. I have over 10 years of experience providing a variety

of litigation consulting services, including commercial damages, fraud investigation, and forensic

accounting, as well consulting on restructuring and insolvency matters. I was licensed by the

State of Maryland as a Certified Public Accountant in 2007.

2. My business address is 1637 Thames Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231.

3. I have played a substantial role in Apples intellectual property dispute with

Samsung since September 2011, working closely with Terry Musika and later with Julie Davis at

all stages of the case. I assisted Mr. Musika with the four declarations and three expert reports he

issued in this case leading up to trial. I assisted Ms. Davis in the preparation of her expert report.

I have provided analysis and supervision with respect to all aspects of Invotex Groups

engagement by Apple. As such, I am familiar with the facts of this case, the experts analysis and

testimony, the Courts orders affecting damages, and the two jury verdicts.

II. SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

4. The purpose of this declaration is to explain the calculation of Apples

supplemental damages (based on information currently available in this case) and prejudgment

interest using the methods identified in the Courts March 1, 2013 Order re Damages and to

explain what additional information is needed to obtain a final complete total for all monetary

relief. The current amount, which is based on the information that is available to date, is provided

in Exhibit 1 to this declaration. The current amount reflects (1) the portion of the original August

2012 verdict that was confirmed by the Court in two orders (the March 1, 2013 Order re Damages

and the April 29, 2013 Case Management Order); (2) the November 2013 verdict; (3)

supplemental damages for August 25, 2012 to September 2012, and (4) prejudgement interest on

the jury verdicts through December 31, 2013. The final calculation should include the foregoing



24/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


2

as well as (5) supplemental damages for October 2012 through approximately August 2013; (6)

prejudgment interest on the supplemental damages; and (7) prejudgment interest after January 1,

2013 to the date of the Courts final order and judgment.

5. The following few items are all that is needed to obtain a final total: (A) unit sales

amounts for four products from October 2012 to February 2013, which are already available from

Samsung in spreadsheets produced by Samsung in the 630 case; (B) unit sales for three products

(Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and Galaxy S II T-Mobile) from March 2013

until sales of the products ended (which appears to be on or before August 2013); and (C)

prejudgment interest after the first of the year, which is calculated using interest rates that are

easily obtained from public sources. Mr. Kerstetter stated in his October 19, 2012 declaration

that the unit sales information is easily available to STA from its accounting system. Insertion of

these few numbers into Exhibit 2 , as described below, will permit the preparation of a judgment

reflecting all monetary relief due to Apple based on the Courts existing orders and the two jury

verdicts.

A. Supplemental Damages

6. In connection with the first trial of this matter, Samsung provided sales and

financial information only through June 30, 2012.1

As a result, the damages calculations includedin Mr. Musikas and Mr. Wagners testimony and trial exhibits only addressed sales up to this

date. 2 The same figures were used for the second trial and thus, those damages also stop as of

June 30, 2012.

7. In September 2012, Apple sought a supplemental damages award for Samsungs

sales of additional infringing and diluting products after June 30, 2012 until the date that a final

amended judgment is entered in this action.

1 See, e.g. , Sales of Accused Products, JX1500 and JX1500A. 2 See Dkt. No. 1554 at 3 (Apple and Samsung by agreement exchanged documents reflecting financial resultsupdated for periods between April and June 2012. . . . Apple and Samsung by agreement exchanged updated

plaintiffs and defendants exhibits that incorporate the Updated Financial Results . . . .).



25/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


3

8. On March 1, 2013, the Court issued its Order re Damages, which sets forth the

method by which supplemental damages will be calculated. I have used the methods stated in the

March 1, 2013 Order re Damages. In particular, I have started the calculation on August 25, 2012,

I have used per unit amounts specific to each product, and I have used only actual sales figures as

provided by Samsung for the calculations. The supplemental damages calculations based on the

information available to date are presented in Exhibits 2 and 2.1 .

9. As a first step in calculating supplemental damages, I calculated the damages

amount per unit based on the jurys award for each of the following seven products: Galaxy S 4G,

Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II T-Mobile, Galaxy S Showcase,

Droid Charge, and Galaxy Prevail. For these purposes, I used the individual damages amounts

from either the August 2012 jury verdict (for Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S

II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II T-Mobile, and Galaxy S Showcase) or the November 2013 jury verdict

(for Droid Charge and Galaxy Prevail) and divided the damages totals by the unit sales for each

of the products (taken from JX1500 and JX1500A) to obtain a per unit amount for each product,

as shown in Exhibit 2.1 .

10. In Exhibit 2 , I use the per unit amount for each product to calculate Apples

supplemental damages through September 2012. As directed by the Courts March 1, 2013 Orderre Damages, the calculation is simple. The units sold after August 25, 2012 are multiplied by the

per unit amount for each product to obtain the supplemental damages total for that product.

These amounts are added to obtain the total amount of supplemental damages.

11. From the October 19, 2012 Declaration of Corey Kerstetter, I obtained Samsungs

unit sales for the relevant products in July, August and September of 2012. These are reflected in

the table at the top of Exhibit 2 . I do not use Julys figures. I prorated Augusts figures to

calculate supplemental damages from August 25 to August 31. The resulting unit sales are

presented in a separate line of Exhibit 2 . I have totaled the remaining units and prepared a

separate calculation of supplemental damages for August 25 to 31, 2012 and for September 2012.

Exhibit 2 also shows how supplemental damages would be calculated for sales between October



26/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


4

2012 and August 2013. It is my understanding that STA was no longer selling any of the

products from this case after August 2013.

12. I am aware that Samsung has already produced the unit sales of the remaining

products from October 2012 to February 2013 in two Excel files produced in connection with the

Apple II litigation, also known as the 630 case. I have access to those materials under the

protective order in that case because of the assistance that Invotex Group has provided to

Christopher Vellturo, one of Apples damages experts, in connection with that matter. I

understand that the unit sales figures were prepared in the same manner as the materials already

used in this case and could easily be included in Exhibit 2 to calculate supplemental damages

through February 2013.

13. Mr. Kerstetter stated that Samsung maintains the unit sales of its products in an

accounting database and that the relevant figures can be easily obtained and produced by STA.

To complete the calculation of supplemental damages, Samsung would need to produce the unit

sales information for three products (Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy

S II T-Mobile) for the period March 2013 until approximately August 2013 (unless sales ended

earlier).

14. The missing information would be inserted into the shaded boxes in the table at thetop of Exhibit 2. Once inserted, the spreadsheet would update all relevant totals and calculate

prejudgment interest as discussed below.

15. In the absence of the missing data discussed in paragraphs 12-14, the current

supplemental damages total is $24,337,154.

B. Prejudgment Interest

16. In September 2012, Apple also sought an award of prejudgment interest on the

damages awarded by the jury and the supplemental damages award. In the March 1, 2013 Order

re Damages, the Court determined how prejudgment interest should be calculated. I have

followed the method stated there in my analysis. In particular, I have used the United States 52-

week T-Bill rate compounded annually. The calculations are provided in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit

4 to this declaration.



27/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


5

17. To determine the date on which damages were earned, I used the information on

units sold by Samsung that Samsung provided in the spreadsheets that formed the basis for

exhibits JX1500 and JX1500A in the first and second trials. The units sold for each month are

multiplied by the average per unit award for all infringing products so that the totals match the

two jury awards exactly. This calculation is reflected in Exhibit 3.1 based on the average per unit

award that is calculated in Exhibit 3.2 and the monthly damages amounts carry to Exhibit 3 .

18. I compounded interest on January 1 of each year by adding accrued interest from

the prior year to the relevant damages base as of that time. I used the 52-week T-Bill rate as

published by the Federal Reserve each month as the interest rate and converted it to a monthly

rate by dividing it by 12.

19. Using these methods, total prejudgment interest through December 31, 2013 on the

damages awarded by the two juries is $3,485,782, as shown in the bottom right corner of the final

page of Exhibit 3.

20. Using these methods, the prejudgment interest calculation for supplemental

damages is illustrated in Exhibit 4 . This amount is currently incomplete but the method is

equivalent to Exhibit 3 except that the monthly damages would be taken from Exhibit 2 once it is

updated.

III. ALTERNATE CALCULATION BASED ON APPLES MOTION FORJUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

21. I understand that Apple is asking for judgment as a matter of law with respect to

the damages to which Ms. Davis testified that are presented in PX25F.

22. In light of this request, I have prepared separate calculations that reflect the

damages award, supplemental damages and prejudgment interest using the same methods

described above but including the final damages amount in PX25F instead of the November 21,

2013 jury verdict. Those calculations are presented in Exhibits 5 to 8, which are attached to this

declaration and are labeled as an Alternate Calculation in the relevant titles.



28/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


6

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

Declaration was executed this 13th day of December 2013, at Baltimore, Maryland.

___________________________ MARYLEE ROBINSON



29/51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


7

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

I, William Lee, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Marylee Robinson

has concurred in this filing.

Dated: December 13, 2013 /s/ William F. LeeWilliam F. Lee

Attorneys for PlaintiffAPPLE INC



30/51

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al. EXHIBIT 1

Prepared by Invotex Group

Apple Confirmed Damage Award (August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict) 639,403,248$ 1/

Apple Damage Award (November 21, 2013 Jury Verdict) 290,456,793 2/

Total Jury Awards 929,860,041$

Supplemental Damages: August 25-31, 2012 to September 2012 24,337,154$ 3/

Supplemental Damages: October 2012 to February 2013 To Be Determined 3/

Supplemental Damages: March 2013 to August 2013 To Be Determined 3/

Total Supplemental Damages: August 25, 2012 to August 2013 To Be Determined

Total Damages Award To Be Determined

Prejudgment Interest on Jury Award (through December 31, 2013) 3,485,782$ 4/

Prejudgment Interest on Supplemental Damages To Be Determined 5/

Total Prejudgment Interest To Be Determined

TOTAL FOR FINAL JUDGMENT To Be Determined

Sources/Notes:

2/ Verdict Form, 11/21/13, p. 1.3/ See EXHIBIT 2. October 2012 to Present available but not produced by Samsung.4/ See EXHIBIT 3.5/ See EXHIBIT 4.

Summary of Apple Confirmed, Retrial & Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest

1/ Per Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12, Order Re: Damages, 3/1/13, p. 26, and Case Management Order, 4/29/13, p. 2.



31/51



Calculation of Apple's Supplemental Damages

Confirmed Verdict Products Retrial Verdict Products

Month Data Source Galaxy S 4GGalaxy S II (Epic

4G Touch)Galaxy S II(Skyrocket)

Galaxy S II(T-Mobile edition)

Galaxy S Showcase(i500)

DroidCharge

GalaxyPrevail Total

Unadjusted Unit Sales 4/ July 2012 Kerstetter 1/ 49,159 171,000 96,253 53,047 12,077 4,950 25,920 412,406 August 2012 Kerstetter 1/ 947 204,302 57,721 134,021 1,441 25,686 4,680 428,798 September 2012 Kerstetter 1/ - 149,280 20,627 120,309 3,335 635 16,200 310,386 October 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - November 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - December 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - January 2013 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - February 2013 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - March 2013 - - - - - April 2013 - - - - -

May 2013 - - - - - June 2013 - - - - - July 2013 - - - - - August 2013 - - - - -

Unit Sales Used in Supplemental Damages CalculationAugust 25-31, 2012 2/ - 46,133 13,034 30,263 325 5,800 1,057 96,612 September 2012 to August 2013 - 149,280 20,627 120,309 3,335 635 16,200 310,386 Total - 195,413 33,661 150,572 3,660 6,435 17,257 406,998

Damages per Unit 3/ 50.69$ 59.90$ 50.74$ 66.93$ 52.76$ 75.32$ 9.82$

Supplemental DamagesAugust 25-31, 2012 -$ 2,763,197$ 661,394$ 2,025,377$ 17,168$ 436,847$ 10,377$ 5,914,361$September 2012 - 8,941,381 1,046,709 8,051,834 175,964 47,827 159,079 18,422,793 Total - August 25th to September 30, 2012 -$ 11,704,578$ 1,708,102$ 10,077,212$ 193,133$ 484,674$ 169,456$ 24,337,154$

October 2012 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$November 2012 - - - - - - - - December 2012 - - - - - - - - January 2013 - - - - - - - - February 2013 - - - - - - - -

March 2013 - - - - - - - - April 2013 - - - - - - - - May 2013 - - - - - - - - June 2013 - - - - - - - - July 2013 - - - - - - - - August 2013 - - - - - - - - Total - October 2012 to August 2013 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Supplemental Damages -$ To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined 193,133$ 484,674$ To Be Determined To Be Determined

Sources/Notes:1/ July to September 2012 sales per Exhibit 2 to the Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012.

3/ See EXHIBIT 2.1.

2/ Supplemental damages for August 2012 begin on August 25, 2012 per Order Re: Damages, 3/1/13, p. 3. August units prorated (7/31 days X Total August units). The expected last sale date of the Galaxy S4G was August 15, 2012 per KerstetterDeclaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1.

4/ The expected last sale date of the Galaxy SII phones above is 2nd Quarter 2013 and for the Galaxy Prevail October 5, 2012, per Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1. Shaded boxes indicate months where sales are expected.



32/51

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. EXHIBIT


Samsung Products Selling After Finding of Infringement

Product Jury Verdict of Units Per Unit

3/Galaxy S 4G 1/ $73,344,668 1,447,000 $ 50.69Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) 1/ $100,326,988 1,675,000 $ 59.90Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) 1/ $32,273,558 636,000 $ 50.74

Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 1/$83,791,708 1,252,000 $ 66.93

Galaxy S Showcase (i500) 1/ $22,002,146 417,000 $ 52.76Droid Charge 2/ $60,706,020 806,000 $ 75.32Galaxy Prevail 2/ $22,143,335 2,255,000 $ 9.82

Sources/Notes:1/ Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12.2/ Verdict Form, 11/21/13, p. 2.3/ JX-1500 and JX-1500A1.



33/51

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.


10 January-10 February-10 March-10 April-10 May-10 June-10 July-10 August-10 September-10 October-10 November-10 December-10 Annual Total

onthly Damages 2/ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 278,241$ 14,822,707$ 23,232,200$ 42,397,702$ 38,425,776$ 35,351,873$ 15,709,774$ 170,218,273$

or Month's Principal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 278,241$ 15,100,948$ 38,333,148$ 80,730,850$ 119,156,626$or Month's Damages - - - - - - 278,241 14,822,707 23,232,200 42,397,702 38,425,776 35,351,873 or Year's Interest 3/ - - - - - - - - - - - - ncipal Available for Interest -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 278,241$ 15,100,948$ 38,333,148$ 80,730,850$ 119,156,626$ 154,508,499$

erest Earned -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 67$ 3,272$ 8,306$ 15,473$ 24,824$ 37,340$ 89,282$


onthly Damages 2/ 25,413,781$ 28,475,059$ 28,911,625$ 53,315,073$ 74,231,038$ 68,583,993$ 49,391,202$ 42,897,241$ 37,033,766$ 52,366,731$ 59,153,046$ 32,300,986$ 552,073,541$

or Month's Principal 154,508,499$ 170,307,555$ 195,721,335$ 224,196,394$ 253,108,019$ 306,423,092$ 380,654,130$ 449,238,123$ 498,629,325$ 541,526,566$ 578,560,332$ 630,927,063$or Month's Damages 15,709,774 25,413,781 28,475,059 28,911,625 53,315,073 74,231,038 68,583,993 49,391,202 42,897,241 37,033,766 52,366,731 59,153,046 or Year's Interest 3/ 89,282 ncipal Available for Interest 170,307,555$ 195,721,335$ 224,196,394$ 253,108,019$ 306,423,092$ 380,654,130$ 449,238,123$ 498,629,325$ 541,526,566$ 578,560,332$ 630,927,063$ 690,080,109$

erest Earned 38,319$ 47,299$ 48,576$ 52,731$ 48,517$ 57,098$ 71,129$ 45,708$ 45,127$ 53,035$ 57,835$ 69,008$ 634,382$


onthly Damages 2/ 46,429,921$ 31,484,976$ 39,332,985$ 48,164,530$ 23,572,565$ 18,583,250$ 207,568,228$

or Month's Principal 690,080,109$ 723,015,478$ 769,445,399$ 800,930,375$ 840,263,360$ 888,427,890$ 912,000,455$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$or Month's Damages 32,300,986 46,429,921 31,484,976 39,332,985 48,164,530 23,572,565 18,583,250 - - - - - or Year's Interest 3/ 634,382 ncipal Available for Interest 723,015,478$ 769,445,399$ 800,930,375$ 840,263,360$ 888,427,890$ 912,000,455$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$ 930,583,705$

erest Earned 72,302$ 102,593$ 126,814$ 126,040$ 140,668$ 144,400$ 147,342$ 139,588$ 139,588$ 139,588$ 139,588$ 124,078$ 1,542,586$

13 January-13 February-13 March-13 April-13 May-13 June-13 July-13 August-13 September-13 October-13 November-13 December-13 Annual Total Grand Total

onthly Damages -$ 92$

or Month's Principal 930,583,705$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$or Month's Damages - - - - - - - - - - - -

or Year's Interest 1,542,586 ncipal Available for Interest 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$ 932,126,291$

erest Earned 116,516$ 124,284$ 116,516$ 93,213$ 93,213$ 108,748$ 93,213$ 100,980$ 93,213$ 93,213$ 93,213$ 93,213$ 1,219,532$ $

urces/Notes:One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm).

Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10year Treasury constant maturity 0.29% 0.26% 0.26% 0.23% 0.25% 0.29%onthly interest rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02%

Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11year Treasury constant maturity 0.27% 0.29% 0.26% 0.25% 0.19% 0.18% 0.19% 0.11% 0.10% 0.11% 0.11% 0.12%onthly interest rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12year Treasury constant maturity 0.12% 0.16% 0.19% 0.18% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 0.16%onthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% 0.15% 0.12% 0.12% 0.14% 0.12% 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12%onthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%vember 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013.

See EXHIBIT 3.1.nterest has been compounded on a calendar year basis.

Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Jury Verdict(Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/ )



34/51


STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded 1/ 2/

EX

Prepared by Invotex GroupPage 1 of 3

Infringing Product (Units) Start Date Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecGalaxy Tab 8/4/2010 - - 220 236,465 25,414Galaxy Tab 10.1 8/4/2010 - - - - -Tablet Units - - - - 220 236,465 25,414

Captivate 8/4/2010 167,644 105,982 117,540 30,096 103,745Continuum 8/4/2010 - - 2,389 104,401 66,770Droid Charge 8/4/2010 - - - - -Epic 4G 8/4/2010 194,844 157,610 160,590 155,355 13,430Exhibit 4G 8/4/2010 - - - - -Fascinate 7/11/2008 - - 49,190 491,801 329,939 81,703 74,573Galaxy Ace n/aGalaxy Prevail 8/4/2010 - - - - -Galaxy S (i9000) n/aGalaxy S 4G 7/11/2008 - - - - - - -Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) 8/4/2010 - - - - -Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) 8/4/2010 - - - - -Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) 8/4/2010 - - - - -Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) 8/4/2010 - - - - -Galaxy S Showcase 7/11/2008 - - - - - 15,890 15,610Gem 8/4/2010 - - - - -Indulge 8/4/2010 - - - - -Infuse 4G 8/4/2010 - - - - -Mesmerize 7/11/2008 - - - - 32,620 68,780 18,230Nexus S 4G 8/4/2010 - - - - -Replenish 8/4/2010 - - - - -Transform 3/ 11/30/2010 1,680 15,620Vibrant 7/11/2008 6,230 331,890 108,506 193,919 217,080 97,181 1 8,360Smartphone Units 6,230 331,890 520,184 949,312 860,158 555,086 326,338

Total Infringing Units 6,230 331,890 520,184 949,312 860,378 791,551 351,752

Damages per Unit 3 / 44.66$

Damages 278,241$ 14,822,707$ 23,232,200$ 42,397,702$ 38,425,776$ 35,351,873$ 15,709,774$

2010



35/51


36/51


STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded 1/ 2/

EX

Prepared by Invotex GroupPage 3 of 3

Infringing Product (Units)Galaxy TabGalaxy Tab 10.1Tablet Units

CaptivateContinuumDroid ChargeEpic 4GExhibit 4GFascinateGalaxy AceGalaxy PrevailGalaxy S (i9000)Galaxy S 4GGalaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G)Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition)Galaxy S ShowcaseGemIndulgeInfuse 4GMesmerizeNexus S 4GReplenishTransform 3/VibrantSmartphone Units

Total Infringing Units

Damages per Unit 3 /

Damages

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June11,409 13,991 9,611 5,140 4,638 14,890 725,299 47,475 39,008 17,491 (1,782) 4,636 (1,545) 585,306 58,884 52,999 27,102 3,358 9,274 13,345 1,310,605

(707) (35) (45) (46) 3 (21) 1,182,596 (9) (3) - (6) - - 320,156

9,553 11,727 36,321 23,456 18,818 6,679 805,920 34,320 21,180 8,221 37,935 - (1) 1,876,145

(16) (14) 13,992 1 6,004 (9) 303,031 (72) (28) (29) (11) 6 - 1,433,892

175,320 164,880 76,680 151,560 100,080 49,680 2,255,040

98,456 40,164 45,058 65,359 2,071 50,093 1,446,903 (265) (111) 68,720 50,963 40,558 30,113 573,639

226,118 126,660 162,810 251,140 147,600 182,200 1,675,160 64,867 14,203 68,403 42,316 52,441 66,312 636,314

168,164 140,073 205,886 218,567 81,826 4,776 1,251,578 29,734 18,085 25,200 39,174 28,705 12,085 417,499

548 (348) (87) (86) 222 - 374,350 - - (32) - - - 270,580

40,423 55,197 58,522 39,196 797 (39) 1,044,739 (157) (136) 10,424 90,809 28,990 878 787,777

8,075 (18,000) 17,985 - - - 512,128 126,360 78,480 55,560 64,750 10,410 - 938,447

- (4) - - - - 382,626 - - - - - - 1,021,043

980,712 651,970 853,589 1,075,077 518,531 402,746 19,509,563

1,039,596 704,969 880,691 1,078,435 527,805 416,091 20,820,168

44.66$

46,429,921$ 31,484,976$ 39,332,985$ 48,164,530$ 23,572,565$ 18,583,250$ 929,860,041$

Sources/Notes:

3/ See EXHIBIT 3.2.

2/ Unit sales calculated Damages calculated from start of violation of unregistered trade dress; August 4, 2010 for the 381 Patent; April15, 2011 for 915, patent, D677 design patent, and 983 registered trade dress; and June 16, 2011 for the 163 patent, D087, D305, andD889 design patents.

2012Total

1/ STA and SEA unit sales per SAMNDCA00402075 and '4875335_1_Highly Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Worldwide Accused Model2012 2Q update.xls'.



37/51

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al. EXHIBIT 3.2



Apple Damage Award (November 21, 2013 Jury Verdict) 290,456,793 2/

Total Damage Award 929,860,041$

Total Infringing Units Sold 20,820,168 3/

Average Damages Per Unit 44.66$

Sources/Notes:1/

2/ Verdict Form, 11/21/13, p. 1.3/

Analysis of Damages per Unit Based onthe Jury Verdict

See EXHIBIT 3.1.

Per Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12, Order Re: Damages, 3/1/13, p. 26, and CaseManagement Order, 4/29/13, p. 2.



38/51



January-12 February-12 March-12 April-12 May-12 June-12 July-12 August-12 September-12 October-12 November-12 December-12 Subtotal

onthly Damages 2/ 5,914,361$ 18,422,793$ To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined

or Month's Principal - - - - - - - - - or Month's Damages - - - - - - - - 5,914,361 ncipal Available for Interest -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,914,361$ -$ -$ -$

erest Earned -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 887$ -$ -$ -$

January-13 February-13 March-13 April-13 May-13 June-13 July-13 August-13 September-13 October-13 November-13 December-13 Subtotal Grand Total

on th ly D am ag es To Be D et erm in ed To B e De te rm in ed To Be D et erm in ed To Be De te rm ine d To B e D et er mi ne d To Be D et erm in ed To B e De te rm in ed To Be D et erm in ed

or Month's Principalor Month's Damagesor Year's Interestncipal Available for Interest -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

erest Earned -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $

urces/Notes:One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (htt p://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm).

Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12year Treasury constant maturity 0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 0.18% 0.16%onthly interest rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.01%

Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% 0.15% 0.12% 0.12% 0.14% 0.12% 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12% 0.12%onthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%vember 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013.

See EXHIBIT 2.

Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Apple's Supplemental Damages(Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/ )



39/51




Judgment as a Matter of Law Damage Amount 379,776,091 2/

Total Damage Award Requested 1,019,179,339$

Supplemental Damages: August 25-31, 2012 to September 2012 24,506,175$ 3/

Supplemental Damages: October 2012 to February 2013 To Be Determined 3/

Supplemental Damages: March 2013 to August 2013 To Be Determined 3/

Total Supplemental Damages: August 25, 2012 to August 2013 To Be Determined

Total Damages Award To Be Determined

Prejudgment Interest on Jury Award (through December 31, 2013) 3,820,615$ 4/

Prejudgment Interest on Supplemental Damages To Be Determined 5/

Total Prejudgment Interest To Be Determined

TOTAL FOR FINAL JUDGMENT To Be Determined

Sources/Notes:

2/ PX 25F.4.3/ See EXHIBIT 2. October 2012 to Present available but not produced by Samsung.4/ See EXHIBIT 3.5/ See EXHIBIT 4.

Summary of Apple Confirmed, Retrial & Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest

(Alternate Calculation)

1/ Per Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12, Order Re: Damages, 3/1/13, p. 26, and Case Management Order, 4/29/13, p. 2.



40/51



Calculation of Apple's Supplemental Damages(Alternate Calculation)

Confirmed Verdict Products Retrial Verdict Products

Month Data Source Galaxy S 4GGalaxy S II (Epic

4G Touch)Galaxy S II(Skyrocket)

Galaxy S II(T-Mobile edition)

Galaxy S Showcase(i500)

DroidCharge

GalaxyPrevail Total

Unadjusted Unit Sales 4/ July 2012 Kerstetter 1/ 49,159 171,000 96,253 53,047 12,077 4,950 25,920 412,406 August 2012 Kerstetter 1/ 947 204,302 57,721 134,021 1,441 25,686 4,680 428,798 September 2012 Kerstetter 1/ - 149,280 20,627 120,309 3,335 635 16,200 310,386 October 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - November 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - December 2012 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - January 2013 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - February 2013 Avail. From '630 case - - - - - March 2013 - - - - - April 2013 - - - - - May 2013 - - - - - June 2013 - - - - - July 2013 - - - - - August 2013 - - - - -

Unit Sales Used in Supplemental Damages CalculationAugust 25-31, 2012 2/ - 46,133 13,034 30,263 325 5,800 1,057 96,612 September 2012 to August 2013 - 149,280 20,627 120,309 3,335 635 16,200 310,386 Total - 195,413 33,661 150,572 3,660 6,435 17,257 406,998

Damages per Unit 3/ 50.69$ 59.90$ 50.74$ 66.93$ 52.76$ 101.58$ 9.82$

Supplemental DamagesAugust 25-31, 2012 -$ 2,763,197$ 661,394$ 2,025,377$ 17,168$ 589,189$ 10,377$ 6,066,703$September 2012 - 8,941,381 1,046,709 8,051,834 175,964 64,505 159,079 18,439,472 Total - August 25th to September 30, 2012 -$ 11,704,578$ 1,708,102$ 10,077,212$ 193,133$ 653,695$ 169,456$ 24,506,175$

October 2012 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$November 2012 - - - - - - - - December 2012 - - - - - - - - January 2013 - - - - - - - -

February 2013 - - - - - - - - March 2013 - - - - - - - - April 2013 - - - - - - - - May 2013 - - - - - - - - June 2013 - - - - - - - - July 2013 - - - - - - - - August 2013 - - - - - - - - Total - October 2012 to August 2013 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Supplemental Damages -$ To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined 193,133$ 653,695$ To Be Determined To Be Determined

Sources/Notes:1/ July to September 2012 sales per Exhibit 2 to the Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012.

3/ See EXHIBIT 6.1.

2/ Supplemental damages for August 2012 begin on August 25, 2012 per Order Re: Damages, 3/1/13, p. 3. August units prorated (7/31 days X Total August units). The expected last sale date of the Galaxy S4G was August 15, 2012 per KerstetterDeclaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1.

4/ The expected last sale date of the Galaxy SII phones above is 2nd Quarter 2013 and for the Galaxy Prevail October 5, 2012, per Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1. Shaded boxes indicate months where sales are expected.



41/51

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. EXHIBIT


Samsung Products Selling After Finding of Infringement(Alternate Calculation)

Product Jury Verdict of Units Per Unit

3/Galaxy S 4G 1/ $73,344,668 1,447,000 $ 50.69Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) 1/ $100,326,988 1,675,000 $ 59.90Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) 1/ $32,273,558 636,000 $ 50.74Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) 1/ $83,791,708 1,252,000 $ 66.93Galaxy S Showcase (i500) 1/ $22,002,146 417,000 $ 52.76Droid Charge 2/ $81,876,077 806,000 $ 101.58Galaxy Prevail 2/ $22,143,335 2,255,000 $ 9.82

Sources/Notes:1/ Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12.2/ PX 25F.4.3/ JX-1500 and JX-1500A1.



42/51




onthly Damages 2/ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 304,968$ 16,246,527$ 25,463,809$ 46,470,286$ 42,116,830$ 38,747,658$ 17,218,803$ 186,568,880$

or Month's Principal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 304,968$ 16,551,495$ 42,015,304$ 88,485,590$ 130,602,420$or Month's Damages - - - - - - 304,968 16,246,527 25,463,809 46,470,286 42,116,830 38,747,658 or Year's Interest 3/ - - - - - - - - - - - - ncipal Available for Interest -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 304,968$ 16,551,495$ 42,015,304$ 88,485,590$ 130,602,420$ 169,350,078$

erest Earned -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 74$ 3,586$ 9,103$ 16,960$ 27,209$ 40,926$ 97,858$


onthly Damages 2/ 27,854,945$ 31,210,279$ 31,688,781$ 58,436,344$ 81,361,427$ 75,171,946$ 54,135,559$ 47,017,809$ 40,591,108$ 57,396,906$ 64,835,093$ 35,403,713$ 605,103,910$

or Month's Principal 169,350,078$ 186,666,738$ 214,521,683$ 245,731,962$ 277,420,743$ 335,857,086$ 417,218,514$ 492,390,459$ 546,526,018$ 593,543,827$ 634,134,935$ 691,531,842$or Month's Damages 17,218,803 27,854,945 31,210,279 31,688,781 58,436,344 81,361,427 75,171,946 54,135,559 47,017,809 40,591,108 57,396,906 64,835,093 or Year's Interest 3/ 97,858 ncipal Available for Interest 186,666,738$ 214,521,683$ 245,731,962$ 277,420,743$ 335,857,086$ 417,218,514$ 492,390,459$ 546,526,018$ 593,543,827$ 634,134,935$ 691,531,842$ 756,366,935$

erest Earned 42,000$ 51,843$ 53,242$ 57,796$ 53,177$ 62,583$ 77,962$ 50,098$ 49,462$ 58,129$ 63,390$ 75,637$ 695,319$


onthly Damages 2/ 50,889,827$ 34,509,319$ 43,111,182$ 52,791,056$ 25,836,868$ 20,368,296$ 227,506,549$

or Month's Principal 756,366,935$ 792,465,967$ 843,355,794$ 877,865,113$ 920,976,296$ 973,767,352$ 999,604,220$ 1,019,972,516$ 1,019,972,516$ 1,019,972,516$ 1,019,972,516$ 1,019,972,516$or Month's Damages 35,403,713 50,889,827 34,509,319 43,111,182 52,791,056 25,836,868 20,368,296 - - - - - or Year's Interest 3/ 695,319 ncipal Available for Interest 792,465,967$ 843,355,794$ 877,865,113$ 920,976,296$ 973,767,352$ 999,604,220$ 1,019,972,51

Documents

13-12-13 Apple's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law