Sie sind auf Seite 1von 51

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) ejolson@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (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., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Date: Time: Place: Judge:

January 30, 2014 1:30 p.m. Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Hon. Lucy H. Koh

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

By: /s/ William F. Lee WILLIAM F. LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 III. 7 8 A. 9 B. 10 IV. 11 12 V. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii I. II. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 APPLE IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON SAMSUNGS PROFITS..................................................................................................... 2 APPLE REQUESTS AN ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS PRIOR ORDER. ................................................................................................................. 5 Supplemental Damages ........................................................................................... 6 Prejudgment Interest. .............................................................................................. 8

UPON REMAND FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, APPLE WILL ASK THE COURT TO ENTER A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SAMSUNGS INFRINGEMENT OF THE 381, 915, AND 163 PATENTS......................................... 8 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

ii

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page4 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 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

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

iii

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page5 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

iv

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page6 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 to deduct 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

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page7 of 15

1 2 3 4 5

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 ON SAMSUNGS 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

6 7

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

8 profits. The Court should accordingly grant judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to Apple on 9 that issue. See Ostad v. Oregon Health Scis. Univ., 327 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2003) (Under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), [j]udgment as a matter of law is proper when the 11 evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by 12 the jury.); Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (same). 13 As the Court correctly instructed the jury, Apple is entitled to all profit earned by 14 Samsung on sales of articles that infringe Apples design patents unless Samsung met its burden 15 of proving deductible expenses . . . directly attributable to the sale or manufacture of the 16 infringing product resulting in a nexus between the infringing products and the expense. (Dkt. 17 2784 at 43 (instructing that [p]rofit is determined by deducting certain expenses from gross 18 revenue).) There was no dispute at trial that Samsung had gross revenue of $854 million from 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Apples pending motion for attorneys fees as well as the ongoing sanctions proceedings will not impede appellate review of a final judgment resolving the liability and damages issues in this case. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202-203 (1988) ([A] decision on the merits is a final decision whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorneys 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 granting sanctions [wa]s a separate order which [wa]s not final and appealable until the district court has decided 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. (Apple sought 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 full amount of Samsungs profits.Compare PX25F.4, with Dkt. 2822.) However, the damages awarded for the seven products for which
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page8 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 any evidence 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 Given the close relationship between patent and copyright lawwhich derive from the same clause of the Constitutioncourts routinely apply principles from patent law to copyright
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page9 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 to the production of Hallelujah Hollywood. The difficulty we have, however, is that defendants offered no evidence of what costs were included in general categories such as general and administrative expenses, nor did they offer any evidence concerning how these costs contributed to the production of Hallelujah Hollywood. The defendants contend their burden was met when they introduced evidence of their total overhead costs allocated on a reasonable basis. . . . That is not the law of this circuit. [A] defendant additionally must show that the categories of overhead actually contributed to sales of the infringing work. We can find 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 a matter 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 refer to patent law in copyright cases because of the historic kinship between patent law and copyright law); 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.).
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page10 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 DAMAGES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS PRIOR ORDER. 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
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page11 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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 damages amounts 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 TMobile ($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.)

26 27 28

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 2013 verdict for those that were. Apple has provided additional calculations that reflect the amount of supplemental damages and prejudgment interest in the event that the Court grants Apples motion for JMOL. (See Robinson Decl. Exs. 5-8.) 6

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page12 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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:

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page13 of 15

1 Infringing Product 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total B. Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) Droid Charge Galaxy Prevail 195,413 + Additional Sales 33,661 + Additional Sales 150,572 + Additional Sales 3,660 6,435 17,257 + Additional Sales 406,998 + Additional Sales Prejudgment Interest. Units

Per Unit Damages $59.90 $50.74 $66.93 $52.76 $75.32 $9.82

Supplemental Damages (Units x Per Unit Damages) $11,704,578 + Additional Damages $1,708,102 + Additional Damages $10,077,212 + Additional Damages $193,133 $484,674 $169,456 + Additional Damages $24,337,154 + Additional Damages

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 THE COURT 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
APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page14 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

By: /s/ William F. Lee WILLIAM F. LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876 Filed12/13/13 Page15 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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

APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

10

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) ejolson@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522

WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK

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

SELWYN DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-1 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

DECLARATION OF MARK D. SELWYN ISO APPLE INC.S MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-1 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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. Lee William F. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC

DECLARATION OF MARK D. SELWYN ISO APPLE INC.S MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-2 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 3

EXHIBIT 1

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-2 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 3

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Carl Anderson <carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com> Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:46 AM Selwyn, Mark; Anthony Alden Samsung Damages TrialTeam; 'AvSS Damages Trial'; WH Apple Samsung Damages Retrial RE: Apple v. Samsung -- Supplemental Damages

Mark, The Courts March 1 Order delayed any consideration of post-verdict sales until after resolution of appeals. Dkt. 2271 at 5-6 (the Court finds that it would be appropriate to delay the consideration of evidence of actual post-verdict sales until after the completion of the appeals in this case."). Please confirm whether Apple 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 would cause the same risk of unnecessary expenditures of time and money that the Court's order is intended to avoid. See id. The parties should discuss any production of additional sales information after post-trial appeals have been resolved, as expressly contemplated by the Court. Very truly yours, Carl

Carl Anderson Partner,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-875-6328 Direct 415-875-6600 Main Office Number 415-875-6700 FAX carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com This message was sent by an attorney and may contain confidential information protected by a legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us by phone or e-mail that you have done so.


From: Selwyn, Mark [mailto:Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:32 PM To: Anthony Alden; Carl Anderson Cc: Samsung Damages TrialTeam; 'AvSS Damages Trial'; WH Apple Samsung Damages Retrial Subject: Apple v. Samsung -- Supplemental Damages

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-2 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 3


AnthonyandCarl: UndertheCourtsMarch1Order,AppleisentitledtosupplementaldamagesonSamsungsactualsalesofproducts foundtobeinfringinginthe1846casefromAugust25,2013tothepresent.Mr.Kerstettersdeclarationinthefallof 2012providedtheunitsalesfiguresthroughSeptember2012.Samsungproducedtheunitsalesfortherelevant productsthroughFebruary2013inthe630ActionintwospreadsheetslabeledSAMNDCA63006642236and SAMNDCA63006642236.Basedonpublicinformation,salesofthreeproducts(GalaxySIITMobile,GalaxySII Skyrocket,andGalaxySIIEpic4GTouch)continuedafterFebruary2013untilsometimeinthesummerorfallof2013. Accordingly,Applerequeststhefollowing:(1)thatSamsungconfirmthatApplemayusetheunitsalesinformationfrom thetwospreadsheetsidentifiedabovetoavoidaduplicativeproductionofthesamedata;and(2)thatSamsungprovide theunitsalesinformationbymonthforGalaxySIITMobile,GalaxySIISkyrocket,andGalaxySIIEpic4GTouchfrom March2013untilthelastsalesdate.Forthesupplementaldamagescalculation,Appledoesnotneedrevenue,COGS andoperatingexpenseinformation. Thankyouforyourassistance.PleaseconfirmbyTuesdaymorningthatSamsungwillprovidethisinformation. Mark

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) DECLARATION OF MARYLEE ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I.

I, Marylee Robinson, hereby declare as follows: 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. 3. My business address is 1637 Thames Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21231. 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
ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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. 6. Supplemental Damages 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 included in 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.

26 27 28

See, e.g., Sales of Accused Products, JX1500 and JX1500A.

See Dkt. No. 1554 at 3 (Apple and Samsung by agreement exchanged documents reflecting financial results updated for periods between April and June 2012. . . . Apple and Samsung by agreement exchanged updated plaintiffs and defendants exhibits that incorporate the Updated Financial Results . . . .).

ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page4 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 Order re 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
ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page5 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 the

top 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. 16. Prejudgment Interest 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 52week T-Bill rate compounded annually. The calculations are provided in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 to this declaration.
ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page6 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

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 JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. 21. ON APPLES MOTION FOR

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. 21 22. 22 damages award, supplemental damages and prejudgment interest using the same methods 23 described above but including the final damages amount in PX25F instead of the November 21, 24 2013 jury verdict. Those calculations are presented in Exhibits 5 to 8, which are attached to this 25 declaration and are labeled as an Alternate Calculation in the relevant titles. 26 27 28
ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

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

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page7 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-3 Filed12/13/13 Page8 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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. Lee William F. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC

ROBINSON DECL. ISO APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 18


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

EXHIBIT 1

Summary of Apple Confirmed, Retrial & Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest
Apple Confirmed Damage Award (August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict) Apple Damage Award (November 21, 2013 Jury Verdict) Total Jury Awards Supplemental Damages: August 25-31, 2012 to September 2012 Supplemental Damages: October 2012 to February 2013 Supplemental Damages: March 2013 to August 2013 Total Supplemental Damages: August 25, 2012 to August 2013 Total Damages Award Prejudgment Interest on Jury Award (through December 31, 2013) Prejudgment Interest on Supplemental Damages Total Prejudgment Interest TOTAL FOR FINAL JUDGMENT $ $ $ $ 639,403,248 1/ 290,456,793 2/ 929,860,041 24,337,154 3/ To Be Determined 3/ To Be Determined 3/ To Be Determined To Be Determined 3,485,782 4/ To Be Determined 5/ To Be Determined To Be Determined

Sources/Notes: 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. 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.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
Calculation of Apple's Supplemental Damages
Confirmed Verdict Products Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) 171,000 204,302 149,280 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) 96,253 57,721 20,627 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) 53,047 134,021 120,309 Galaxy S Showcase (i500) 12,077 1,441 3,335 Retrial Verdict Products Droid Charge 4,950 25,686 635 Galaxy Prevail 25,920 4,680 16,200 -

EXHIBIT 2

Month Unadjusted Unit Sales 4/ July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013

Data Source Kerstetter 1/ Kerstetter 1/ Kerstetter 1/ Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case

Galaxy S 4G 49,159 947 -

Total 412,406 428,798 310,386 -

Unit Sales Used in Supplemental Damages Calculation August 25-31, 2012 September 2012 to August 2013 Total Damages per Unit Supplemental Damages August 25-31, 2012 September 2012 Total - August 25th to September 30, 2012 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

2/

50.69 $

46,133 149,280 195,413 59.90 $

13,034 20,627 33,661 50.74 $

30,263 120,309 150,572 66.93 $

325 3,335 3,660 52.76 $

5,800 635 6,435 75.32 $

1,057 16,200 17,257 9.82

96,612 310,386 406,998

3/ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

2,763,197 8,941,381 11,704,578 -

$ $ $

661,394 1,046,709 1,708,102 -

$ $ $

2,025,377 8,051,834 10,077,212 -

$ $ $

17,168 175,964 193,133 193,133

$ $ $

436,847 47,827 484,674 484,674

$ $ $

10,377 159,079 169,456 -

$ $ $

5,914,361 18,422,793 24,337,154 -

$ $

$ $

$ $

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

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. 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 Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1. 3/ See EXHIBIT 2.1. 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.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 18


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Samsung Products Selling After Finding of Infringement

EXHIBIT 2.1

Product

Jury Verdict

# of Units 3/ 1,447,000 1,675,000 636,000 1,252,000 417,000 806,000 2,255,000

Per Unit

Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) Droid Charge Galaxy Prevail

1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/

$73,344,668 $100,326,988 $32,273,558 $83,791,708 $22,002,146 $60,706,020 $22,143,335

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

50.69 59.90 50.74 66.93 52.76 75.32 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.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page4 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Jury Verdict
(Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/)
2010 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $ January-10 $ $ $ $ February-10 $ $ $ $ March-10 $ $ $ $ April-10 $ $ $ $ May-10 $ $ $ $ June-10 278,241 $ $ $ $ July-10 14,822,707 278,241 278,241 67 $ $ August-10 23,232,200 278,241 14,822,707 15,100,948 3,272 $ $ September-10 42,397,702 15,100,948 23,232,200 38,333,148 8,306 $ $ October-10 38,425,776 38,333,148 42,397,702 80,730,850 15,473 $ $ November-10 35,351,873 80,730,850 38,425,776 119,156,626 24,824 $ $ December-10 15,709,774 119,156,626 35,351,873 154,508,499 37,340 $ 89,282 Annual Total $ 170,218,273

EXHIBIT 3

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

2011 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $

January-11 25,413,781 154,508,499 15,709,774 89,282 170,307,555 38,319 $ $

February-11 28,475,059 170,307,555 25,413,781 195,721,335 47,299 $ $

March-11 28,911,625 195,721,335 28,475,059 224,196,394 48,576 $ $

April-11 53,315,073 224,196,394 28,911,625 253,108,019 52,731 $ $

May-11 74,231,038 253,108,019 53,315,073 306,423,092 48,517 $ $

June-11 68,583,993 306,423,092 74,231,038 380,654,130 57,098 $ $

July-11 49,391,202 380,654,130 68,583,993 449,238,123 71,129 $ $

August-11 42,897,241 449,238,123 49,391,202 498,629,325 45,708 $ $

September-11 37,033,766 498,629,325 42,897,241 541,526,566 45,127 $ $

October-11 52,366,731 541,526,566 37,033,766 578,560,332 53,035 $ $

November-11 59,153,046 578,560,332 52,366,731 630,927,063 57,835 $ $

December-11 32,300,986 630,927,063 59,153,046 690,080,109 69,008 $

Annual Total $ 552,073,541

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

634,382

2012 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $

January-12 46,429,921 690,080,109 32,300,986 634,382 723,015,478 72,302 $ $

February-12 31,484,976 723,015,478 46,429,921 769,445,399 102,593 $ $

March-12 39,332,985 769,445,399 31,484,976 800,930,375 126,814 $ $

April-12 48,164,530 800,930,375 39,332,985 840,263,360 126,040 $ $

May-12 23,572,565 840,263,360 48,164,530 888,427,890 140,668 $ $

June-12 18,583,250 888,427,890 23,572,565 912,000,455 144,400 $

July-12

August-12

September-12

October-12

November-12

December-12

Annual Total $ 207,568,228

912,000,455 18,583,250 930,583,705 147,342

930,583,705 930,583,705 139,588

930,583,705 930,583,705 139,588

930,583,705 930,583,705 139,588

930,583,705 930,583,705 139,588

930,583,705 930,583,705 124,078 $ 1,542,586

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

2013 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned $

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 929,860,041

$ $

930,583,705 1,542,586 932,126,291 116,516

932,126,291 932,126,291 124,284

932,126,291 932,126,291 116,516

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 108,748

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 100,980

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213

932,126,291 932,126,291 93,213 $ 1,219,532 $ 3,485,782

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

Sources/Notes: 1/ One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate 0.27% 0.29% 0.02% 0.02% Jan-12 Feb-12 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.12% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% Jan-13 Feb-13 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% November 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013. 2/ See EXHIBIT 3.1. 3/ Interest has been compounded on a calendar year basis. 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate 0.29% 0.02% Jul-11 0.19% 0.02% Jul-12 0.19% 0.02% Jul-13 0.12% 0.01%

Jul-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

0.26% 0.02% Mar-12 0.19% 0.02% Mar-13 0.15% 0.01%

Mar-11

0.25% 0.02% Apr-12 0.18% 0.02% Apr-13 0.12% 0.01%

Apr-11

0.19% 0.02% May-12 0.19% 0.02% May-13 0.12% 0.01%

May-11

0.18% 0.02% Jun-12 0.19% 0.02% Jun-13 0.14% 0.01%

Jun-11

0.26% 0.02% Aug-11 0.11% 0.01% Aug-12 0.18% 0.02% Aug-13 0.13% 0.01%

Aug-10

0.26% 0.02% Sep-11 0.10% 0.01% Sep-12 0.18% 0.02% Sep-13 0.12% 0.01%

Sep-10

0.23% 0.02% Oct-11 0.11% 0.01% Oct-12 0.18% 0.02% Oct-13 0.12% 0.01%

Oct-10

0.25% 0.02% Nov-11 0.11% 0.01% Nov-12 0.18% 0.02% Nov-13 0.12% 0.01%

Nov-10

0.29% 0.02% Dec-11 0.12% 0.01% Dec-12 0.16% 0.01% Dec-13 0.12% 0.01%

Dec-10

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page5 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Start Date 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 Jun Jul Aug 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 n/a 8/4/2010 n/a 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 11/30/2010 7/11/2008 167,644 194,844 49,190 108,506 520,184 520,184 105,982 157,610 491,801 193,919 949,312 949,312 2010 Sep Oct 220 220 117,540 2,389 160,590 329,939 32,620 217,080 860,158 860,378 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 3.1

Nov 236,465 236,465 30,096 104,401 155,355 81,703 15,890 68,780 1,680 97,181 555,086 791,551

Dec 25,414 25,414 103,745 66,770 13,430 74,573 15,610 18,230 15,620 18,360 326,338 351,752

6,230 6,230 6,230 44.66 278,241 $

331,890 331,890 331,890

14,822,707

23,232,200

42,397,702

38,425,776

35,351,873

15,709,774

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 1 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page6 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
2011 Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Jan 33,372 33,372 93,485 230 131,594 107,877 13,500 17,920 47,170 91,980 31,903 535,659 569,031 44.66 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 $ Feb 17,799 17,799 88,043 (21) 81,280 7,350 208,190 10,610 16,240 96,484 45,040 65,560 1,000 619,776 637,575 Mar 25,815 25,815 47,819 7,144 154,540 45,525 145,365 14,090 62,976 47,236 57,170 31,750 7,920 621,535 647,350 Apr 51,648 51,648 41,468 11,406 213,600 119,070 121,909 104,820 142,090 25,290 55,864 (7) 5,000 88,061 80,250 81,940 49,770 1,580 1,142,111 1,193,759 May 31,986 5,640 37,626 27,690 18,328 107,890 232,320 46,583 247,800 16,920 24,909 27,186 (11) 248,996 61,429 297,300 217,410 44,220 5,485 1,624,455 1,662,081 Jun 49,120 127,558 176,678 100,537 30,141 130,577 169,110 117,781 29,420 313,320 94,050 28,285 70,417 (33) 34,230 56,793 23,100 139,185 22,050 (1) 1,358,962 1,535,640 Jul 55,169 38,523 93,692 84,038 51,299 95,049 67,140 26,986 34,191 262,290 95,087 29,288 47,533 19,942 90,035 375 17,000 59,680 32,280 (4) 1,012,209 1,105,901 Aug 32,434 48,964 81,398 77,167 18,007 53,405 1,890 61,128 6,260 201,600 136,560 20 33,788 28,724 30,733 130,057 23,471 6,020 42,549 27,720 879,099 960,497 Sep 4,327 45,899 50,226 20,087 10,164 6,964 44,221 7,872 74,970 70,337 110,319 164,700 10,995 25,440 15,001 140,003 30,672 47,245 (6) 778,984 829,210 Oct 65,354 94,184 159,538 24,648 (51) 28,491 36,540 15,117 (36) 99,840 45,043 156,116 138,985 13,640 257,075 3,159 18,097 18,203 87,259 56,199 14,660 2 1,012,987 1,172,525 Nov 26,356 73,189 99,545 31,850 (95) 31,767 61,320 17,873 (180) 185,400 73,118 101,115 204,320 149,066 60,141 26,347 4,104 25,204 112,949 60,213 80,400 20 (2) 1,224,930 1,324,475 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 3.1

Dec 10,141 46,066 56,207 21,608 62 31,623 37,857 (33) 49 46,800 118,942 16,111 70,607 165,066 115,070 12,755 (400) 17,860 2,114 10,746 (2) 198 667,033 723,240

32,300,986

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 2 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page7 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
2012 Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Jan 11,409 47,475 58,884 (707) (9) 9,553 34,320 (16) (72) 175,320 98,456 (265) 226,118 64,867 168,164 29,734 548 40,423 (157) 8,075 126,360 980,712 1,039,596 44.66 46,429,921 $ 31,484,976 $ 39,332,985 $ 48,164,530 $ 23,572,565 $ 18,583,250 $ 929,860,041 Feb 13,991 39,008 52,999 (35) (3) 11,727 21,180 (14) (28) 164,880 40,164 (111) 126,660 14,203 140,073 18,085 (348) 55,197 (136) (18,000) 78,480 (4) 651,970 704,969 Mar 9,611 17,491 27,102 (45) 36,321 8,221 13,992 (29) 76,680 45,058 68,720 162,810 68,403 205,886 25,200 (87) (32) 58,522 10,424 17,985 55,560 853,589 880,691 Apr 5,140 (1,782) 3,358 (46) (6) 23,456 37,935 1 (11) 151,560 65,359 50,963 251,140 42,316 218,567 39,174 (86) 39,196 90,809 64,750 1,075,077 1,078,435 May 4,638 4,636 9,274 3 18,818 6,004 6 100,080 2,071 40,558 147,600 52,441 81,826 28,705 222 797 28,990 10,410 518,531 527,805 June 14,890 (1,545) 13,345 (21) 6,679 (1) (9) 49,680 50,093 30,113 182,200 66,312 4,776 12,085 (39) 878 402,746 416,091 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 3.1

Total 725,299 585,306 1,310,605 1,182,596 320,156 805,920 1,876,145 303,031 1,433,892 2,255,040 1,446,903 573,639 1,675,160 636,314 1,251,578 417,499 374,350 270,580 1,044,739 787,777 512,128 938,447 382,626 1,021,043 19,509,563 20,820,168

Sources/Notes: 1/ STA and SEA unit sales per SAMNDCA00402075 and '4875335_1_Highly Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Worldwide Accused Model 2012 2Q update.xls'. 2/ Unit sales calculated Damages calculated from start of violation of unregistered trade dress; August 4, 2010 for the 381 Patent; April 15, 2011 for 915, patent, D677 design patent, and 983 registered trade dress; and June 16, 2011 for the 163 patent, D087, D305, and D889 design patents. 3/ See EXHIBIT 3.2.

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 3 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page8 of 18


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

EXHIBIT 3.2

Analysis of Damages per Unit Based on the Jury Verdict


Apple Confirmed Damage Award (August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict) Apple Damage Award (November 21, 2013 Jury Verdict) Total Damage Award Total Infringing Units Sold Average Damages Per Unit $ $ $ 639,403,248 1/ 290,456,793 2/ 929,860,041 20,820,168 3/ 44.66

Sources/Notes: 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. 2/ Verdict Form, 11/21/13, p. 1. 3/ See EXHIBIT 3.1.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHKAppleDocument2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page9 of 18 Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.


Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Apple's Supplemental Damages (Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/)
January-12 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ February-12 March-12 April-12 May-12 June-12 July-12 $ August-12 5,914,361 September-12 $ 18,422,793 5,914,361 5,914,361 887 October-12 To Be Determined November-12 To Be Determined December-12 To Be Determined Subtotal

EXHIBIT 4

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

January-13 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned To Be Determined

February-13 To Be Determined

March-13 To Be Determined

April-13 To Be Determined

May-13 To Be Determined

June-13 To Be Determined

July-13 To Be Determined

August-13 To Be Determined

September-13

October-13

November-13

December-13

Subtotal

Grand Total

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ -

Sources/Notes: 1/ One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate Jan-13 Feb-13 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% November 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013. 2/ See EXHIBIT 2. Mar-13 0.15% 0.01% Apr-13 0.12% 0.01% May-13 0.12% 0.01% Jun-13 0.14% 0.01% Jul-12 0.19% 0.02% Jul-13 0.12% 0.01% Aug-12 0.18% 0.02% Aug-13 0.13% 0.01% Sep-12 0.18% 0.02% Sep-13 0.12% 0.01% Oct-12 0.18% 0.02% Oct-13 0.12% 0.01% Nov-12 0.18% 0.02% Nov-13 0.12% 0.01% Dec-12 0.16% 0.01% Dec-13 0.12% 0.01%

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page10 of 18


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

EXHIBIT 5

Summary of Apple Confirmed, Retrial & Supplemental Damages and Prejudgment Interest (Alternate Calculation)
Apple Confirmed Damage Award (August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict) Judgment as a Matter of Law Damage Amount Total Damage Award Requested Supplemental Damages: August 25-31, 2012 to September 2012 Supplemental Damages: October 2012 to February 2013 Supplemental Damages: March 2013 to August 2013 Total Supplemental Damages: August 25, 2012 to August 2013 Total Damages Award Prejudgment Interest on Jury Award (through December 31, 2013) Prejudgment Interest on Supplemental Damages Total Prejudgment Interest TOTAL FOR FINAL JUDGMENT $ $ $ $ 639,403,248 1/ 379,776,091 2/ 1,019,179,339 24,506,175 3/ To Be Determined 3/ To Be Determined 3/ To Be Determined To Be Determined 3,820,615 4/ To Be Determined 5/ To Be Determined To Be Determined

Sources/Notes: 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. 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.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page11 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
Calculation of Apple's Supplemental Damages (Alternate Calculation)
Confirmed Verdict Products Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) 171,000 204,302 149,280 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) 96,253 57,721 20,627 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) 53,047 134,021 120,309 Galaxy S Showcase (i500) 12,077 1,441 3,335 Retrial Verdict Products Droid Charge 4,950 25,686 635 Galaxy Prevail 25,920 4,680 16,200 -

EXHIBIT 6

Month Unadjusted Unit Sales 4/ July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013

Data Source Kerstetter 1/ Kerstetter 1/ Kerstetter 1/ Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case Avail. From '630 case

Galaxy S 4G 49,159 947 -

Total 412,406 428,798 310,386 -

Unit Sales Used in Supplemental Damages Calculation August 25-31, 2012 September 2012 to August 2013 Total Damages per Unit Supplemental Damages August 25-31, 2012 September 2012 Total - August 25th to September 30, 2012 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

2/

50.69 $

46,133 149,280 195,413 59.90 $

13,034 20,627 33,661 50.74 $

30,263 120,309 150,572 66.93 $

325 3,335 3,660 52.76 $

5,800 635 6,435 101.58 $

1,057 16,200 17,257 9.82

96,612 310,386 406,998

3/ $

$ $ $

$ $ $

2,763,197 8,941,381 11,704,578 -

$ $ $

661,394 1,046,709 1,708,102 -

$ $ $

2,025,377 8,051,834 10,077,212 -

$ $ $

17,168 175,964 193,133 193,133

$ $ $

589,189 64,505 653,695 653,695

$ $ $

10,377 159,079 169,456 -

$ $ $

6,066,703 18,439,472 24,506,175 -

$ $

$ $

$ $

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

To Be Determined

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. 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 Kerstetter Declaration dated October 19, 2012, Exhibit 1. 3/ See EXHIBIT 6.1. 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.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page12 of 18


Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Samsung Products Selling After Finding of Infringement (Alternate Calculation)

EXHIBIT 6.1

Product

Jury Verdict

# of Units 3/ 1,447,000 1,675,000 636,000 1,252,000 417,000 806,000 2,255,000

Per Unit

Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) Galaxy S Showcase (i500) Droid Charge Galaxy Prevail

1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 2/ 2/

$73,344,668 $100,326,988 $32,273,558 $83,791,708 $22,002,146 $81,876,077 $22,143,335

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

50.69 59.90 50.74 66.93 52.76 101.58 9.82

Sources/Notes: 1/ Amended Verdict Form, 8/24/12. 2/ PX 25F.4. 3/ JX-1500 and JX-1500A1.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page13 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Jury Verdict
(Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/) (Alternate Calculation)
2010 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $ January-10 $ $ $ $ February-10 $ $ $ $ March-10 $ $ $ $ April-10 $ $ $ $ May-10 $ $ $ $ June-10 304,968 $ $ $ $ July-10 16,246,527 304,968 304,968 74 $ $ August-10 25,463,809 304,968 16,246,527 16,551,495 3,586 $ $ September-10 46,470,286 16,551,495 25,463,809 42,015,304 9,103 $ $ October-10 42,116,830 42,015,304 46,470,286 88,485,590 16,960 $ $ November-10 38,747,658 88,485,590 42,116,830 130,602,420 27,209 $ $ December-10 17,218,803 130,602,420 38,747,658 169,350,078 40,926 $ 97,858 Annual Total $ 186,568,880

EXHIBIT 7

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

2011 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $

January-11 27,854,945 169,350,078 17,218,803 97,858 186,666,738 42,000 $ $

February-11 31,210,279 186,666,738 27,854,945 214,521,683 51,843 $ $

March-11 31,688,781 214,521,683 31,210,279 245,731,962 53,242 $ $

April-11 58,436,344 245,731,962 31,688,781 277,420,743 57,796 $ $

May-11 81,361,427 277,420,743 58,436,344 335,857,086 53,177 $ $

June-11 75,171,946 335,857,086 81,361,427 417,218,514 62,583 $ $

July-11 54,135,559 417,218,514 75,171,946 492,390,459 77,962 $ $

August-11 47,017,809 492,390,459 54,135,559 546,526,018 50,098 $ $

September-11 40,591,108 546,526,018 47,017,809 593,543,827 49,462 $ $

October-11 57,396,906 593,543,827 40,591,108 634,134,935 58,129 $ $

November-11 64,835,093 634,134,935 57,396,906 691,531,842 63,390 $ $

December-11 35,403,713 691,531,842 64,835,093 756,366,935 75,637 $

Annual Total $ 605,103,910

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

695,319

2012 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ $ $ 3/ $ $

January-12 50,889,827 756,366,935 35,403,713 695,319 792,465,967 79,247 $ $

February-12 34,509,319 792,465,967 50,889,827 843,355,794 112,447 $ $

March-12 43,111,182 843,355,794 34,509,319 877,865,113 138,995 $ $

April-12 52,791,056 877,865,113 43,111,182 920,976,296 138,146 $ $

May-12 25,836,868 920,976,296 52,791,056 973,767,352 154,180 $ $

June-12 20,368,296 973,767,352 25,836,868 999,604,220 158,271 $

July-12

August-12

September-12

October-12

November-12

December-12

Annual Total $ 227,506,549

999,604,220 20,368,296 1,019,972,516 161,496

1,019,972,516 1,019,972,516 152,996

1,019,972,516 1,019,972,516 152,996

1,019,972,516 1,019,972,516 152,996

1,019,972,516 1,019,972,516 152,996

1,019,972,516 1,019,972,516 135,996 $ 1,690,762

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

2013 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned $

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 $ 1,019,179,339

$ $

1,019,972,516 1,690,762 1,021,663,278 127,708

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 136,222

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 127,708

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 119,194

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 110,680

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166

1,021,663,278 1,021,663,278 102,166 $ 1,336,676 $ 3,820,615

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

Sources/Notes: 1/ One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate 0.27% 0.29% 0.02% 0.02% Jan-12 Feb-12 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.12% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% Jan-13 Feb-13 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% November 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013. 2/ See EXHIBIT 7.1. 3/ Interest has been compounded on a calendar year basis. 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate 0.29% 0.02% Jul-11 0.19% 0.02% Jul-12 0.19% 0.02% Jul-13 0.12% 0.01%

Jul-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

0.26% 0.02% Mar-12 0.19% 0.02% Mar-13 0.15% 0.01%

Mar-11

0.25% 0.02% Apr-12 0.18% 0.02% Apr-13 0.12% 0.01%

Apr-11

0.19% 0.02% May-12 0.19% 0.02% May-13 0.12% 0.01%

May-11

0.18% 0.02% Jun-12 0.19% 0.02% Jun-13 0.14% 0.01%

Jun-11

0.26% 0.02% Aug-11 0.11% 0.01% Aug-12 0.18% 0.02% Aug-13 0.13% 0.01%

Aug-10

0.26% 0.02% Sep-11 0.10% 0.01% Sep-12 0.18% 0.02% Sep-13 0.12% 0.01%

Sep-10

0.23% 0.02% Oct-11 0.11% 0.01% Oct-12 0.18% 0.02% Oct-13 0.12% 0.01%

Oct-10

0.25% 0.02% Nov-11 0.11% 0.01% Nov-12 0.18% 0.02% Nov-13 0.12% 0.01%

Nov-10

0.29% 0.02% Dec-11 0.12% 0.01% Dec-12 0.16% 0.01% Dec-13 0.12% 0.01%

Dec-10

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page14 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
(Alternate Calculation)
Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Start Date 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 Jun Jul Aug 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 n/a 8/4/2010 n/a 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 7/11/2008 8/4/2010 8/4/2010 11/30/2010 7/11/2008 167,644 194,844 49,190 108,506 520,184 520,184 105,982 157,610 491,801 193,919 949,312 949,312 2010 Sep Oct 220 220 117,540 2,389 160,590 329,939 32,620 217,080 860,158 860,378 Nov 236,465 236,465 30,096 104,401 155,355 81,703 15,890 68,780 1,680 97,181 555,086 791,551 Dec 25,414 25,414 103,745 66,770 13,430 74,573 15,610 18,230 15,620 18,360 326,338 351,752 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 7.1

6,230 6,230 6,230 48.95 304,968 $

331,890 331,890 331,890

16,246,527

25,463,809

46,470,286

42,116,830

38,747,658

17,218,803

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 1 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page15 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
(Alternate Calculation)
2011 Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Jan 33,372 33,372 93,485 230 131,594 107,877 13,500 17,920 47,170 91,980 31,903 535,659 569,031 48.95 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 $ Feb 17,799 17,799 88,043 (21) 81,280 7,350 208,190 10,610 16,240 96,484 45,040 65,560 1,000 619,776 637,575 Mar 25,815 25,815 47,819 7,144 154,540 45,525 145,365 14,090 62,976 47,236 57,170 31,750 7,920 621,535 647,350 Apr 51,648 51,648 41,468 11,406 213,600 119,070 121,909 104,820 142,090 25,290 55,864 (7) 5,000 88,061 80,250 81,940 49,770 1,580 1,142,111 1,193,759 May 31,986 5,640 37,626 27,690 18,328 107,890 232,320 46,583 247,800 16,920 24,909 27,186 (11) 248,996 61,429 297,300 217,410 44,220 5,485 1,624,455 1,662,081 Jun 49,120 127,558 176,678 100,537 30,141 130,577 169,110 117,781 29,420 313,320 94,050 28,285 70,417 (33) 34,230 56,793 23,100 139,185 22,050 (1) 1,358,962 1,535,640 Jul 55,169 38,523 93,692 84,038 51,299 95,049 67,140 26,986 34,191 262,290 95,087 29,288 47,533 19,942 90,035 375 17,000 59,680 32,280 (4) 1,012,209 1,105,901 Aug 32,434 48,964 81,398 77,167 18,007 53,405 1,890 61,128 6,260 201,600 136,560 20 33,788 28,724 30,733 130,057 23,471 6,020 42,549 27,720 879,099 960,497 Sep 4,327 45,899 50,226 20,087 10,164 6,964 44,221 7,872 74,970 70,337 110,319 164,700 10,995 25,440 15,001 140,003 30,672 47,245 (6) 778,984 829,210 Oct 65,354 94,184 159,538 24,648 (51) 28,491 36,540 15,117 (36) 99,840 45,043 156,116 138,985 13,640 257,075 3,159 18,097 18,203 87,259 56,199 14,660 2 1,012,987 1,172,525 Nov 26,356 73,189 99,545 31,850 (95) 31,767 61,320 17,873 (180) 185,400 73,118 101,115 204,320 149,066 60,141 26,347 4,104 25,204 112,949 60,213 80,400 20 (2) 1,224,930 1,324,475 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 7.1

Dec 10,141 46,066 56,207 21,608 62 31,623 37,857 (33) 49 46,800 118,942 16,111 70,607 165,066 115,070 12,755 (400) 17,860 2,114 10,746 (2) 198 667,033 723,240

35,403,713

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 2 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page16 of 18 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.
STA and SEA U.S. Sales of Infringing Products and Accumulated Damages Awarded
(Alternate Calculation)
2012 Infringing Product (Units) Galaxy Tab Galaxy Tab 10.1 Tablet Units Captivate Continuum Droid Charge Epic 4G Exhibit 4G Fascinate Galaxy Ace Galaxy Prevail Galaxy S (i9000) Galaxy S 4G Galaxy S II (AT&T Edition, 4G) Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) Galaxy S II (T-Mobile edition) Galaxy S Showcase Gem Indulge Infuse 4G Mesmerize Nexus S 4G Replenish Transform 3/ Vibrant Smartphone Units Total Infringing Units Damages per Unit 3/ Damages $ $ Jan 11,409 47,475 58,884 (707) (9) 9,553 34,320 (16) (72) 175,320 98,456 (265) 226,118 64,867 168,164 29,734 548 40,423 (157) 8,075 126,360 980,712 1,039,596 48.95 50,889,827 $ 34,509,319 $ 43,111,182 $ 52,791,056 $ 25,836,868 $ 20,368,296 $ 1,019,179,339 Feb 13,991 39,008 52,999 (35) (3) 11,727 21,180 (14) (28) 164,880 40,164 (111) 126,660 14,203 140,073 18,085 (348) 55,197 (136) (18,000) 78,480 (4) 651,970 704,969 Mar 9,611 17,491 27,102 (45) 36,321 8,221 13,992 (29) 76,680 45,058 68,720 162,810 68,403 205,886 25,200 (87) (32) 58,522 10,424 17,985 55,560 853,589 880,691 Apr 5,140 (1,782) 3,358 (46) (6) 23,456 37,935 1 (11) 151,560 65,359 50,963 251,140 42,316 218,567 39,174 (86) 39,196 90,809 64,750 1,075,077 1,078,435 May 4,638 4,636 9,274 3 18,818 6,004 6 100,080 2,071 40,558 147,600 52,441 81,826 28,705 222 797 28,990 10,410 518,531 527,805 June 14,890 (1,545) 13,345 (21) 6,679 (1) (9) 49,680 50,093 30,113 182,200 66,312 4,776 12,085 (39) 878 402,746 416,091 Total 725,299 585,306 1,310,605 1,182,596 320,156 805,920 1,876,145 303,031 1,433,892 2,255,040 1,446,903 573,639 1,675,160 636,314 1,251,578 417,499 374,350 270,580 1,044,739 787,777 512,128 938,447 382,626 1,021,043 19,509,563 20,820,168 1/ 2/

EXHIBIT 7.1

Sources/Notes: 1/ STA and SEA unit sales per SAMNDCA00402075 and '4875335_1_Highly Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Worldwide Accused Model 2012 2Q update.xls'. 2/ Unit sales calculated Damages calculated from start of violation of unregistered trade dress; August 4, 2010 for the 381 Patent; April 15, 2011 for 915, patent, D677 design patent, and 983 registered trade dress; and June 16, 2011 for the 163 patent, D087, D305, and D889 design patents. 3/ See EXHIBIT 7.2.

Prepared by Invotex Group Page 3 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-4 Filed12/13/13 Page17 of 18


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

EXHIBIT 7.2

Analysis of Damages per Unit Based on the Jury Verdict (Alternate Calculation)
Apple Confirmed Damage Award (August 24, 2012 Jury Verdict) Judgment as a Matter of Law Damage Amount Total Damage Award Requested Total Infringing Units Sold Average Damages Per Unit $ $ $ 639,403,248 1/ 379,776,091 2/ 1,019,179,339 20,820,168 3/ 48.95

Sources/Notes: 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. 2/ PX 25F.4. 3/ See EXHIBIT 7.1.

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Apple Document2876-4 Page18 of 18 Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al. Filed12/13/13
Calculation of Prejudgment Interest on Apple's Supplemental Damages (Interest Calculated at T-Bill Rate, Compounded Annually through December 31, 2013 1/) (Alternate Calculation)
January-12 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned 2/ February-12 March-12 April-12 May-12 June-12 July-12 $ August-12 6,066,703 September-12 $ 18,439,472 6,066,703 6,066,703 910 October-12 To Be Determined November-12 To Be Determined December-12 To Be Determined Subtotal

EXHIBIT 8

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

January-13 Monthly Damages Prior Month's Principal Prior Month's Damages Prior Year's Interest Principal Available for Interest Interest Earned To Be Determined

February-13 To Be Determined

March-13 To Be Determined

April-13 To Be Determined

May-13 To Be Determined

June-13 To Be Determined

July-13 To Be Determined

August-13 To Be Determined

September-13

October-13

November-13

December-13

Subtotal

Grand Total

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $ -

Sources/Notes: 1/ One year t-bill rate per the Federal Reserve (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 1-year Treasury constant maturity Monthly interest rate Jan-13 Feb-13 1-year Treasury constant maturity 0.15% 0.16% Monthly interest rate 0.01% 0.01% November 2013 monthly interest rate held constant for December 2013. 2/ See EXHIBIT 6. Mar-13 0.15% 0.01% Apr-13 0.12% 0.01% May-13 0.12% 0.01% Jun-13 0.14% 0.01% Jul-12 0.19% 0.02% Jul-13 0.12% 0.01% Aug-12 0.18% 0.02% Aug-13 0.13% 0.01% Sep-12 0.18% 0.02% Sep-13 0.12% 0.01% Oct-12 0.18% 0.02% Oct-13 0.12% 0.01% Nov-12 0.18% 0.02% Nov-13 0.12% 0.01% Dec-12 0.16% 0.01% Dec-13 0.12% 0.01%

Prepared by Invotex Group

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-5 Filed12/13/13 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-5 Filed12/13/13 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Before the Court is the Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Supplemental Damages, and Prejudgment Interest brought by Plaintiff Apple Inc. (Apple) against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung). WHEREAS on August 24, 2012, a jury issued an amended verdict in favor of Apple on Apples claims and Samsungs cross claims, and awarded damages to Apple in the amount of $1,049,393,540.00 (Dkt. 1931); WHEREAS on March 1, 2013, the Court issued an Order re: Damages (1) confirming the jurys award of $598,908,892 as to certain infringing Samsung products; (2) concluding that Apple was entitled to supplemental damages and determining the method for calculating supplemental damages; (3) concluding that Apple was entitled to prejudgment interest and determining how prejudgment interest would be calculated; and (4) granting Samsungs motion for a new trial on damages as to certain infringing Samsung products; (Dkt. 2271 at 26); WHEREAS on April 29, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part Apples motion for reconsideration of the March 1, 2013 Order, reinstating the jury award of $40,494,356.00 for the Galaxy SII AT&T, and ruling that the Galaxy SII AT&T would not be included in the new trial on damages (Dkt. 2316); WHEREAS, in combination, the March 1, 2013 and April 29, 2013 Orders confirmed a total of $639,403,248.00 of the first jurys damages award (First Trial Damages); WHEREAS, on November 21, 2013, a second jury awarded Apple $290,456,793 for Samsungs infringement through sales of the products that were subject to the new trial (New Trial Products) (Dkt. 2822); WHEREAS, in combination, the juries verdicts award Apple a total of $929,860,041; WHEREAS, Apple has moved for judgment as a matter of law regarding the damages to which it is entitled for infringement of the D305 and D677 patents through Samsungs sales of the New Trial Products, which if granted, would add $89,319,298 to the amount of damages awarded for the New Trial Products, for a total award on the New Trial Products of $379,776,091;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-5 Filed12/13/13 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS the Court concludes based on the trial record and submissions of the parties that the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the amount of Samsungs profits that Apple is entitled to for infringement of the D305 and D677 patents through Samsungs sales of the New Trial Products, based on Samsungs failure to produce evidence sufficient to carry its burden regarding the operating expenses that are directly attributable to the manufacture and sale of the products that were subject to a new trial; WHEREAS Apple is entitled to supplemental damages for all sales of all Samsung products in this action found to infringe and/or dilute Apple intellectual property as found in the August 24, 2012 amended verdict for the period from August 25, 2102 to the date of the last sale of each such product; WHEREAS Apple is entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount awarded in the August 24, 2012 verdict, as amended, the November 21, 2013, verdict, and the supplemental damages; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment as a matter of law is granted in favor of Apple that Apple is entitled to recover Samsungs profits in the amount of $231,373,554 for Samsungs infringement of the D305 and D677 patents by the New Trial Products. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Samsung shall pay Apple $1,019,179,339 in damages, comprised of $639,403,248 for the First Trial Damages and $379,776,091 for the New Trial Products. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Samsung shall pay Apple supplemental damages in the amount of $_________ _.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Samsung shall pay Apple prejudgment interest in the amount of $_________ _ through the date of this Order.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the total amount due Apple from Samsung as of the date of this Order is therefore $_________ _.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2876-5 Filed12/13/13 Page4 of 4

1 2

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _______________________ ______________________________ Hon. Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE INC.S POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JMOL, SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES, AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)