Yesterday Apple's Harold McElhinny presented the firm's closing arguments in the massive Apple v Samsung patent trial. It's a complex case, so we've summarised Apple's arguments below.
6 Consumers were confused by the products' similarity...
Trade dress is the look of the design that tells you who made or who sells the product, McElhinny said. Apple has asserted four trade dresses in this case. It is asserting that Samsung copied the overall look of Apple's products.
He showed a survey of consumers who bought Galaxy Tabs from Best Buy, and then returned them - because they had thought they were buying iPads. "This actually happened," he said. "It's not conjecture, it's not lawyer's arguments."
And he added that Samsung's own surveys showed something similar: that people thought a Galaxy Tab advert was for the iPad. "These prove confusion in the marketplace," McElhinny said.
7 …and this made Apple's products seem less special
This is the dilution side of the trade dress claims.
"You cannot help but reach the conclusion that these products are so similar that Apple's products will be viewed as less than unique in the marketplace. They have spent a billion dollars mimicking our designs and holding it out to the world so the Apple design is no longer seen as unique."
8 Samsung copied Apple-designed functions
These are some of the utility patents that Apple is claiming were violated.
Bounce-back (in other words the rubber-band bounce on Apple's touch interfaces): "No Samsung witness testified that Samsung is not using the bounce-back feature. No one denied it."
Double-tap to zoom: "Samsung never put up a non-infringement defence."
9 Samsung's figures for revenue and lost sales are not properly sourced
McElhinny claimed the figures Samsung has produced when calculating appropriate damages were taken from a document that was created for the trial, and "you have no idea who created it or the basis for the numbers in it".