The number don't lie
After calling Samsung "the iPhone's biggest fan," McElhinny moved to Apple's trade dress claims against the company, referencing documents that showed "real world confusion" among consumers who mistook Samsung devices for iOS products.
Samsung not only succeeded in profiting off of their copycat enterprises, they managed to dilute Apple's market recognition in the process, and opened the door for others to do the same, he maintained.
As to Samsung's claims several of Apple's utility patents, like the one covering the "bounce-back" feature, McElhinny said Samsung failed to prove its case.
Article continues below
Samsung, he concluded, recklessly ripped off a major competitor after it was warned by others that its designs were unquestionably similar to Apple's products.
Besides the timeline of Samsung's success, the other factor that's hard to ignore are the numbers.
According to McElhinny, to date, Samsung's sold 22.7 million devices that infringe on Apple's patent. From those, Samsung has made $8.160 billion (£5.174) in revenue.
He presented four damages scenarios based on what Apple lost, what Samsung gained and what a "reasonable royalty portion" would look like.
The damages range from $519 million (£329) to $2.481 billion (£1.573). It will be up to the jury to decide how much, if any, Apple receives from Samsung.
Samsung's last stand
Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven nearly ran out of time as he spent the majority of his two hours attempting to discredit Apple's "hired guns" and make a play for healthy competition.
Awarding Apple any damages could "change the way completion works in this country," Verhoeven reportedly told the jury.
Apple chose the courtroom to pick its battle, not the marketplace, he argued, punishing Samsung for its attempts to give consumers products they wanted.
The designs and technologies Apple claims it owns, he said, are products of the evolution of technology, not Apple's innovation.
Walk through Best Buy, he urged, and find devices that don't have flat screens set in rectangular shapes.
"Apple thinks it's entitled to have a monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a touchscreen," he said.
Consumers chose Samsung's devices, he said, and each has distinct Samsung markers, like unique user interface icons and an Android startup sequence, that distinguish them from Apple's products.
Furthermore, Apple selectively picked which devices it deemed in design violation, Verhoeven argued as he presented a board strewn with rectangular frames and rounded corners - Samsung phones Apple left out of this case.
"Apple didn't invent touchscreen technology," he said.
The damages Apple's seeking are "ridiculous," Verhoeven concluded, figures concocted by erroneous witnesses.
Before he wrapped, Verhoeven said Samsung never copied Apple nor did any business with malintent.
Furthermore, Apple's assertions that Samsung is a "copiest" was a deliberate play by Apple's attorneys to mislead the jury.
A is for rebuke
Apple attorney William Lee presented Apple's rebuttal, relating a lawyers' adage that attorneys who don't have a case spend their time attacking the other side's witnesses and counsel in response to Verhoeven's tactics.
He simply stated Apple had no designs to stymie competition and reminded the jury how much Samsung profited from what his side calls a deliberate plan to copy the Cupertino company.
The jury reconvenes Wednesday at 9 a.m.(PST) to begin deliberations.