Talks between Apple and Samsung's CEOs apparently didn't go well Monday as the decision of who'll win the biggest patent battle in history will go to the nine-member jury.
The development isn't surprising and with closing arguments slated to begin and wrap Tuesday, the jury should have the case in their hands by Wednesday.
What they'll have to decide is beyond a simple "guilty" or not. They'll have to sift through more than 700 individual questions for up to 28 devices.
The document they'll receive is 22 pages and contains questions like this:
"For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed on Claim 19 of the '381 Patent?"
And so on.
Down to the nitty gritty
Not only does the jury have to determine South Korean-based Samsung's innocence or guilt, they must also decide if Samsung subsidiaries SEA, "a New York corporation," and STA, "a Delaware limited liability company," also infringed on Apple's patents for designs and features found on the iPhone and iPad.
The devices in question include the Epic 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Tab and Infuse 4G while the patents, covering features for the iPhone and iPad, are known by letters, numbers and apostrophes, like the D'677 patent and D'305 patent.
The jury will also have to do some math as Question 24 asks, "What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the claims on which you ruled in favor of Apple?"
Question 25 follows the thread: "For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 24, please provide the dollar breakdown by product."
The 28 devices listed here range from the Captivate to the Galaxy S II Showcase to the Nexus S 4G, as well as the aforementioned devices.
The jury must also determine whether Apple presented enough evidence to find Samsung guilty of breaching "contractual obligations by failing to disclose its intellectual property rights…or by failing to license its 'declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ('FRAND') terms?"
Questions of anti-trust violations, expired patent enforcement dates and waiver of rights also need yay or nay votes.
Samsung's claims Apple infringed on five of its patents are also incased in the document, with the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2 3G and iPod Touch all named "accused Apple product[s]."
As with Apple, the jury will have to decide how much in damages Apple owes Samsung, if any.
Samsung is seeking $421.8 million (£268.1) in damages while Apple is looking for a $2.5 billion (£1.59) payout.
The judge in the case, Lucy Koh, reportedly expressed concern over the complexity of the verdict questions, especially when it comes to the jury tabulating how much each device should be compensated.
"I am worried we might have a seriously confused jury here," Koh reportedly told both companies' legal counsels. "I have trouble understanding this, and I have spent a little more time with this than they have."
"It's so complex, and there are so many pieces here."
The bad blood between Apple and Samsung extends beyond the San Jose, Calif. courtroom as Apple is now asking a Washington, D.C. appeals court to move forward with a U.S. ban of the Galaxy Nexus.
Apple argues Samsung smartphone copies many of the iPhone's key features, including a unified search feature integral to Siri's operation.
A court already ruled in Apple's favor to impose the ban, but Samsung has since filed an appeal.
Samsung, according to Apple, deliberately copied its software to get a piece of Apple's market.
For its part, Samsung attorney John Quinn, the lead lawyer in the current case, argued the Nexus' sales have been too small to impact Apple negatively.
Apple, then, must prove the Nexus cut the iPhone out of the market and led to lost profits. Google reportedly could find itself dragged into this one, too.
Bloomberg is reporting this case isn't expected to begin until March 2014.
Via United States District Court for the Northern District of California and CNET (1), (2)