This iteration of the legal fight is limited to determining damages only and is scheduled to end Friday. "But they're both taking a risk that the jury won't go their way".
Lee, who has figured prominently in Apple's motions and appeals, is picking up the role of lead trial counsel.
Originally filed in 2011, the case drew significant media attention as it provided insight into the operations of two notoriously secretive and highly successful technology companies.
The launch of the iPhone was a pivotal moment for Apple, he said. "But that's why it's critically important for us to step back in time". Yup, this looks like the gymnast of the foldable phone world. Samsung might have to pay for the whole device or for the infringed components. Naturally, Apple is arguing the former, while Samsung reckons it should be the latter.
Before 2016, the Supreme Court hadn't considered design patents since disputes involving spoon handles in the 1870s and carpets in the 1890s.
Apple is seeking about $1 billion in damages from Samsung for the violation of five separate patents, three of which are design-related.
Apple also included 2 utility patents covering its bounce-back scrolling and pinch-to-zoom features.
The retrial focuses on a few handsets that are never again sold by Samsung, including the Droid Charge, Mesmerize and Galaxy S2. Come December 2015, it was decided that Samsung would finally pay Apple $548 million. Expert Michael Wagner is expected to offer evidence of how much Apple spends on items such as screen glass to help calculate damages. That said, Motorola did show off foldable phone concepts years ago so it may be closer to producing this phone than a mere patent reveal would suggest. It argues that customers were not only buying its handsets because of the design, but also due to their "functionality". "Apple is certainly not entitled to the profits on the whole phone".
"What was Samsung's solution?" he asked the jury rhetorically.
It's not the first time Apple has made this argument in court. She was concerned with Quinn's references to prior verdicts in the case, as she believed she'd prohibited either side from discussing previous rulings.
An article of manufacture is a patent term that describes the product. While Apple says that it constitutes the entire phone, Samsung disagrees, asserting that it could be applied specifically to separate components within a phone. The retrial before before US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, isn't about whether the South Korean company infringed its rival's patents - jurors will be told Apple has won on that count. The glass is easily separated from the phone and doesn't cost much, Samsung has argued. For Samsung, this is good news because it could mean an even lower award than the $400 million.
Apple has described how the iPhone and overall product design became embedded in the company's DNA.
Previously Samsung was found guilty of infringing three design patents. especially the front and rear look of the original iPhone's body.