U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh excluded three Samsung phones in the list of devices that allegedly infringed the patents of Apple. The three smartphones include Samsung’s GT-19000, GT-19100, and Galaxy Ace.

apple samsung

In its complaint, Apple  Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)  argued the three mobile devices infringed its patent, because the look and feel is similar to its iPhone.   In her ruling, the presiding judge said the three smartphones are not available for sale in the United States. She also cited that Apple did not provide adequate reasons why the devices should be included in the case.

During the hearing on Monday, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (KRX:005930) tried to convince the judge to drop the infringement charges filed by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) . Judge Koh listed to the arguments of the legal counsel of both parties for more than one hour, before tossing the three smatphones in the list of infringing devices, and ruled that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)  presented enough evidence and witnesses continue the case, and for a jury to determine whether Samsung actually violated the intellectual property rights of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) .

One of the witnesses presented by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)  in the hearing was Terry Musika, a former KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers accounting partner. Musika testified the Samsung sold approximately 22.7 million infringing devices over the past two years and generated $8.16 billion revenues. He said the Korean company earned a 35.5 percent gross profit margin on the estimated revenue from June 2010 to March 2012. In his testimony, he pointed out that a team of 20 programmers, accountants, statisticians, and economists calculated the damages based on the gadgets involved in the complaint. Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL)  is demanding 2.75 billion damages from Samsung.

On the other hand, Atty. Bill Price, Samsung’s legal counsel, argued that Apple was having difficulties in manufacturing enough units of the iPhone 4 to meet the market demand from July to October 2010 , which  means it didn’t have the ability to generate additional sales during that period. Price asked Musika, “Apple couldn’t service its own customers with the iPhone 4, but it could service customers it didn’t have?”

In addition, the lawyer cited damages should be determined based on whether a Samsung device actually violated one or all of the patents of Apple.

Boris Teksler, Apple’s patent licensing executive, also testified during the hearing. He said Apple negotiated to license its patents to the Korean company, but the companies were not able to enter into a licensing agreement. Both parties ended up filing lawsuits against each other.

Apple was finished presenting its case against Samsung. The Korean company began presenting its arguments and witnesses to the jury, in order to prove its case. Judge Koh expects the legal counsels of both parties to deliver their closing arguments next week.