Samsung declined to comment on the case; Fortune contacted Apple for comment, and will update this article as necessary. Now, Apple lawyer Bill Lee is much determined to find out how Apple can recover back or collect the damage from Samsung.
It was ordered to pay the United States tech giant more than $1 billion for infringing on three of Apple's design patents related to mobile devices - the quick links to phone numbers, the slide-to-unlock feature and the auto-correct function.
That figure, according to Samsung, comes to $28 million.
In the six years between then and now, the two companies have been duking it out in the courts to determine whether Samsung needs to pay damages based on the total value of the iPhone it copied or just a fine based on the design elements of the phone it nicked.
Samsung was ordered to pay a little more than a billion dollars in 2012, but that amount was later lowered to roughly $340 million.
It's been eight years since the original iPhone was first released, but Apple still regards the device as one of the biggest risks it has ever taken - enough that it could have cost the whole company. The design patents cover a black rectangular front face with rounded corners and a graphical user interface featuring a grid of 16 colorful icons.
The latest trial kicked off in San Jose, Calif., after a judge past year found the jury instructions in the original 2012 trial misstated the law and ordered a new trial.
A 2016 Supreme Court decision (8-0, with the decision written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor) said that the damages could be decided either way-the entire phone or a portion of it-and sent the case back to federal court for a jury to decide.
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung claiming the South Korean company's phones, including the Galaxy S2, copied the iPhone in both physical and software design. The Patent Act awards all profits from sales of any "article of manufacture" that infringes a patented design. However, Apple may still be able to convince the jury that the devices would not have been marketable without the infringing designs and therefore the phones as a whole should be considered the relevant article.
"They're seeking profits on the entire phone", Samsung lawyer John Quinn apparently argued.
Samsung has argued that consumers have other reasons to buy a phone other than its original design.