Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) alleged Samsung of imitating the design of iPhone after falling short on in-house designs. In the latest patent battle between the tech giants, the attorney from Apple’s side told in the court that Samsung should pay Apple around $2 billion in damages.

Samsung lacks in-house design

According to one of Apple’s lead attorney, Harold McElhinny, Samsung lacked a product that could stand to the level of iPhone. He referred to the Samsung internal documents, including a memo with comments from JK Shin, Samsung’s head of mobile that said the Korean firm as suffering a “crisis of design.”

“The evidence in this case will be that Samsung copied the iPhone and it also took many other novel Apple inventions that have not yet appeared in Apple products,” McElhinny said.

Continuing their rivalry, Samsung and Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) once again presented their cases in the San Jose, California district courtroom to settle over patent before the federal judge Lucy Koh. If Apple is to be believed then Samsung has infringed five of its patent for the iPhone. On the other hand, Samsung has demanded $7 million from Apple for breaching two of its patent.

High stakes involved

Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) attorney, also, said that Samsung sold over 37 million infringing devices. If Samsung had settled the dispute with Apple, it would have paid a royalty of $33 per devices or $40 per devices, or around $2 billion overall for using all of five Apple software patents.

Apple said that it would have to settle with Samsung over this issue amid other cases, knowing that Samsung has copied its devices, thereby eating into its profit. The iPhone maker would work upon extracting a maximum amount of money from Samsung in such case, which although is not in its nature.

McElhinny said that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) will never negotiate for a lesser price for its patent considering the success of these features in the marketplace and the importance of the iPhone. Though McElhinny understands the high level of the compensation demanded, he expects that by the closing of the trial, the jury “will understand the reason the damages in the case are high is because the scope of Samsung’s infringement has been massive.”