By Julia Love, The Recorder

SAN FRANCISCO — As the sequel to their blockbuster patent trial nears, Apple and Samsung are miles apart, even when it comes to the value of software patents.

Apple Inc. is expected to tell jurors when the latest trial kicks off in San Jose this week that Samsung Electronics Co. should pay about $2 billion for infringing its patented smartphone and tablet technology. Samsung will counter that Apple’s patents aren’t worth nearly that much—and neither are its own. The South Korean company is demanding only about $7 million for the pair of patents it accuses Apple of infringing.

The ideological split on damages adds a plot twist to a drama with a familiar feel and a well-known cast. But Samsung is changing the story it presents jurors in hopes of a surprise ending.

In addition to playing down the value of patents that represent isolated features of complex consumer products, Samsung seems ready to play up an opposing story of innovation by calling engineers from Google to discuss the development of the Android operating system used by Samsung.

Mark Lemley, a partner at Durie Tangri and a professor at Stanford Law School, said he suspects the new tactics are, at least in part, “a strategic effort by Samsung to make Apple look greedy.”

Embarking on their second patent case and third jury trial, the technology titans are trading familiar accusations of patent infringement and invalidity over later versions of their products, such as Apple’s iPhone 5 and Samsung’s Galaxy S3. Many Bay Area patent litigators say they remain riveted, both by the prospect of another billion-dollar verdict and the legal firepower on both sides.

For the latest trial, Samsung has once again turned to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, with firm founder John Quinn and partner William Price leading the charge. As in 2012, William Lee and others at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr will defend Apple against Samsung’s claims of infringement. Morrison & Foerster partners Harold McElhinny and Rachel Krevans will run Apple’s offensive case with help from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who made headlines in the first case with her outbursts at the parties’ legal teams, will again be tasked with corralling the legions of attorneys and keeping the trial moving. She forced Apple and Samsung to whittle down their claims for the latest trial and has not been shy about voicing the toll that their scorched-earth litigation takes on the courts.

“We are not an exclusive Apple v. Samsung court,” she reminded lawyers during the damages retrial.

Koh aggressively pushed the parties to resolve the litigation without another trial, leading the companies’ CEOs to personally attend a mediation session earlier this year. And many patent litigators are surprised Apple and Samsung haven’t hashed out a settlement, given the decisive victory for Apple in the first trial.

Their vastly different valuations of smartphone patents may have something to do with it, mused Lemley.

“The mere fact that there are almost three orders of magnitude between what Apple hopes to get out of the trial and what Samsung hopes to get may explain why they haven’t settled,” he said, adding, “Presumably, we’re looking to a third case, although those will also be for obsolete products by that time. I could imagine going on doing this for quite a while.”

The dispute centers on technology that Apple says make smartphones fun and easy to use.

Apple’s patents touch on features as well-known as the slide-to-unlock gesture and the autocorrect software that fixes typos. The patents also cover technology that allows users to search the Internet and their phones simultaneously, “quick links” that flag phone numbers in messages and the so-called background sync feature, which updates contacts.

Apple executives are expected to testify about the financial gamble that the company undertook to develop the iPhone and iPad. It’s a script that played well during the companies’ heavily documented 2012 trial, as well as their rematch over damages last fall. Although jury selection will likely weed out people with strong feelings about the cases, Samsung does not exactly begin the new trial with a clean slate, said Robin Feldman, director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC-Hastings College of the Law.

For more on this story go to: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202648970488/Apple-v.-Samsung%3A-The-Sequel#ixzz2xYbqGDcB