FORTUNE -- Before the lawyers for Apple (aapl) and Samsung made their closing arguments in their epic patent infringement case Tuesday, Judge Lucy Koh read a 109-page document containing her final instructions to the jury.
There were 84 in all, covering everything from the basics of contract, patent and antitrust law to what is meant by the dilution of unregistered trade dress.
To give you a feel for the material the jury is supposed to have mastered before it renders a verdict, here's Instruction No. 18, in which judge Koh summarizes each side's claims:
NO. 18 SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
I will now again summarize for you each side’s contentions in this case. I will then tell you what each side must prove to win on each of its contentions.
As I previously explained, Apple seeks money damages from Samsung Electronics Company (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”), for allegedly infringing claim 19 of the ’381 patent, claim 8 of the ’915 patent, claim 50 of the ’163 patent, and the D’889, D’087, D’677, and D’305 patents. Apple also argues that SEC actively induced SEA and STA to infringe the patents. Apple also contends that Samsung’s infringement has been willful.
Samsung denies that it has infringed the asserted claims of Apple’s patents and argues that, in addition, those claims are invalid. Invalidity is a defense to infringement.
Samsung has also brought claims against Apple for patent infringement. Samsung seeks money damages from Apple for allegedly infringing the ’941, ’516, ’711, ’460, and ’893 patents by making, importing, using, selling and/or offering for sale Apple’s iPhone, iPad and iPod products that Samsung argues are covered by claims 10 and 15 of the ’941 patent, claims 15 and 16 of the ’516 patent, claim 9 of the ’711 patent, claim 1 of the ’460 patent, and claim 10 of the ’893 patent. Samsung also contends that Apple’s infringement has been willful.
Apple denies that it has infringed the claims asserted by Samsung and argues that the claims asserted by Samsung are invalid, and for the ’516 and ’941 patents, exhausted due to Samsung’s license to Intel and also unenforceable. Invalidity, exhaustion, and unenforceability are defenses to infringement. Apple also contends that, by asserting its “declared essential” patents against Apple, Samsung has violated the antitrust laws and breached its contractual obligations to timely disclose and then license these patents on fair and reasonable terms.
For each party’s patent infringement claims against the other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent holder’s patents and whether those patents are valid. If you decide that any claim of either party’s patents has been infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to the patent holder to compensate for the infringement. You will also need to make a finding as to whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.
To resolve Apple’s claims regarding Samsung’s “declared essential” patents, you will need to make a finding as to whether Samsung violated the antitrust laws and whether Samsung breached its contractual obligations. If you decide that Samsung violated the antitrust laws or breached its contractual obligations, you will then need to decide what money damages to award to Apple.
Apple accuses Samsung of diluting Apple’s Registered Trade Dress No. 3,470,983. This trade dress relates to the iPhone. Apple also accuses Samsung of diluting two unregistered trade dresses relating to the iPhone. Finally, Apple claims that Samsung has diluted and infringed its unregistered trade dress relating to the iPad.
For each of Apple’s trade dress dilution and infringement claims, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the Apple trade dress is protectable (or valid). An asserted trade dress is only protectable if the trade dress design as a whole, as opposed to its individual features standing alone, is both distinctive and non-functional.
For Apple’s trade dress dilution claims, the next issues you will decide are whether Apple’s trade dress was famous before Samsung started selling its accused products, and whether Samsung’s accused products are likely to cause dilution of the asserted Apple trade dresses by impairing their distinctiveness.
Apple’s trade dress infringement claim will require you to resolve different issues. You will need to determine whether Apple’s trade dress had acquired distinctiveness before Samsung started selling its accused products, and whether Samsung’s accused products are likely to cause confusion about the source of Samsung’s goods.
If you decide that any Apple trade dress is both protectable and has been infringed or willfully diluted by Samsung, you will then need to decide the money damages to be awarded to Apple.
Samsung denies that it has infringed or diluted any Apple trade dress and argues that each asserted trade dress is not protectable. If a trade dress is not protectable, that is a defense to infringement and dilution.