You're mistating a few things.

The jury note you're referring to was not about products, it was about the number of companies in the category.

1. The Jury's note with regards the "small sample" was directed to HTC's damages expert and addressed his only using the 4 companies in the Mobile Phone category for his arrived at royalty rate to royalty base calculation. Their expert also voluntarily placed Apple in the Mobile Phone category to skew the percentage calculation down even more.

TPL placed Apple in the Computer category. Also, compare the above with PTSC's expert who used 100+ licenses to arrive at his royalty rate to royalty base calculation. Our expert actually threw out Apple in his calculation because our position was that it was not a typical License in that we wanted to license Apple for the unique prestige it would bring us; and also because at that time TPL was in financial distress; thus making it Atypical and an unusual situation.

2. The products used by our Expert in calculating his $10M damages figure included ONLY those products that the court had previously identified as being in contention of Infringment; he did not base his damages on other products that also infringe.

3. The HTC list of infringing phones in this suit included approximately 40 different models (as I recall) of what they produced and put into the stream of commerce from August 2005 to 2010. Phone manufactured after 2010 were not included.