Quinn, however, pointed to a 2011 document written by Jobs, saying Apple was in a "Holy War" with Google and that the iPhone maker was in danger of losing its advantage as an innovator in the smartphone market.

On the stand, Apple's Schiller rehashed testimony from previous trials and said "competition is great."

But Schiller described his shock at seeing the similarities between Samsung's smartphones and the iPhone. Under questioning from Samsung attorney William Price, however, Schiller said he was not familiar with the specific patent claims Apple was asserting in the case.

In rejecting Apple's previous bid for a sales ban, Koh wrote that a consumer survey Apple submitted in the 2012 trial likely inflated the value that customers place on the smartphone features in dispute, meaning Apple does not merit an injunction. Apple is appealing that decision.

Apple has hired the same marketing expert to conduct a new consumer survey for the current trial. But this latest effort contains additional analysis about how Apple's patented features drive consumer demand, according to court filings.

While the prior survey only concluded that there was general demand for the patented features, the new study attempts to quantify the proportion of customers Samsung would have lost if its smartphones did not contain those features, court filings show.

Samsung tried to stop Apple from presenting that evidence to the jury, arguing that the methodology was unsound. However, Koh agreed in a February ruling to allow Apple to use the study.

McElhinny told jurors that Samsung disabled its infringing search technology after Apple sued, but then restored it due to consumer demand. That demonstrates the value of Apple's features, he said.

Quinn responded that the reason Samsung restored the search technology had nothing to do with consumer demand. Rather, Samsung received permission to restore the feature after an appeals court reversed legal rulings that had limited its use.

The trial is expected to last until early May.

Apple Inc sues China on IP	Apple Inc out, home brands in