Samsung has argued in court that the damages it was ordered to pay Apple at the end of August were miscalculated and that the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, was in any case biased against it.
That is the essence of the case that Samsung has been making in the appeal court before Judge Lucy Koh (pictured) this week.
Samsung's lawyer, John Quinn, making the case for a retrial, claimed that the jury foreman had been "deliberately dishonest", and only came clean after the case had been decided.
"He told reporters what he did not tell this court... He was deliberately dishonest... I think we have a case here that he should have been excused [from presiding over the case]," said Quinn.
Apple lawyer William Lee responded that it was "outrageous" to call Hogan a liar, particularly over a case that had occurred some 19 years ago.
Furthermore, Apple's case rested on a slim layer of evidence, said another Samsung lawyer, Charles Verhoeven. He claimed that Apple had used just one Samsung product to make the case that a whole range of Samsung products infringed Apple's patents, instead of analysing and making a case for banning each product that it demanded be taken off the shelves.
"There are seven different version of the source code loaded on these 24 phones. That in and of itself merits an overturning of the jury verdict," says Verhoeven.
Samsung also claimed that even if the decision of the original case is upheld, the $1.05bn (£655m) damages awarded were excessive because they had been bumped up with a calculation for damages that did not apply to "utility" patents.
Apple's lawyers, meanwhile, claimed that it would be wrong to even investigate how the jury calculated the sum it decided to award Apple.
Apple also demand further recompense from Samsung, claiming that it should be awarded a further $121m (£76m) in "supplemental damages" to adjust for sales and other numbers not disclosed at the original trial.
By eliminating high entry costs for big data analysis, you can convert more raw data into valuable business insight.
A discussion of the "risk perception gap", its implications and how it can be closed