Trade dress is all about the connection between the design of a product and consumer perception. Just like the "Apple" brand name means something to people, Apple says its distinctive designs are meaningful and should be protected. The jury will have to decide if Samsung’s products were likely to confuse consumers by copying Apple’s design.

Question 12: registered iPhone trade dress protectability. Apple has a formal trade dress registration for the iPhone, which means it’s presumed valid. Samsung argued that it’s not valid, so the jury has to decide whether the look of the iPhone is protectable: is it non-functional, and does it have meaning to consumers? The jury has many factors to consider here, including Apple's advertising, consumer perception, and Samsung's intent to copy. Much of the evidence presented in the trial was about the value of Apple's trade dress, and this question and the next are critical for Apple's case.

Question 13: unregistered iPhone and iPad trade dress protectability. Apple also claimed that the iPhone 3G, iPad, and iPad 2 were sufficiently famous to qualify for trade dress protection without a formal registration, and the jury has to decide if they’re protectable or not. This is the inverse of the previous question: Samsung has to prove that the registered trade dress is invalid, while Apple has to prove that the unregistered trade dress is valid.

Note that the jury hasn’t gotten to answering whether Samsung infringed anything yet — they’re still debating whether there’s anything to infringe in the first place.

Is the iPhone design famous?

Question 14: iPhone and iPad design fame. Apple’s mainly arguing that Samsung’s copying diluted the value of its designs in the eyes of consumers. In order for that to be true, the trade dress has to be famous — so the jury has to decide whether the iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPad are famous designs. This is why Phil Schiller was called to testify about Apple's marketing efforts — to convince the jury Apple invested heavily in making the iPhone and iPad famous and distinctive.

Question 15: registered iPhone trade dress dilution. And we’re back to charts. If the jury decides that the registered iPhone trade dress is both protectable and famous, it has to go through another lengthy chart, deciding which of 17 devices diluted the trade dress and if Samsung Korea or Samsung Telecommunications America is responsible. Importantly, one of the major elements in dilution is whether Samsung intended for its products to be more like Apple's — evidence of which Apple repeatedly showed to the jury. Devices in the chart include all the US versions of the Galaxy S and S II.