An expert testifying on behalf of Apple, Inc. in the company’s most recent patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics advised U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh that Samsung should pay Apple $2.192 billion for violating five Apple patents in the design of nine Samsung smart phones and tablet PCs that were sold by the Korean device maker between 2011 and 2013. The trial, which commenced last week in San Jose, California, kicks off the latest battle in the long-running patent legal war between Apple and Samsung. In August 2012, Samsung was found liable for a record $1 billion in damages for infringing six mobile device patents held by Apple. (At a subsequent retrial, that damage award was reduced to $929 million.) The proposed $2.192 billion penalty contrasts sharply with Samsung’s related pending counterclaim that requests $7 million from Apple for infringements of two Samsung software patents in the design of various iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products. Meanwhile, the patents at the heart of the Apple claim cover “slide-to-unlock,” universal search, automatic word correction and other ease-of-use features that are patented for use in the iPhone and iPad but, according to Apple, have been conscripted illegally by Samsung in the design of the Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and various Galaxy Note and Galaxy S products. Appearing before the court on Tuesday, economist Christopher Vellturo testified that he calculated the $2.192 billion damage award by assessing “reasonable” royalties and profits that Apple would have received from the sale or licensing of more than 37 million infringing devices that were marketed by Samsung. Arguing that the patent violations enabled Samsung to attract many first-time smart phone buyers who, otherwise, would have purchased their devices from Apple, Vellturo thus told the court that the infringements “had a dramatic effect on Apple, and the compensation is therefore substantial.” In reply, lawyers for Samsung asserted that Apple had “vastly overrated the scope” of its patent claims as they derided the proposed damage award as “a gross, gross exaggeration.” Arguments in the case are expected to continue through the end of this month, after which the jury will render its verdict.