Apple offered to sign a cross-licensing deal over patents, Samsung said it is unacceptable.

``Apple offered to sign a cross-licensing deal over patents; but its requests were unacceptable,’’ the senior Samsung official said.

Apple’s intellectual-property licensing director Boris Teskler, had outlined a deal to his counterpart at Samsung _ Kim Seong-woo _ in a three-page letter that was revealed this week after U.S. Judge Lucy H. Koh rejected the firms’ request to keep the documents sealed.

``Apple is willing to license its declared-essential patents to Samsung on license terms that rely on the price of baseband chips on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties basis. Apple estimates that this approach, which implements the true meaning of and requirements imposed by FRAND, will result in a $0.33 per unit in royalties for Apple patents,’’ Apple said in a letter to Judge Koh. 

``I don’t doubt that Apple would have liked Samsung to accept its offer and Apple’s proposed per-unit amount may seem low,’’ Florian Mueller, a German-based patent expert, wrote on his popular FossPatents blog.

``By submitting the classified letters to Judge Koh, Apple was intending to appeal to the presiding judge that its attempts to sign a peace treaty with Samsung vaporized due to Samsung’s unwillingness to accept the offer,’’ said another Samsung official.

Amid the deepening legal feud, the Korean firm has been raising its brand awareness in the global market. According to a study by InterBrand, a major consultancy in branding, Samsung’s brand value was estimated at $32.9 billion, ranking it ninth in terms of corporate awareness worldwide.

``For Samsung has nothing to lose in its fight with Apple,’’ a source said. Last year, Samsung’s brand awareness was 17th.

``Samsung’s anti-Apple campaign is so far paying off. It is now the world’s biggest smartphone manufacturer and is rolling out more software- and hardware-improved devices as the fight is a good excuse to further encourage designers and technicians,’’ said the source.

Meanwhile, Samsung has officially asked that the ruling in August against it that awarded Apple $1.05 billion be thrown out as jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his previous ``legal problems’’ with a company that Samsung has a close partnership with.

According to Samsung, the controversial foreman didn’t tell Judge Koh that he had filed bankruptcy in 1993 and had been sued by his former employer, Seagate Technology.