For me, that doesn’t make things clearer. “refurbished, non-Apple parts”? Why wouldn’t the non-Apple parts be new?

I repeat: I’m all in favor of the right to repair, but this case is about whether these parts are counterfeit, and, possibly on whether parts like these can be counterfeit at all.

”largely Apple parts, likely scavenged from broken phones”

That, IMHO, would change things, but I cannot find any statement that the screens were largely Apple parts, or that they were scavenged from broken phones.

If either were true, I would expect the lawyer for the defense to explicitly state that.

Disclaimer: It is hard for outsiders to make a good judgment on such cases, as the devil is in the details, so you would have to read all the evidence, and jurisprudence of similar cases. I didn’t even watch the entire video in this article.