Samsung vs. Apple (2016) Court Filing, retrieved on October 11, 2016, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 8.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT [December 6, 2016]
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement. A person who manufactures or sells “any article of manufacture to which [a patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289. In the case of a design for a singlecomponent product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the “article of manufacture” to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the “article of manufacture” to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task.
This case involves the infringement of designs for smartphones. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit identified the entire smartphone as the only permissible “article of manufacture” for the purpose of calculating §289 damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the smartphones. The question before us is whether that reading is consistent with §289. We hold that it is not.
Continue Reading Here.
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case No. 15–777 retrieved on September 26, 2023, from supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.