Samsung vs. Apple (2016) Court Filing, retrieved on October 11, 2016, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 8. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289. As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufactured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture. : In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. Pp. 4–9. Held (a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manufacture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act, which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g., Ex parte Adams, 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; , 617 F. 2d 261, 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See v. , 447 U. S. 303, 308. Pp. 4–7. Application of Zahn Diamond Chakrabarty Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308. Pp. 4–7. (b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not, the Federal Circuit’s narrower reading cannot be squared with §289’s text. Absent adequate briefing by the parties, this Court declines to resolve whether the relevant article of manufacture for each design patent at issue here is the smartphone or a particular smartphone component. Doing so is not necessary to resolve the question presented, and the Federal Circuit may address any remaining issues on remand. Pp. 7–8. 786 F. 3d 983, reversed and remanded. SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 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 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. supremecourt.gov

Samsung vs. Apple: Defining Damages in Design Patent Cases

Apple's Conundrum: Balancing Privacy and National Security 

Too Long; Didn't Read

Get Free Unlimited IP Geo Data With IPinfo Lite

Supreme Court Ruling on Patent Infringement: Defining the 'Article of Manufacture'

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Samsung vs. Apple: Defining Damages in Design Patent Cases

The Evolution of 'Article of Manufacture' in Patent Cases

The Supreme Court's Broad View of Patent Damages

The US Supreme Court Interpretation of Patent Jurisprudence

Baker v. Selden: Tackling the Boundaries of Copyright and Artistic Expression

20% of All General Searches in the U.S. Go Through the Default on User-Downloaded Version of Chrome

Samsung vs. Apple: Defining Damages in Design Patent Cases

The Evolution of 'Article of Manufacture' in Patent Cases

The Supreme Court's Broad View of Patent Damages

The US Supreme Court Interpretation of Patent Jurisprudence

Baker v. Selden: Tackling the Boundaries of Copyright and Artistic Expression

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps