federal-circuit
SCOTUS UPSETS THE APPLE CART? The High Court Answers Key Question on Design Patent Damages, But Leaves Many Unanswered
< Previous Article
Table of Contents
Next Article >
2017 Ⓒ Boston Patent Law Association
homefacebookgpluslinkedInmail
PDF
The United States Supreme Court recently overturned a $400 million verdict in a highly-publicized and long-waged patent battle between Apple and Samsung. Samsung Elcs. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. __ (Dec. 6, 2016). In doing so, it addressed design patents for the first time in 130 years and held that damages in design patent cases do not necessarily need to be based upon the profits made from a whole end product sold to a consumer, but may be limited to a component of that product. Nonetheless, the Court’s unanimous opinion, penned by Justice Sotomayor, may raise more questions than it answers.
The Court viewed the fulcrum of its decision as the meaning of “article of manufacture” in the statute governing design patent damages. That statute—35 U.S.C. § 289—provides:
Whoever during the term of a patent for a design…(1) applies the patented design, or any imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit….”
Accordingly, the Court found that determining damages in a design patent case involves two steps. The first step requires a determination of what constitutes the “article of manufacture” to which the design is applied. The second step then requires a calculation of the total profits made on that article.

Regarding the first step, Justice Sotomayor looked to the text of § 289, as well as other sections of the Patent Act (including, §§ 101 and 171), to conclude that the term “article of manufacture” “is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product.” Accordingly, the Court found the Federal Circuit’s reading to cover only an end product too narrow. But as to whether the “article of manufacture” here constitutes the entire smartphone or some component of it, the Court gave no opinion. It also provided little to no guidance as to how that inquiry is to be made. It expressly stated, “We decline to lay out a test of the first step of the § 289 damages inquiry….” The Federal Circuit will now wrestle with that question. How it will do so and what, if any, implications its jurisprudence on apportionment in this context may have on damages for utility patents are to be determined. Further commentary and analysis will follow as this case proceeds.
gpluslinkedInfacebook
mailimg_14-Heather-Repicky
December 6, 2016 - By Heather B. Repicky and Doyon Won, PH.D., Nutter
img_14---Doyon-Won
NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE
Volume 48, Issue 1
BPLA-logo
TOC
Index
Community Calendar Read more >
Table of Contents
Message from the President Monica Grewal
Read more >
Implied In Ink?: How Tattoo Artists Can Claim And Protect Their Copyrights Against An Implied License Defense
Read more >
< Back
Message from the Editor-in-Chief
Read more >
A Conundrum for Time Bars to Institution of Inter Partes Review in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp.
Read more >
The Passing of a BPLA past president and Founding Partner of Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds, Leo Reynolds
Read more >
Give Back by Getting Involved—BPLA’s Patent Pro Bono Program
Read more >
Boston Patent Law Association Minutes of The 2016 Annual Meeting
Read more >
Members on the Move
Read more >
Moot Court Judges Needed
Read more >
Arbitrating Patent Disputes — A Strategic Choice
Read more >
Considerations for U.S. brand owners in Cuba
Read more >
WIPO ST.26: A Roadmap To The Future of Sequence Listing Compliance
Read more >
PTAB Grants First Preliminary Reply and Sur-Reply Under New Rules
Read more >
Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and the Protection of Digital Embodiments of Artworks.
Read more >
SCOTUS UPSETS THE APPLE CART? The High Court Answers Key Question on Design Patent Damages, But Leaves Many
Read more >
calendarcalendar__2_
New TTAB Rules Aim to Make Proceedings More Efficient
Read more >
Officers and Board of Governors
Read more >
Trademark Solicitation Scams
Read more >
TOC
Published by the BPLA with the authors’ and Nutter’s permission. This article appeared in Nutter’s blog on December 6, 2016.