U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Design Patent Damages
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated decision in , which revolved around how to calculate damages in design patent infringement cases. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Samsung could be liable for only those profits associated with the infringing components of the phone rather than the whole device.
Determining Design Patent Damages
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. It further provides that one who “applies the patented design … to any article of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, … but [the owner] shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.”
Samsung and Apple’s intellectual property dispute centers on a series of design patents that protect various aspects of the iPhone’s iconic design, including its rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. After Samsung introduced smartphones with similar features, Apple filed a design patent infringement lawsuit.
The jury found Samsung liable for infringement of Apple’s design patents and awarded Apple $399 million in damages, which represented Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 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. According to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a design-patent holder is entitled to an infringer’s entire profits from sales of any product found to contain a patented design, without any regard to the design’s contribution to that product’s value or sales, because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.
Supreme Court’s Narrow Patent Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for determining a damages award is not limited to the end product sold to the consumer, but may also be only a component of that product. The decision rested exclusively on the Court’s interpretation of the statute and avoided the larger issues raised on appeal.
As interpreted by the Court, “an article of manufacture … is simply a thing made by hand or machine.” Accordingly, the justices held that term is “broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not.” Moreover, the justices concluded that “reading ‘article of manufacture’ in §289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase.”
While the Supreme Court decision brings some clarity to design patent damages, it did not establish a clear test for determining whether the profits should apply to a product as a whole or its individual components. “We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Going forward, it will be up to the Federal Circuit to establish a standard. Given the ongoing litigation between Samsung and Apple, it would not be at all surprising if the Federal Circuit’s test ends up back before the Supreme Court.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
SCOTUS Makes Big Decision Regarding Design Patent Damages
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Design Patent Damages
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated decision in , which revolved around how to calculate damages in design patent infringement cases. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Samsung could be liable for only those profits associated with the infringing components of the phone rather than the whole device.
Determining Design Patent Damages
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. It further provides that one who “applies the patented design … to any article of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, … but [the owner] shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.”
Samsung and Apple’s intellectual property dispute centers on a series of design patents that protect various aspects of the iPhone’s iconic design, including its rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. After Samsung introduced smartphones with similar features, Apple filed a design patent infringement lawsuit.
The jury found Samsung liable for infringement of Apple’s design patents and awarded Apple $399 million in damages, which represented Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 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. According to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a design-patent holder is entitled to an infringer’s entire profits from sales of any product found to contain a patented design, without any regard to the design’s contribution to that product’s value or sales, because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.
Supreme Court’s Narrow Patent Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for determining a damages award is not limited to the end product sold to the consumer, but may also be only a component of that product. The decision rested exclusively on the Court’s interpretation of the statute and avoided the larger issues raised on appeal.
As interpreted by the Court, “an article of manufacture … is simply a thing made by hand or machine.” Accordingly, the justices held that term is “broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not.” Moreover, the justices concluded that “reading ‘article of manufacture’ in §289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase.”
While the Supreme Court decision brings some clarity to design patent damages, it did not establish a clear test for determining whether the profits should apply to a product as a whole or its individual components. “We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Going forward, it will be up to the Federal Circuit to establish a standard. Given the ongoing litigation between Samsung and Apple, it would not be at all surprising if the Federal Circuit’s test ends up back before the Supreme Court.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
