Tracking the landscape of patent remedies
 
Damages remanded for district court to determine §289’s “article of manufacture” test

Damages remanded for district court to determine §289’s “article of manufacture” test

Apple v. Samsung was decided on February 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million — the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award. The Supreme Court reversed. The case was on remand in the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit remanded to the district court for further proceedings, which may or may not include a new damages trial.

Under §289, a design patent infringer is “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit,” that is, all the profit made from the manufacture or sale “of the article of manufacture to which the design or colorable imitation has been applied.” As the Supreme Court clarified, design patent damages under § 289 involves two steps: (1) “identify the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the infringed design has been applied;” and (2) “calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture.” Section 289’s “article of manufacture” covers both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.

Apple argued that the Federal Circuit should affirm the design patent award because Samsung never asserted that the relevant article of manufacture was a component of the phone (instead of the entire phone). Samsung argued that the case should be remanded for a new trial on design patent damages because the jury instructions were erroneous in light of the Supreme Court decision. “Because the district court is better positioned to parse the record to evaluate the parties’ competing arguments,” the Federal Circuit remanded. If on remand the district court determines that a new damages trial is necessary, it may set forth a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture, and apply that test to this case.

 

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F. App’x 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

All of these are designed to rehabilitate pharmacy canada cialis valsonindia.com the lives of SCI sufferers. Consequently, there are two paths for training in the United States price tadalafil tablets of America. That said, interaction with PDE enzymes other than the generic viagra cheap PDE-5 is slight. levitra on line We’re pretty sure you do not want them to function sexually, but also improve your libido.