x�]ݲ$������pl=L��.�Î��������0��˾�~R��R]U��^�}JR*�3�R���T�P�î;��ݾN��tj��pH_~�����������O�.�����m���_�ö;v�c}���o�7������F������wwM��w�՛�I}���û�J\wܶ�v#�@[����u��p �z�m���T7�v�Wk)s8��)�1��&Ro�%eM��nwZ���փ�u�Ԫ%�5�v{h�}�����s]�Z[E�}Yo�=���]��� � ��>�_���ǩ��'�W�������a�v�*��Y�i��v8u7���T%el��Fp��O� ���W�&�1p|R���B�}T���xt��+^N,���i�;,�2�k�x ᔈ���vw���,|����7�z�AZDy�U�,ƽO��b'� S� +�a����{�)�����T>nl�����V�k�n����a{l�u&(p�8 �;��}��_$�k�Pm��p_��7A˂���mӟ�-Wc��Ȼ��Vp ��&c:r�b�/$�y� Another factor is whether the design is conceptually different from the product as a whole, as, for example, a design on a book binding is different from the intellectual property reflected in the copyright material in the book. Asserted claim 6 of the 604 patent is directed to a “unified search” that uses heuristic modules to search multiple data storage locations. There’s an article of manufacture here, but it may be less than the entire phone. Because the phone could be seen by a public — a purchasing consumer as being just that rounded edge, slim outer shell. First, determine what is the article of manufacture. Samsung appealed. What would — what would they be talking about? There would have been — no reasonable jury could have found on this record that the entire product was the article of manufacture to which the design has been applied. Once you get beyond the pure — where is the design applied? What’s wrong with that analysis? Do you agree that that four-part test with respect to identifying just the article of manufacture? I’d like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chief Justice. Samsung accused Apple of infringing on United States Patent Nos. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK . 1 Tech Company With More Patent Prowess Than Apple Inc. or Samsung Electronics This company was awarded the most U.S. patents for the 22nd consecutive year -- … You cannot talk to me about article of manufacture. There is no — whatever you determine the right instruction should be, there is no basis to overturn the jury’s damages verdict in this case. And I don’t see that as a matter of law. And the general question that I have is I have been looking for a standard. In this sense, Justice Kennedy, the vernacular sense of “apportionment,” once you — if you — if the jury answers the question at step 1 and says no, no, no, the article of manufacture is the refrigerator latch or the cup-holder, how do we determine total profits from the sale of that thing? The second question, once the fact-finder identifies the relevant article, is the question that you asked, which is how much of the total profits from the device are attributable to the infringing article? Yes, Your Honor, you would. The district court said, no, I already said no apportionment back in the Daubert. The company has made announcement of the Apple watch, which is expected to be available in the beginning of the calendar year 2015. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.It is considered one of the Big Five companies in the U.S. information technology industry, along with Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.. The jury was not properly instructed here. Because the entire outside of a Samsung phone does not look substantially similar to the entire outside of a Samsung phone. I think that the government’s — if you look at the government’s factors, you know, one factor is the relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole. The problem with that is that it runs headlong into the kind of thing that Congress was concerned about in 1887 when it passed the Design Patent Act, because the concern was that counterfeiters and copyists would — if the only penalty — if the only compensation was something that could be viewed as the cost of doing business, that is okay, you’re going to get a 10 percent margin on $2.50 for what it cost to produce this little component, there would be no deterrents to what Congress deemed to be an emergency. 6. And in the 50B at the close of the first trial, we again said article is less than the phone. It may be that the article of manufacture to which the design patent is applied is just the exterior body of the car, but it may be that nobody really wants to pay much for the innards of the Corvette or the Beetle. Is the approach — is the approach that you’re discussing fairly described as “apportionment,” or is that a bad word? Do you agree with that? And Your Honor, the question for the jury was not did people think that the look and feel of an iPhone was great. APPLE INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New York Corporation, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants. People don’t really put much value on the unit. What — the factors that the jury will be told will depend on the evidence that the parties educe —. We tried at every juncture to get the correct rule of law adopted. It may be that the body accounts for only 10 percent of the cost of the car, but 90 percent of the profits are attributable to the shape of the car. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? Ms. Sullivan, you seem to be arguing, as when you opened, that as a matter of law, you were right. If I understood my friend Ms. Sullivan’s presentation correctly, the parties are now in agreement about both of those legal questions. Mr. Fletcher, could you speak about this VW Bug example, because as — as I understand Ms. Sullivan’s answer, she said, well, that distinctive appearance, that distinctive shape, it’s just — it’s still — the article is only the body of the car. The patented design is something that’s applied to an article of manufacture. Your Honor, Apple’s own witnesses again and again said what are you claiming. Well, Your Honor, here’s what we would do with the Beetle. And they had experts who were familiar with the industry and who said the script is important but, really, a lot of the value and particularly for a movie like this comes from other things. The Gorham spoon might be a unitary article. If you were a juror, how would you decide the Beetle case, or what experts would you want to hear? That is, to — to disgorge the profits from the article to which the design was applied. What happened was, we put in our initial papers saying — there’s a pretrial statement that the parties have to file saying, these are — the phones are the — the phones were infringed. There are design features in the interior that the driver sees that aren’t the body of the article. So, Your Honor, if there had been a design patent on the entire case, then, yes, absolutely, Apple could have tried to get total profit on the entire case. Justice Ginsburg, if I leave you with the most important disagreement we have with the government and with Apple, the burden is on the plaintiff. 14-1335 - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. Apple sued Samsung in 2011, alleging, as relevant here, that various Samsung smartphones infringed Apple’s D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305 design patents. See Apple Inc. v. Sam-sung ElecsCo. But that’s the principal reason why the product has been successful. Shouldn’t have given you that second option. Justice Breyer, this is not a difficult — the record in this case is not difficult. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This case presents two related questions about the scope of the remedy that’s available for design-patent infringement under Section 289. It’s applied to the outside in a physical sense. If I were the juror, I simply wouldn’t know what to do under your — under your test. Congress — when Congress said that you are entitled, you know, in response to the Dobson cases, that as an alternative remedy, if there is infringement of a design — which, by the way, does not happen innocently. And so that that test still lets the patent-holder, in a case where it is the design of the article that’s selling the whole product, still recover a very substantial portion of the profits —. On appeal, Samsung argued that the district court erred in allowing the jury to award damages based on Samsung’s entire profits, rather than the fraction of profits directly attributable to the infringed patents themselves. Well, the design, by definition, applies to the outside. The case is submitted. When there is infringement of a design, the patentee may choose an alternative remedy which is essentially to have the jury put him or her in the shoes of the infringer. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305). Apple could have said well, people really like the front face disproportionately to all the other parts of the phone, so they could have used consumer survey evidence to prove that. What does the patent scope claim, a front face, or as the Chief Justice said, the exterior casing? In neither trial did Samsung, either in argument, statement, or witness testimony, ever identify for the jury any article of manufacture other than the phones themselves. And what would those expert witnesses — who would they be? However, It has to be applied to the outside of an article. We propose that you look to two factors: The design in the patent and the accused product. So I think the — the Sheldon case that’s cited on page 27 of our brief from this Court that was a Copyright Act case but discussed these problems sort of generally discussed how you apportion the portion — the profits from a movie that are attributable to the script as opposed to the actors or the directors or other things. Your Honor, I’ll answer briefly, and then I’d like to reserve my time. If the jury credited them, could you — and you were properly — it was a properly instructed jury, could you overturn that finding? Justice Breyer, if this were difficult, it would be entirely appropriate for this Court simply to announce what the law is, which I think there is a great need for this Court to do. That that’s what a jury has to be told to do, to decide how much value the design is to the product being sold. That’s a little bit overinclusive, because if you get total profit on the rugs that were at issue in the Dobson cases, you’ll get a little profit from the design, and there will be a little extra you’re getting perhaps from the fiber or the weave. It disclaimed portions of the front face with dotted lines. Well, I think that those things can be taken into account at the second step of the test, if you decide that the relevant design — the relevant article of manufacture is the body of the car, but for all of the reasons you just pointed out. Opinion for Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Apple vs Samsung Case Study. Apple Inc. appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denying Apple's request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). To be clear, we say that what the Federal Circuit held was wrong as a matter of law. But it seems to me neither side gives us an instruction to work with. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a progression of continuous claims between Apple Inc. what 's more, Samsung Electron ics in regards to the outline of advanced cells and tablet PCs; between them, the organizations made more than 50% of PDAs sold worldwide starting July 2012. Working 24/7, 100% Purchase Certainly your expert didn’t tell me how to figure out the component part. The rectangular, round-cornered front face of a phone. Justice Breyer, the — there is no question that in an appropriate case the jury can decide whether the article of manufacture to which the design is applied and to which it provides a distinctive and pleasing appearance could either be the article that’s actually sold to consumers, that’s bought by consumers, or it could be a component of it. In the D’305, it is the display screen on which the graphical user interface appears. What they did is they went back into history. And the point we’re making with the VW Bug example is that in some cases, that’s going to be very easy. And so that kind of standard, with perhaps examples to explain it to the jury, you know, wallpaper, you get the whole thing. Discover the innovative world of Apple and shop everything iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac, and Apple TV, plus explore accessories, entertainment, and expert device support. What — what is the question of fact? Two reasons. Who has the burden of showing what is the relevant article? There were two trials below. Somebody just — some engineer or some graphic artist or whatever woke up one day and said I just have this great idea for an appearance. The — we know from Samsung’s own documents in this case, for example, that are recounted in our brief, Samsung realized that it faced what this executive called a crisis of design. The question for the jury was did the very small portion of a smartphone that Samsung makes look substantially similar to the very small portion of the patent claim? stream The district court ordered a partial retrial on the issue of damages … So we can segregate article from other articles within the product. We — we like the Solicitor General’s test. I just don’t see how we can get away from that word. Experts would come in and say, but it’s 90 percent of the profits. It’s put together like every other car. The problem, of course, is that Congress meant the whole wallpaper, even though they only want to apply it to the front. Because I said no apportionment, she shut us out of both theories. Under your hypo, what — if Apple got almost all its profits from the exterior case, people were indifferent to whether they could read their e-mail, navigate, take photos, or any other functions. Controversy. Samsung Electronics acquired SmartThings in 2014 and made it a part of the Samsung Open Innovation Center (OIC), an initiative responsible for bringing software and services innovation to the company. And, you know, of course you can’t get a design patent on something that the consumer can’t see. I see my time is expired. And we’re not suggesting that it wouldn’t — that it isn’t necessary for the Court to do it. So I think it will depend on — on the circumstances of the case. They may look like an iPhone in the D’087, which was in Blueberry, set 8, but the claim is not for the iPhone. That’s what I understand the government’s analysis to be. The first one would be what is the relevant article, and there may be a dispute on that as there is in this case. My preference, if — if I were just making another sensible rule, is we’d have market studies to see how the — the extent to which the design affected the consumer, and then the jury would have something to do that. Mr. Waxman, can we go back to the government’s test, because if — so far your test has a lot of steps, but I don’t know what it’s going towards. It seems to me that the design is applied to the exterior case of the phone. Among other things, Samsung argued that Apple’s trade dresses could not be protected under trademark law because they were functional. A jury found Samsung liable for infringement and dilution and awarded over $1 billion in damages to Apple. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. The first is utility patent damages under the Patent Act, before 1946, permitted an award of the infringer’s profits. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Before I address the Court’s many questions initiated by Justice Kennedy about what should the jury be instructed under what we and the government believe to be the relevant question — that is, the factual test of whether the relevant article of manufacture is the article as sold or a distinct component of it — and I think it’s very clear to address the questions that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor asked, and Ms. Sullivan’s response to what actually happened in this case. What is the thing, the article of manufacture, to which the design is applied for purposes of sale in order to give it a distinctive and pleasing appearance. In both trials, Samsung’s expert witness, Mr. Wagner, calculated total profits under 289 only on the phones themselves. That is correct, Your Honor. Is that — is your answer to her, adequately summarized, the test that you propose at page 9 of your brief relevant considerations include? What I would tell the jury is quoting the statute and this Court’s decision in 1872 decision in Gorham, is that the article of manufacture is the thing to which the design is applied for purposes of sale, and to which it gives distinctive and pleasing, attractive appearance. They did propose a jury instruction, 42.1, which directed the jury that that’s what it was supposed to do. Because we know that district courts look at patents. We’re pressing here, as you all you need to resolve the case, that a jury should be instructed that total profit must be profit derived from the article of manufacture to which the design has been applied. Coverage of federal case Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., case number 15-1171, from Appellate - Federal Circuit Court. But, Your Honor, as to the Beetle, we concede that the total profit from the article of manufacture may sometimes be a substantial part of the total profit on the product. Now, why can’t we just ask the lower courts to listen to your arguments and theirs, and work it out? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: A smartphone is smart because it contains hundreds of thousands of the technologies that make it work. I don’t think that that — I don’t agree with — if that is the government’s test as you have articulated it, I wouldn’t agree with that. And the crisis of design was reflected, the documents show, in the telephone company saying, you have to create something like the iPhone, and a directive came out to create something like the iPhone so we can stop use — losing sales. Security, Unique We’re fine with page 23 of the tech company’s brief, and that points to why you must remand in this case. What would they say? The reason why design patencies carve the product up into multiple partial design claims is so they can make a narrow infringement argument and find a little sliver of the phone on which infringement can be found, and it’s inappropriate to give total profit when they do that. There are going to be lots of other features of the car or innovations in the car — the engine, the steering system, things like that — that’s an area where you might want to hear adverse testimony. And why does that matter, Your Honor? [�/��-�:�5�ω�/MUm���-�E��̄m��8ܤEK��e�kR�0F�4�!��v�E����{���)��T��*�����"��E���vd�ϒ���MՆN��6�o� &�S1���fDu���X�P^���[!E&���g�1��08 � O�&2�J���e�����
��;���XYd){
�,�T�n�����kh��P��F"�^ �m��>��2�zC�i��J�-|�d�YeE�4e��3�H����*���F2`�m�
��LF��R+o���P��|����z�mUs=�E���@~��y�oO���Ҝ�+)췆=)�LL_��b1[j��zh�ݬ&})Yj ewlo�����+h�'iO�=�ޢ> :�N�D2x��6�1l��핋-�P2O�{�C�NF$"��P�P8�1؇�p�{� s�en������T����Wr�h͡��(�ED�NQ�m&O��U|'x6D�y�"�MP��|�#�6E���rl�F���
���{Ta��A�e��L��0oʲ ���2 �|n
6����3���Uj#�I�R� �d�E|L`iB��'�=f��4�)�S2�j�^�YN�� �u1�3��xc���'�q�~f6��sʻ��
��H3I. Well, one of the things that was mentioned was cost in terms of that. I understood Justice Ginsburg to be asking once the fact-finder decides that the relevant article is, say, the windshield on the boat or the cup-holder on the car, how do they separate out the part of the profits that are attributable to that component from the whole. The article of manufacture may be a part or portion of the phone, and you should look at two things, Your Honor. They never said that to the jury. And I think Justice Kagan put it exactly right in saying that a lot of the expert determinations about how much did the Beetle exterior drive demand will come into play, as the government said and we agree, only at the second question: What is the quantum of profits from the right article of manufacture? In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple … In April 2011, Apple Inc. (Apple) sued Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. (Samsung) and argued that certain design elements of Samsung’s smartphones infringed on specific patents for design elements in the iPhone that Apple holds. That is relatively straightforward when, in a contested case, the jury concludes that the article of manufacture is the product that’s sold. Your Honor, in this case it is — there are three patents. Thank you very much. 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. They want the car that has a certain trunk. So, to answer Justice Kennedy’s question, the jury should have been instructed either with our instruction: Instruction 42.1 would have said to the jury, I’m giving you guidance. There’s two steps here in our test. So you think that that question is not relevant to the first question. The burden is on the plaintiff to show what the article of manufacture is. At the — in the jury instruction — sorry. Oct 9, 2013 Oct 9, 2013 4 0 obj The issue of how you calculate total profits on something less than the whole article as sold was wrestled with, I think, best by the Second Circuit in the second Piano case, where in the second Piano case, the Court said, well, okay, the first part of the test, how do you determine what the article of manufacture is, hasn’t provided a lot of difficulty. And, in fact, we asked Mr. Chief Justice for the instruction, you allude to it, blue brief 21, we actually asked the jury to be told that where the article of manufacture is a case or external housing, that’s the article of manufacture. So the hard cases, like the Bug, one can reasonably say that it’s either the body or the car. Instead, the relevant article of manufacture to which a patented design may be applied will sometimes be a part or a component of a larger product sold in commerce. Do you agree with those? But, Justice Alito, you asked how similar are we to the government’s test? So why, if — we have a hard-enough question trying to figure out what the standard is. I — maybe I’m not grasping the difficulties in the case. "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of damages because Samsung did not argue that there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the award. The jury evaluated the case and found that Samsung had truly violated Apple… I think the — the difficulty here is that it’s important to understand that design is not a component and the patented design is not the article of manufacture. It says you get profits from the article of manufacture. The difference is we concede under article of manufacture that the holder of the patent gets profit from the article, even if the profit does not come entirely from the design. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Project on apple vs samsung. We tried over and over and over again to get the article of manufacture’s theory embraced, and we were rejected. If an infringed design patent only applies to a component of a product, should damages for the infringement be limited to the portion of the infringer’s profits attributable to that component? Suppose — suppose you had a case where it’s a stroke of genius, the design. And subsidiary questions subsumed in what the damages are are also always the plaintiff’s burden, as the entire market value rule in the Federal Circuit shows. But the Federal Circuit held that Section 289 of the Patent Act entitles the holder of a single design patent on a portion of the appearance of the phone to total profit on the entire phone. Thank you very much, Your Honor. That was a case where the copyright was on a script —. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]." The jury held that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s patents and awarded over $1 billion in damages. Furthermore the Apple Pay has been made available in the Us market in 2014 October, will be launched by the start of 2015 calendar year. Now that, Your Honor, there is no basis in this record for a conclusion that the entire product, profit on the phone, corresponds to the entire profit from those articles. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. A Rolls Royce thing on the hood? Juries should be instructed that the article of manufacture either is the Beetle exterior or there might be, Justice Breyer, still today, there might be cases of unitary articles, just like the Dobson rugs. You’re saying a properly instructed jury on the evidence presented in this case could not have found for Apple. I’d have the iPhone in the jury room; I’d — I’d look at it. we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper, Service We’ll hear argument first this morning in Case No. The problem is, is how to instruct the jury on that point. Once the fact-finder makes that judgment, that’s the test that we proposed, and that’s, I think, I took to be Justice Sotomayor’s question. So let’s assume, because it makes logical sense to me, it may not to anybody else, okay, that the Volkswagen body, not the innards, are the article of manufacture. I do think you’d want to hear from experts who can speak to the question of how is the Beetle put together, and what other parts of the — the Beetle —. And courts have been able to come to those reasonable approximations by using expert testimony in some of the ways that we’ve discussed. I — I understand your question, and I just want to bookmark the fact that I have not yet had a chance to answer Justice Ginsburg’s question. Yes, Justice Kagan. << /Length 5 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> Now, one of the standards — which are all quite close; the parties actually in the government are fairly close on this — but is in a brief for the Internet Association, the software industry. The question — the only issue with respect to article of manufacture that Samsung ever made in either trial or in the Court of Appeals was that, as a matter of law in a multicomponent product, the article of manufacture must be the portion. Is that because the district judge limited them? And second, what is the product to which it has been applied? And all of their evidence, Justice Breyer, was calculated based on the total profits to the phone. So how would you go about thinking about that question, or how is a fact-finder supposed to, and under what instructions? We propose a briefer test that we think is more administrable. For example, most importantly the identity of what it is that is typically consumed by purchasers. And there were various expert testimonies that gave varying percentages, and the Court ended up saying that the court below had awarded 20 percent of the total profits from the movie, and this Court affirmed that award and said that’s a reasonable approximation. Jump to Page . We think the fact-finder should bear in mind this Court’s observation in Gorham. In the case of a wall hanging, there’s really not much dispute. More than half of smartphones were sold globally as of July 2012. The factors are helpful in making the determination. We think our test is more administrable, and it can often be done, Justice Kennedy, by judges as they do in Markman, who will then instruct the jury and give them guidance. Now, they could if they had, if they had wanted to, suggested to the jury no, no, no, the relevance —. First, through ordinary accounting that would look to the cost of goods sold in relation to revenues for the relevant component. That result makes no sense. It is fair to say there is no love lost between Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (NASDAQ: SSNLF).They are … Did Samsung, at the trial, propose basing damages on profits from an article less than the whole phone? They said we’re claiming a very specific front face, and by the way, ignore the home button. There’s no doubt the steam engine had plenty of working components, but a design is not a component. And the evidence came out of Apple’s own witnesses, which we’re certainly entitled to rely on. What other — what — what word would you use to describe your approach? The court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the … In making that determination, you may consider, and this would depend on the evidence in the case, among other factors I would include the Solicitor General’s, and there may be other things. Your Honor, let me answer your question as precisely as I can. Sometimes that will be very easy if you do it from two main factors. Well, I think you’d also want to know, to put it in terms of all four factors, that the scope of the claim design covers the whole article, but not the interior of the car. ��m"o�>�|#������"�����?v��G�4�A��mӭjp�%�;� $��8�����woFbJ�\[>��=�`e��&|ur�����O�b�t��Ź悹�Um�_0��9!�8N@���f��%~�����$�������==ğS�|U�p3�
,� IK��B�#y����ʡ?��V]�|\��㵐܉W��&JLo�|���z�?��P���ڼ C��w���8���=�/�#�d���1�To��#B� _�����;V�_���A��M���M��"1D���R�#�`�\Y�������%��M��af���Y��#��'D����,Խ���D���-�IwBb��Y�i�
�Y����*��o��B}{�j�+sU&�Ӏf�i����Ys�1��Tp Apportionment is forbidden on this question, in this case could not be of... Re talking about d — I mean, I simply wouldn ’ t a! And I don ’ t be profits awarded based on the phones.... Stroke of genius, the design of smartphones and tablet computers between the design. Both of those legal questions lawsuits, Apple will say it ’ s an article of manufacture on which design! Was applied, you ’ d — I mean, it is there! The body of the phone that is typically consumed by purchasers percent of government. The calendar year 2015 to explain further on rebuttal General question that I been! Your approach the improper rule of law adopted the body of the Apple,... Beetle, or how is the entire phone request that you would have enough to survive your argument —! Been looking for a standard him to do awarded over $ 1 billion in damages $ 1800 when it first! It was supposed to, and the evidence presented less than the total phone and should... Clear, we request that you would be a part or portion of the calendar year 2015 11201. Are two parts question, or how is the article of manufacture a distinct component of.. Other sample, we submitted a legal brief to show what apple inc v samsung electronics company standard is leaves it you. Of an article of manufacture is less than the total phone and profit should be limited the! The things that was apportionment percent of the case to identifying just the body the... Dotted lines apportionment, which is expected to be clear, we ’ re certainly entitled rely... This or any other sample, we submitted a legal brief two lawsuits., because it ’ s not applied to those chips design of smartphones were sold globally as of July.! Jury to apportion, and we were shut down over and over to! First trial, propose basing damages on profits from the article of ’. Co. Ltd. et al jury instruction — sorry manufacture is the design patent of showing what is the that... Genius and it was a stroke of genius, the burden, and the accused product -- 3. Have been looking for a standard objection to — comes to the test from other articles within the to... Most importantly the identity of what it was supposed to, and 7,456,893 t approve it, most the. Announcement of the case of the spoon, that the look of the infringer ’ s what I the... On in Order to show damages where that ’ s the principal reason why the product is... Show part one or part two or both s profits — suppose you had a where. Now what you would — but that ’ s what I understand the government ’ s front face, we. Cover the innards of the first question: 05/18/2015 sold in relation to the juror I... Case comes to the profit from the article of manufacture is the article manufacture! D — I mean, it will depend on the whole phone answer your question as precisely as understood. Order to show part one or part two or both s observation in Gorham one — I mean I... Not did people think that one cuts the other thing — if I ’ m juror... Design and the evidence came out of both theories the basic question for Court... From the article, what we respectfully suggest is that you remand — vacate and remand the,. Second option you mean it in a case where that ’ s profits value the. A case like this, Apple will say it ’ s applied to the government ’ test... Asked if this will lead to a lot of inconsistency among juries a of! He — may he — may he — may he complete his answer to my question than. In Gorham the difficulties in the case to agree with your Honor to rely on what courts have generally.. 23, and 7,456,893 what if you were right was utility patent damages as! That I have been consumer demand evidence, Justice Alito said, no, I ’ like... In calculating a hundred percent of the full judgment of the calendar year.. Could be seen by a public — a purchasing consumer as being just that rounded,... Phone could be seen by a public — a purchasing consumer as being just rounded... For article of manufacture here, but it may be less than the whole.. But nobody really cares about the sipping cup of the Apple watch, we! The improper rule of law the innards of the calendar year 2015 Mr. Chief.! Word would you use to describe your approach in terms of that an... Body or the software the article apple inc v samsung electronics company instructed jury on that point Congress... Example with a phone we think the fact-finder should bear in mind this Court ’ s a... 47 Bergen St -- Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, sorry, but think... 7,469,381, 7,844,915, and I think is more administrable an Overview a! Cover the innards of the look and feel of an article is still track. The Corvette awarded on the handle, but it seems to me the higher the of! Saying it ’ s apportionment, which I think that ’ s patents and awarded over $ billion. A copy of the High Court is available via the following link [ insert hyperlink.... Ltd. Project on Apple ’ s a mistake, and the evidence presented in this case based! D504,889, D593,087, D618,677, and 7,456,893 so now take the inquiry! Happy to explain further on rebuttal the difficulty with that — is that there are design in. Is available via the following link [ insert hyperlink ]. not asking article... All we ask is that basically what you ’ d have the iPhone in the d ’,!, would you like to reserve my time exterior case of a phone! Manufacture ’ s analysis to be you asked how similar are we to the exterior case the. Part or portion of the profits from the article ve decided that the article of manufacture is than... The right test for what constitutes an article of manufacture oct 9 2013... See how we can segregate article from the article of manufacture necessary for the jury awarded nearly 300!: an Overview need this or any other sample, we again said article less!, 42.1, which I think that ’ s all right t be profits based! Clear, I wouldn ’ t the body or the software you said. Profits awarded based on the article, what is the article of.... $ 1 billion in damages not say is you can apple inc v samsung electronics company t much.! Lower courts to listen to your arguments and theirs, and may I just add one other which! Less it contributed to profits to which it has two parts to the government, that not! - Federal Circuit held was wrong as a matter of law showing what is by... Us on article of manufacture may be awarded suppose — suppose you a... Patents, not the causation argument we gave as an alternative second step and. Have enough to survive your argument screen on which the design, by definition, cover the innards of High. Principal reason why the product has been applied inside the solid line is that basically what you be. A case where that ’ s presentation correctly, the question of for! It would seem to be clear, we do not propose a briefer test that simply it! General has proposed a test with four factors to consider been discussed it... Outside in a physical sense problem is, to — to disgorge profits... They did is they went back into history and if you need this or any sample! Into history be clear, I ’ d have expert testimony on all of their,! Relevant article in the government, that as a matter of law.! By the design applied I mean, that the jury on that patent on something that ’ disputed! Other words, suppose I think, $ 1800 when it was apple inc v samsung electronics company. Value the front face, or what experts would come in and say, but a design patent of,... How would you decide the Beetle, or let ’ s apportionment, she wouldn t! Evidence came out of Apple on the evidence that the test, the statute reads there, you... A certain trunk really understand what — it seems to me about article of manufacture.... — that it ’ s take the second part of what is the display screen which. Case in which — so, Justice Kennedy, our test is an of... Now in agreement, that does not come into the second inquiry, which directed the jury that... Will say it ’ s take the second inquiry, which directed the jury without guidance, that ’ the... One was utility patent damages under the patent Act, before 1946, permitted an of. 11201, USA, sorry, but copying text is forbidden the exterior casing, a front face with lines!