Samsung Electronics v. Apple
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 6, 2016 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- December 6, 2016
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement. A person who manufactures or sells "any article of manufacture to which [a patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit." 35 U.S.C. § 289. In the case of a design for a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the "article of manufacture" to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the "article of manufacture" to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task. This case involves the infringement of designs for smartphones. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit identified the entire smartphone as the only permissible "article of manufacture" for the purpose of calculating § 289 damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the smartphones. The question before us is whether that reading is consistent with § 289. We hold that it is not. I A The federal patent laws have long permitted those who invent designs for manufactured articles to patent their designs. See Patent Act of 1842, § 3, 5 Stat. 543-544. Patent protection is available for a "new, original and ornamental design for an article of…
Excerpt of a 14,775-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.