Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01795/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01795-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NORDOCK, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SYSTEMS INC, DBA POWERAMP, DBA DLM INC., 

DBA MCGUIRE,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1762, 2014-1795

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin in No. 2:11-cv-00118-RTR, 

Senior Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

______________________ 

Decided: March 17, 2017 

______________________ 

 JEFFREY SCOTT SOKOL, Sokol Law Office, Milwaukee, 

WI, for plaintiff-appellant.

 PHILIP P. MANN, Mann Law Group, Seattle, WA, for 

defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by TIMOTHY 

JOHN BILLICK; JOHN WHITAKER, Whitaker Law Group, 

Seattle, WA. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1795 Document: 6-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/17/2017
2 NORDOCK, INC. v. SYSTEMS INC. 

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme 

Court of the United States. Sys., Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., 

137 S. Ct. 589 (2016). Systems, Inc. (“Systems”) sought 

review of our prior decision in Nordock, Inc. v. Systems 

Inc., 803 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015), arguing that we 

erred in our interpretation of design patent damages 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289. The Supreme Court granted 

Systems’ petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated our prior 

judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings 

in light of its decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple 

Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016).

On remand, we recalled our mandate solely with respect to design patent damages1 and reinstated the case. 

Both parties filed statements urging us to take different 

actions. While Nordock, Inc. (“Nordock”) requests that we 

reinstate our prior decision remanding the case to the 

district court for a new damages trial, Systems requests 

that we affirm the district court’s decision denying 

Nordock’s motion for a new trial on damages. For the 

reasons explained below, we vacate the jury’s damages 

award and remand this case to the district court for 

further proceedings, including a new damages trial. 

Section 289 provides, in relevant part, that whoever 

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. The Supreme Court clarified that a damages award under § 289 involves two 

 

1 We recalled the mandate only to the extent it related to the district court’s assessment of design patent 

damages. Our decisions with respect to Systems’ crossappeal remain intact. 

Case: 14-1795 Document: 6-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/17/2017
NORDOCK, INC. v. SYSTEMS INC. 3

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.” Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. The Court then 

explained that the only question before it was narrow: 

“whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the 

relevant ‘article of manufacture’ must always be the end 

product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a 

component of that product.” Id. 

Looking to the statutory text, the Supreme Court concluded that the term “article of manufacture,” as it is used 

in § 289, “encompasses both a product sold to a consumer 

and a component of that product.” Id. The Court further 

indicated that the term “article of manufacture” is “broad 

enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and 

a component of that product, whether sold separately or 

not.” Id. at 436. The Court declined, however, to “set out 

a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture 

at the first step of the § 289 damages inquiry.” Id. The 

Court subsequently remanded this case for further consideration in light of Samsung. Sys., Inc. v. Nordock, Inc., 

137 S. Ct. 589 (2016). 

Nordock argues that we should reinstate our prior decisions: (1) finding that the district court erred in denying 

Nordock’s motion for a new trial to assess damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289; and (2) vacating the jury’s 

damages award and remanding for a new trial on damages. According to Nordock, Systems failed to develop or 

preserve at trial its assertion that the relevant “article of 

manufacture” is anything other than the entire dock 

leveler. As such, Nordock argues that we should declare 

that the “article of manufacture” is the entire dock leveler.

Systems submits that a new trial is not necessary because the patent at issue—U.S. Patent No. D579,754—

makes clear that the “article of manufacture” is a “lip and 

hinge plate,” not the entire dock leveler. According to 

Case: 14-1795 Document: 6-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/17/2017
4 NORDOCK, INC. v. SYSTEMS INC. 

Systems, the jury found “that Systems’ profits on the lip 

and hinge plate are less than $15 per unit.” Systems’ 

Response Regarding Continued Review at 7, Nordock, Inc. 

v. Systems Inc., Nos. 2014-1762, -1795 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 

2017), ECF No. 83. Systems explains that the jury was 

instructed that Nordock could recover either compensatory damages or Systems’ profits, not both. Systems points 

to testimony from its expert that: (1) a royalty was the 

proper form of damages; (2) $15 per unit was the appropriate amount of royalty; and (3) Systems’ profits would 

be “less than that.” Id. at 13. Based on this evidence, 

Systems argues that the district court properly declined to 

order a new trial. 

After careful consideration, we conclude that remand 

for a new trial on damages remains necessary. The jury 

awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty and 

indicated on the verdict form that Systems’ profits were 

$0. As we explained in our now-vacated decision, the 

record reveals that both the district court and the jury 

were confused with respect to the interplay between 35 

U.S.C. § 284 and 35 U.S.C. § 289. The fact that Nordock 

could recover only one type of damage on each sale—

either (1) Nordock’s lost profits or a reasonable royalty or 

(2) Systems’ profits on the relevant article of manufacture—did not absolve the jury of its obligation to determine the amount of System’s total profits for purposes of 

determining damages under § 289. Because there was no 

evidence that Systems’ profits were $0, we vacate the 

jury’s damages award and remand for a new trial on 

damages.

On remand, the trial court will have an opportunity to 

revisit and restructure its jury instructions on damages to 

provide the jury with a clear understanding of its obligation to determine Systems’ profits under § 289. The trial 

court will also have the opportunity to consider the parties’ arguments with respect to the relevant “article of 

manufacture” in the first instance. And, the parties will 

Case: 14-1795 Document: 6-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/17/2017
NORDOCK, INC. v. SYSTEMS INC. 5

have the opportunity to develop the record regarding 

what constitutes the relevant “article of manufacture” in 

these circumstances—a question they could not have 

anticipated prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Samsung. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the 

district court for further proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED

Case: 14-1795 Document: 6-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/17/2017