Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  580 U. S. ____ (2016) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

“patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any 
article of manufacture for the purpose of sale” or the unli-
censed sale or exposure to sale of “any article of manufac-
ture  to  which  [a  patented]  design  or  colorable  imitation 
has  been  applied.”  35  U. S. C.  §289.    It  then  makes  a 
person who violates that prohibition “liable to the owner to 
the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250.”  Ibid. 
“Total,”  of  course,  means  all.  See  American  Heritage
Dictionary  1836  (5th  ed.  2011)  (“[t]he  whole  amount  of 
something;  the  entirety”).  The  “total  profit”  for  which 
§289  makes  an  infringer  liable  is  thus  all  of  the  profit
made from the prohibited conduct, that is, from the manu-
facture or sale of the “article of manufacture to which [the 
patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied.” 

Arriving  at  a  damages  award  under  §289  thus  involves 
two  steps.  First,  identify  the  “article  of  manufacture”  to 
which  the  infringed  design  has  been  applied.    Second, 
calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of
manufacture. 

This case requires us to address a threshold matter: the
scope of the term “article of manufacture.”  The only ques-
tion  we  resolve  today  is  whether,  in  the  case  of  a  multi-
component  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.  Under 
the  former  interpretation,  a  patent  holder  will  always  be 
entitled to the infringer’s total profit from the end product.
Under the latter interpretation, a patent holder will some-
times  be  entitled  to  the  infringer’s  total  profit  from  a 
component of the end product.2 

—————— 

2 In its petition for certiorari and in its briefing, Samsung challenged 
the decision below on a second ground.  It argued that 35 U. S. C. §289
contains a causation requirement, which limits a §289 damages award
to  the  total  profit  the  infringer  made  because  of  the  infringement.
Samsung abandoned this theory at argument, and so we do not address
it.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.