Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

2 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

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  manufacture.”  35 
U. S. C. §171(a).  A patentable design “gives a peculiar or 
distinctive  appearance  to  the  manufacture,  or  article  to
which  it  may  be  applied,  or  to  which  it  gives  form.” 
Gorham Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511, 525 (1872).  This Court 
has  explained  that  a  design  patent  is  infringed  “if,  in  the 
eye  of  an  ordinary  observer,  giving  such  attention  as  a 
purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the 
same.”  Id., at 528. 

In  1885,  this  Court  limited  the  damages  available  for 
design  patent  infringement.  The  statute  in  effect  at  the 
time  allowed  a  holder  of  a  design  patent  to  recover  “the
actual damages sustained” from infringement.  Rev. Stat. 
§4919.  In  Dobson  v.  Hartford  Carpet  Co.,  114  U. S.  439 
(1885), the lower courts had awarded the holders of design
patents  on  carpets  damages  in  the  amount  of  “the  entire 
profit to the [patent holders], per yard, in the manufacture
and sale of carpets of the patented designs, and not merely
the  value  which  the  designs  contributed  to  the  carpets.” 
Id.,  at  443.    This  Court  reversed  the  damages  award  and
construed the statute to require proof that the profits were
“due  to”  the  design  rather  than  other  aspects  of  the  car-
pets.  Id., at 444; see also Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U. S. 10, 
17  (1886)  (“The  plaintiff  must  show  what  profits  or  dam-
ages are attributable to the use of the infringing design”).

In  1887,  in  response  to  the  Dobson  cases,  Congress
enacted  a  specific  damages  remedy  for  design  patent 
infringement.  See S. Rep. No. 206, 49th Cong., 1st Sess.,
1–2 (1886); H. R. Rep. No. 1966, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 1–2 
(1886).  The  new  provision  made  it  unlawful  to  manufac-