Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. 

Syllabus 

only  a  component  of  a  multicomponent  product,  see,  e.g.,  Ex  parte 
Adams,  84  Off.  Gaz.  Pat.  Office  311;  Application  of  Zahn,  617  F. 2d 
261,  268  (CCPA).    This  reading  is  also  consistent  with  the  Court’s
reading  of  the  term  “manufacture”  in  §101,  which  makes  “any  new
and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection.  See 
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 308.  Pp. 4–7.

(b) Because  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,  the  Federal  Circuit’s  nar-
rower reading cannot be squared with §289’s text.  Absent adequate 
briefing by the parties, this Court declines to resolve whether the rel-
evant  article  of  manufacture  for  each  design  patent  at  issue  here  is
the  smartphone  or  a  particular  smartphone  component.    Doing  so  is
not necessary to resolve the question presented, and the Federal Cir-
cuit may address any remaining issues on remand.  Pp. 7–8. 

786 F. 3d 983, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.