Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2016 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL. v. 

APPLE INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 15–777.  Argued October 11, 2016—Decided December 6, 2016 

Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell 
an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable
imitation  thereof  has  been  applied  and  makes  an  infringer  liable  to
the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.”  35 U. S. C. §289. 
As  relevant  here,  a  jury  found  that  various  smartphones  manufac-
tured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents 
owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face
with  rounded  edges  and  a  grid  of  colorful  icons  on  a  black  screen.
Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit
from the sale of its infringing smartphones.  The Federal Circuit af-
firmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that dam-
ages  should  be  limited  because  the  relevant  articles  of  manufacture
were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone.  The 
court  reasoned  that  such  a  limit  was  not  required  because  the  com-
ponents of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold  separately to ordi-
nary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture. 

Held: In the case of  a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of
manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the 
end  product  sold  to  the  consumer  but  may  be  only  a  component  of
that product.  Pp. 4–9.

(a) The statutory text resolves the issue here.  An “article of manu-
facture,”  which  is  simply  a  thing  made  by  hand  or  machine,  encom-
passes  both  a  product  sold  to  a  consumer  and  a  component  of  that 
product.    This  reading  is  consistent  with  §171(a)  of  the  Patent  Act,
which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible
for  design  patent  protection,  and  which  has  been  understood  by  the
Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to