Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-777_7lho.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

4 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

its 

iPhone,  Samsung  released  a  series  of 

released 
smartphones that resembled the iPhone.  Id., at 357–358. 
Apple sued Samsung in 2011, alleging, as relevant here,
that  various  Samsung  smartphones  infringed  Apple’s 
D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305 design patents.  A jury
found  that  several  Samsung  smartphones  did  infringe
those  patents.  See  id.,  at  273–276.  All  told,  Apple  was
awarded  $399  million  in  damages  for  Samsung’s  design 
patent infringement, the entire profit Samsung made from
its  sales  of  the  infringing  smartphones.  See  id.,  at  277– 
280, 348–350. 

The  Federal  Circuit  affirmed  the  design  patent  in-
fringement damages award.1  In doing so, it rejected Sam-
sung’s  argument  “that  the  profits  awarded  should  have 
been  limited  to  the  infringing  ‘article  of  manufacture’ ”—
for  example,  the  screen  or  case  of  the  smartphone—“not
the entire infringing product”—the smartphone.  786 F. 3d 
983,  1002  (2015).    It  reasoned  that  “limit[ing]  the  dam- 
ages”  award  was  not  required  because  the  “innards  of
Samsung’s  smartphones  were  not  sold  separately  from 
their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary 
purchasers.”  Ibid. 

We  granted  certiorari,  577  U. S.  ___  (2016),  and  now 

reverse and remand. 

II 
Section  289  allows  a  patent  holder  to  recover  the  total
profit  an  infringer  makes  from  the  infringement.    It  does 
so  by  first  prohibiting  the  unlicensed  “appli[cation]”  of  a 

—————— 

1 Samsung  raised  a  host  of  challenges  on  appeal  related  to  other 
claims  in  the  litigation  between  Apple  and  Samsung.    The  Federal 
Circuit  affirmed  in  part—with  respect  to  the  design  patent  infringe-
ment  finding,  the  validity  of  two  utility  patent  claims,  and  the  design
and  utility  patent  infringement  damages  awards—and  reversed  and
remanded  in  part—with  respect  to  trade  dress  dilution.    Only  the 
design patent infringement award is at issue here.