Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/360231737/17-09-28-Apple-Responsive-Brief-on-Design-Patent-Damages
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:25:15+00:00

Document:
6 under any appropriate test, and Apple is entitled to Samsungs total profit on those phones.
24 Courtthat the article could be either the product as sold or a smaller component.
5 patent damages award should be confirmed.
14 also that they are the only articles on which the jury could have calculated Samsungs profits.
With The Article Of Manufacture.
All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
2 scope of a design patent . . . will principally determine the identity of the article of manufacture.
4 the articles of manufacture to which those designs are applied are not Samsungs entire products.
7 article to which the defendant applies that design, it must be rejected.
9 ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture and not to internal or functional features.
12 design (id.), then the article of manufacture could never be an entire multicomponent product.
16 component of that product. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 435 (2016).
9 than all components of that product, the design cannot be applied to the entire product.
11 is the specific part, portion or component of a product to which the patented design is applied.).
18 features. See Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Dkt.
19 1157 at 9 (excluding apportionment testimony of Samsungs expert as contrary to law); Dkt.
28 same design to a teacup, or a bowl, or any other product that could bear the design.
3 obscure[d] in normal use, Samsung Br. 3 (quoting In re Stevens, 173 F.2d 1015, 1016 (C.C.P.A.
7 external components, as distinguished from the profits contributed by its internal components.
10 (No. 15-777) (Congress said you cant apportion the value of the design in relation to the article.
14 apportionment argument as inconsistent with [t]he clear statutory language); Exxon Corp. v.
18 apportionment argument by disguising it as a test for identifying the article of manufacture.
4 as sold, and therefore all profits from sales of the article are recoverable under Section 289).
20 any event, any instructional error was not prejudicial. See Clem, 566 F.3d at 1182.
The Jury, But Is Not Dictated By The Claimed Design As Samsung Suggests.
3 finds no support in law and should be rejected for several reasons.
9 for purposes of calculating infringers profits.
12 identity of the article of manufacture is ultimately a question of fact. Samsung Br. 7-8.
16 the patent. Id. 3. It also concedes that the scope of a patent claim is a question of law.
14 providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design. (citing Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
19 describe the design patents scope is contrary to the law of the case. Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v.
21 previously determined on appeal to this court are law of the case on remand. (citation omitted)).
23 patented designs were applied, the jury was already correctly instructed on that issue.
designs scope, as Samsung insists they are. Id. Such an instruction would thus only invite error.
28 of certiorari granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.).
The Defendant Bears The Burden On Certain Subsidiary Issues.
289 assigns Apple  the burden of proving the infringing defendants gross revenue, . . .
different ways. Stowell v. Secy of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 539, 542 (1st Cir. 1993).
testimony from Mr. Wagner regarding its deductible expenses in an effort to reduce its liability.
25 See Dkt. 1842 at 3021-3032; Dkt. 2841 at 1014-1024.
Samsungs cited authorities are not to the contrary. Neither Lucent Technologies, Inc. v.
28 damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, not the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits under 289.
1 In any event, 289 provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement.
12 . . . the component that the defendant asserts is the article to which the design is applied).
18 of proof on subsidiary issues to defendants. See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v.
1 In fact, such burden-shifting in the absence of express statutory language is common.
6 infringement it reasonably would have made the additional profits enjoyed by the infringer . . . .
12 [t]he burden then shifts to the infringer to show that the inference is unreasonable).
19 such that use of the whole product is so improper as to warrant exclusion.); MediaTek Inc. v.
(N.D. Cal. May 28, 2014), cited by Samsung (Br. 10), is consistent with Apples position here.
8 D. Issue 5: The Articles of Manufacture Are Samsungs Infringing Phones.
13 five years after trialdiffer from Samsungs previous, but still untimely articulations (see Dkt.
14 3503 at 4 n.3), and, as discussed below, find no record support under any appropriate test.
23 Apple did here), the burden never shifts to the defendant to rebut the claim.
is always the case with issues of first impression, no court has yet adopted any approach.
28 Cir. 1964); Barker v. Lull Engg Co., 573 P.2d 443, 455 (Cal. 1978).
4 evidence described in Apples Opening Brief (at 15-21) shows, Samsungs infringing phones.
Relevant Articles of Manufacture Are Samsungs Infringing Phones.
supports a finding of any article of manufacture other than Samsungs infringing phones.
alone the array of icons claimed in the patent.
28 to claim construction, they do not affect the article of manufacture analysis. See supra pp. 7-8.
4 article of manufacture to which a design may be applied.
6 (see Samsung Br. 13) does not mean that the design has not been applied to the whole product.
10 limited to the exact article which happens to be selected for illustration in [a] patent.
17 alleges that use of the term article of manufacture in the claim construction was incorrect.
28 ornamental design has been applied is an electronic device e.g., a cellular phone).
2 scope of protection is limited to a more narrow range[.] (internal quotation marks omitted)); id.
13 articles cannot. See supra pp. 5-6.
22 phones are not the relevant articles of manufacture.
28 entire article of manufacture[.]).
1 to a tear-down analysis of its infringing Vibrant phone showing components in isolation.
13 only sells, and consumers only use, the infringing phones in their entireties.
4 Samsung applied the claimed designs to the infringing phones. See Apple Opening Br. 15.
9 weighs in favor of Apples argument that the articles are the entire phones.
21 that the jury would have reached the same verdict even if given Samsungs desired instruction.
23 Angeles, 717 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2013); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811-812 (9th Cir.
28 survive your argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8, Samsung, 137 S. Ct. 429 (No. 15-777).
Total Profit For Any Article Other Than Samsungs Infringing Phones.
total profit on the infringing phones, including the testimony of its own damages expert.
of evidence from which the jury could calculate profits on Samsungs alleged articles.
to even allege prejudice in its opening brief to the Federal Circuit. Samsung Br. 36-39, Apple Inc.
25 v. Samsung Elecs., No. 14-1335, 2014 WL 2586819 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2014); see Shinseki v.
28 appellant in its opening brief on appeal is necessarily waived.).
12 on which a jury could calculate Samsungs total profit from any components of the phones.
15 features. Samsung Br. 23. Samsungs argument based on that evidence is twice flawed.
damages experts to determine a reasonable royalty under 284 for design patent infringement.
See PX25A1.16; PX25F.16. The ultimate opinion offered at trial by both Mr. Musika and Ms.
28 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Dkt. 1839 at 2088-2090; Dkt. 2840 at 705-708.
8 into a damages assessment, and no other evidence would allow for such a conversion.
16 asserted error in the jury instructions cannot have been prejudicial, and no new trial is warranted.
20 for a new trial should be denied, and the design patent damages judgment should be confirmed.
prove or disprove the validity or invalidity of a claim or the amount of a disputed claim.).
28 only article of manufacture at issue at the time of trial.
4 electronic service via the Courts CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5.4.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.