Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/360231734/17-09-28-Samsung-Responsive-Brief-on-Design-Patent-Damages
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:27:05+00:00

Document:
22 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Time: 1:30 p.m.
8 phones makes a mockery of the Supreme Courts intervening decision.
19 entirety of Samsungs phones are the relevant article of manufacture. Dkt. 3509 at 29.
28 of law. In light of the Supreme Courts decision, any such ruling would be reversible error.
10 123, 126-27 (9th Cir. 1995) (remanding for new evidence based on change in law).
article of manufacture, it is critical to point out two overarching flaws in Apples test as a whole.
3 claim to the corresponding portion of the product).
19 and accordingly requires a patent be limited to the invention which it defines, Mercoid Corp. v.
1 that the patentee will be improperly compensated for non-infringing components of that product.
6 product that corresponds with the claimed, protected attributes of the patented design.
21 re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 268 (C.C.P.A. 1980)).
24 design has been applied, and only then (2) calculating the infringers total profit on that article.
3 Third, Apple misplaces reliance (Br. 4) on Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F.
9 which are different articles no matter how sold. Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F.
16 product that is sold, as it repeatedly did earlier in this case (e.g. Dkt. 1694, at 140).
20 give factfinders no help at all or else invite blatant evasion of the Supreme Courts core holding.
3 identity of the article depends on some free-form aesthetic judgment about product appearance.
13 bearing on the identity issue presented at step one.
18 design makes the exterior. Apple ignores this well-established law. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 173 F.
3 including hidden, interior componentry, merely because it is visually distinctive.
6 Apple never explains how a factfinder should measure a designs visual contribution to a product.
23 integrated into the phone at the time of sale.
5 factor, thus seeking to consider twice a factor that should not be considered at all.
10 cites no authority holding that copying is material to infringement or infringers profits.
12 an issue of law for the court.
28 cherry-picks, conspicuously omits Apples fourth factor. See U.S. Br. 27-29.
2 to chill innovation and competition).
relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289.
identifying a different article of manufacture, as Apple wrongly suggests.
otherwise the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief. Id.
at 57-58 (emphasis added); see Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 776 F.2d 276, 278-80 (Fed. Cir.
2 supporting such an interpretation. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595 (2010).
9 whatsoever in enacting Section 289, the ordinary default rule applies.
17 infringing article if he can prove that profit. H.R. REP. NO. 49-1966, at 3 (1886) (emphasis added).
19 infringers profits, it would have said so explicitly in the statute enacted in response to Dobson.
20 Third, Apples approach also conflicts with Federal Circuit precedent in analogous settings.
3 defendant. Id. at 1327; see Samsung Br. 10-11 (collecting authorities).
13 to prove the identity of and the quantum of damages/profit from the relevant component.
18 holding is that the product a defendant sells is not necessarily the relevant article of manufacture.
7 Medtronic, 134 S. Ct. at 846.
profit on the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289.
Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v. United States, 139 U.S. 560 (1891), and Erving Paper Mills v.
28 has no application to the federal statutory cause of action at issue here.
2 defendants to reduce that quantum commensurate with the correct article of manufacture.
8 profits as its measure of potential recovery. Dkt. 1903 at 71 (No. 53 (emphasis added)).
15 on the complainant to establish both fact and amount of profit attributable to the infringement. Id.
28 use this and other information to arrive at a measure of component-level profits.
2 courts any license to invent a burden-shifting scheme that has no basis in the statutory text.
6 under an absence of statutory authorization for monetary remedies. Kokesh v. S.E.C., 137 S. Ct.
14 cases thus are inapposite to the context here of a statutory remedy in a suit between private parties.
23 entire product is insufficient where a product component is the relevant article.
25 proof on profit from the relevant article of manufacture to any shift of the burden of proof on costs.
2 defendants revenues from that article.
the single, patented array of GUI icons.
2015 partial judgment was found to infringe all three patents. Dkt. 1931 at 6-7; Dkt. 3290.
24 manufacture, even under Apples proposed test.
28 of manufacture under that test.
17 applied, and not just the complete phones, are separately sold and accounted for.
23 smartphone, or a particular smartphone component. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436 (emphasis added).
25 overall appearance of Samsungs entire phones. Nor could it do so in light of the jurys verdict.
6 visual effect of its three designs was somehow distinctive collectively.
26 not pertain to Apples actual patented designs. Dkt. 2197 at 9; see Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
28 this evidence, moreover, purports to show the visual significance of each design individually.
2 unitary objects, that only proves this factor should not be considered.
4 separable components and that they can be broken down physically into those separate components.
21 factor does not show that Samsungs entire phones must be the relevant articles of manufacture.
28 that corresponded to the claimed designs, ignoring all other components. See Samsung Br. 19-20.
18 phones must be the articles of manufacture here.
the profit on the entire phone for the relevant articles of manufacture.
3 bore the burden of proving Samsungs profits from the relevant articles of manufacture.
18 unless it enters judgment that Apple is entitled to no infringers profits under Section 289.
this Court has rightly recognized that it must apply that standard, Dkt. 3509 at 31.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.