Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/358715210/17-09-08-Samsung-Design-Patent-Damages-Brief
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:33:26+00:00

Document:
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, Time: 1:30 p.m.
8 a new trial to determine design-patent damages in light of the Supreme Courts decision. Id. at 32.
16 be the article of manufacture on the record here in light of the Supreme Courts decision.
24 new jury trial on both the relevant articles of manufacture and the quantum of profit.
2 the scope of the design patents claim, which is a question of law for the court.
19 and external, that do not correspond to the claimed attributes of Apples designs.
27 record, and grant a new trial limited to the quantum (if any) of design-patent damages.
component of a product that is not considered when determining infringement.
corresponds to the scope of the patented design.
13 TRADEMARK OFF. SOCY 301, 319-22 (2007).
24 articles, and certainly not to articles separately sold .) (quoting Zahn, 617 F.2d at 268).
28 claim to the design, when appropriate, and then comparing it to the design of the accused device.
1 OddzOn Prod., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see Minnesota Min.
13 infringement, they are not relevant to infringers profit under Section 289.
25 U.S. Patent No. D558,758 (filed Jan. 5, 2007); U.S. Patent No. D581,922 (filed July 30, 2007); U.S.
Patent No. D586,800 (filed July 30, 2007); U.S. Patent No. D593,087 (filed July 30, 2007); U.S.
26 Patent No. D601,558 (filed Feb. 13, 2009); U.S. Patent No. D613,736 (filed May 12, 2009); U.S.
27 Patent No. D618,677 (filed Nov. 18, 2008); U.S. Patent No. D618,678 (filed Feb. 23, 2009); U.S.
Patent No. D627,343 (filed Sept. 15, 2009); U.S. Patent No. D634,319 (filed June 21, 2010).
2 this case based on a single one of those designs claiming a single, specific grid of icons.
18 cannot be part of the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of Section 289 damages.
2 by a jury? What issues should be decided by the Court?
13 plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.); Pearson v. Duane, 71 U.S.
23 identifying the article of manufacture to which a design is applied.
2 the jury to calculate only the total profit on that article.
15 and Samsungs total profit therefrom.
manufacture for purposes of Section 289. That burden never shifts to the defendant.
is one on which Apple carries the burden.).
12 the relevant article of manufacture. H.R. REP. NO. 49-1966, at 3 (1886) (emphasis added).
6 Earth Solar Power Co., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2016).
14 to achieve that effect absent clear textual evidence supporting such an interpretation); cf. Miles v.
16 when it passes legislation.).
6 of the relevant article of manufacture at any stage of the case.
manufacture for purposes of 289?
manufacture for purposes of Section 289.
if he can prove that profit, thus confirming that the patentee bears the burden of proof. H.R. REP.
28 540 U.S. 461, 494 n.17 (2004).
3 also the amount of damages attributable to that properly-identified component. See supra, at 10-11.
6 at any stage of the case.
D677 The phones round-cornered, glass front face.
D305 The display screen while displaying the single, patented array of GUI icons.
16 manufacture for the D677 patent, D087 patent, and D305 patent.
23 relevant articles of manufacture are not Samsungs entire phones.
27 of a smartphone, and not an entire smartphone.
4 does not (and indeed could not) depict or claim any internal componentry of the phone.
137 S. Ct. at 433.
not) depict or claim any internal componentry of the phone.
3 S. Ct. at 433.
7 images or any internal componentry of the phone.
17 likewise recognized that this patent covers only a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen.
18 Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 433.
The Courts instruction used the term article of manufacture rather than phone, see Dkt.
28 Apples patented design does not claim most of a phone. See Dkt. 1903 at 59.
5 file wrapper); Dkt. 944 through 944-5 (D087 file wrapper).
16 outside. Dkt. 1612 at 1367.
24 an article of manufacture); see also supra, at 5-6.
4 arguments, the Court need not determine the purpose for which this evidence was admitted at trial.
both at hardware components and the actual boards that are used. Dkt. 1610 at 772; id. at 769-72.
See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch Inc., 2001 WL 34082555, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
were also relevant to corroborating witnesss testimony about product characteristics).
28 15 (Order on Samsungs JMOL motion) (similar).
3 motherboard, and other components in isolation, and describing them as separate sub-modules.
5 as the light sensor, the power/wake/sleep button, the camera, and capacitive touch buttons.
Apples witnesses likewise acknowledged the many components that make up a smartphone.
motherboard or major logic board and the baseband processor on it. Dkt. 1842 at 3165-68.
Blevins further explained that there are 900 to 1,000 parts total in the iPhone. Dkt. 1842 at 3168.
various phone manufacturers, including Samsung and Apple products. Dkt. 1839 at 2148-53.
6 ([T]heres a piece of glass and then underneath that is a display and you have to glue that on top.).
10 reside below the surface of the phones glass face and that a black mask is used to hide them.
11 Dkt. 1840 at 2610-11.
18 also separable from one another at the software-programming level.
2 applications screens were separable from other interface elements of the phones.
6 components that correspond to those narrow designs are the relevant articles of manufacture.
slot, and I find those features to be substantially the same. Dkt. 1611 at 1050 (emphasis added).
iPhones home button is disclaimed through broken lines in the D677 patent. Id. at 1016.
3 patent was not claiming the body but only the bezel and front face. Id. at 1019.
8 screen, unlock screen, or home screen of the Samsung phone[s]. Dkt. 1612 at 1421-24.
21 entirety of Samsungs phones are the relevant article of manufacture.).
infringement by the browser application. Id. at 1904.
8 consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not).
9 The Court should so rule now (or on summary judgment) and instruct the jury accordingly.
with approval in Samsung, No. 15-777, Br. for Respondent 36.
2 could not be, Samsungs entire phones.
16 law governs harmless-error review).
22 a new trial on design-patent damages, because Apple bore the burden of proving infringers profits.
25 waived if not raised in appellees brief); United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir.
28 quoted in Dkt. 3509 at 24; see also Dkt. 3498 at 12-13 (Samsungs opposition brief arguing same).
16 infringe all three patents (see PX25A1.16; Dkt. 1931 at 6-7; Dkt. 3290 at 1).
18 value principally from features other than the components to which Apples designs were applied.
23 life and camera quality (PX143.6); and brand choice and multimedia functions (DX592.010, .023).
25 [s]oftware creates the largest share of product value. DX586.004.
7 entire phones, which was as much as $70 per phone. See Dkt. 1931 at 16; JX1500.1.
13 its burden and cannot obtain infringers profits under Section 289. See, e.g., Boyle v. United Techs.
16 may be entered for defendant without a new trial).
22 had no burden to introduce any evidence of profits at all.
5 relevant articles of manufacture and the quantum of profit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.