Source: https://www.lrrc.com/patent-infringement-as-applied-in-samsung-v-apple
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:51:19+00:00

Document:
THE U. S. SUPREME COURT’S recent decision in Samsung v. Apple1 creates a quandary for patent practitioners and clients alike. Most design patents are drafted to provide clients with the broadest protection possible by limiting the number of elements in the patented design. The fewer elements in the design, the easier it is to prove that accused products have substantially the same design as required for infringement.2 For example, in Samsung v. Apple, one of Apple’s design patents at issue claimed the top “surface” of the iPhone design rather than seeking patent protection for the design of the entire electronic device.3 That way, to show infringement, Apple only had to prove that the “surface” of Samsung’s accused Galaxy phones had the same design as Apple’s patent. Previously, in cases like this, the patent owner was able to recover the infringer’s profits on the entire device, despite the fact that the design patent was limited to a portion of the device, (e.g., the top surface of a smartphone). This provided an apparent windfall to patent owners. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit awarded Apple $399 million in damages prior to the Supreme Court appeal. This damage award covered Samsung’s entire profits for its sale of infringing smartphones.4 However, the Supreme Court seemingly has ended this type of award, ruling that damages must now be apportioned so that the patent owner only recovers those profits attributable to the patented design. The Court noted that such apportionment would apply to cases involving multicomponent devices in which the patented design covers only a portion, such as the accused Samsung smartphones.5 As such, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of damages in Samsung v. Apple and remanded the case to the district court for a factual determination of what portion of Samsung’s profits are attributable to the designs covered by Apple’s patents.6 In light of this decision, for multicomponent devices, patent practitioners and their clients must now balance the competing interests of crafting their design patents broadly enough to be able to enforce them against would-be infringers while at the same time making sure not to limit the claimed design to a too narrow portion of a product, which may severely limit recoverable damages. This fine line must be walked to insure that the potential recovery from any design patent litigation is sufficient to warrant institution of a lawsuit in the first place. Otherwise, the cost of seeking a design patent may not be worth the now lower reward.
A design patent is infringed if the following test is met: [I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.”7 In applying this test, all ornamental features as illustrated in the figures of the design patent must be considered.8 Thus, patent practitioners typically limit the ornamental features they include as part of the claimed design. This is particularly true in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc.9 Contessa Food Products involved a case of design patent infringement for a serving tray having an arrangement of shrimp. The design patent owned by Contessa included five drawings, with the top and side views showing the tray and shrimp arranged on the tray and a bottom view showing the underside of the tray.10 The allegedly infringing products were shrimp trays sold by Conagra having a similar design to the patented one. Contessa sought summary judgment of infringement, which was granted. In its analysis, the district court analyzed the top and side features of the tray including the shrimp arrangement; however, the district court discounted the importance of the underside, finding that, in the accused products, the grooves and features of the underside were covered by packaging at the point of sale and would not be visible to the ordinary observer (i.e., the purchaser).11 On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed. It reversed the finding of infringement, holding that the design of the underside of the tray was not sufficiently considered.
The United States cites Federal Circuit Figure 1 of the D’677 Patent Figure 1 of the D’087 Patent Figure 1 of the D’305 Patent precedents in support of the factors,30 and the Federal Circuit may look to include some of these factors in a test for “article of manufacture” should it choose to enumerate one. However, the question still remains as to what the exact standard is that patent practitioners must meet in order to make sure any design they patent is able to recover profits on a significant enough portion of a product to make enforcement of the patent worthwhile.
While a more specific damages standard hopefully is forthcoming, there are strategies patent practitioners can suggest in the meantime so that clients can best protect their designs. As a starting point, practitioners should first determine whether the design patent seeks to cover the design of a singlecomponent product (such as a dinner plate) or the design of a portion of a multicomponent product (such as a kitchen oven). If the design covers even a portion of a single-component product, apportionment should not apply, according to Samsung v. Apple,31 and the client can seek design patent protection without the worry of a reduced damages standard. However, if the design only covers a portion or component of a multicomponent product, Samsung v. Apple could apply and the practitioner may want to consider filing multiple design patents. Since design patents are reasonably affordable, especially when compared to utility patents, practitioners should consider obtaining both design patents on certain components, increasing the chances of establishing liability, and at the same time obtaining design patents directed to the entire product. While it may be harder to show infringement of the latter comprehensive design patent, if infringement is found, the degree of apportionment of the profit damages, if any, should be much less. In addition, having both types of patents available at trial may help further settlement because, even if the defendant believes he or she can avoid the comprehensive design patent, the threat of liability based on the more narrow design patent will still exist.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.