The U.S. Supreme Court granted Samsung’s petition for writ of certiorari in the Samsung v. Apple appeal. The grant was limited to Question 2 from the petition, which is as follows:
2. Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?
Samsung’s position in its petition is that the three design patents at issue (U.S. Design Patent Nos. D618,677, D593,087, and D604,305) “cover only specific, limited portions of a smartphone’s design: a particular black rectangular round-cornered front face, a substantially similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding rim or ‘bezel,’ and a particular colorful grid of sixteen icons.” Samsung states that, despite this limited coverage, “the Federal Circuit allowed the jury to award Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs—here totaling $399 million.” The Federal Circuit opinion can be found here . Contrary to the position taken by the Federal Circuit, Samsung does not believe that Section 289 of the Patent Act compels this result. Instead, Samsung’s position is that “Section 289 nowhere defines the ‘article of manufacture’ to which a patented design is applied as the entire product (here, a smartphone) rather than the portion of the product depicted in the design patent.”
The Supreme Court declined to hear Question 1 from the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Samsung. Question 1 is as follows:
1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court answers Question 2, this appeal will certainly have profound impacts on U.S. design patent practice. Be sure to check back for updates, including briefing from the parties and amicus briefs.