Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 2, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
The design patent dispute between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. has come full circle. In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to determine the proper test for assessing design patent infringement damages.
After a five-year legal battle over whether Samsung infringed a series of design patents that protect various aspects of the iPhone’s iconic design, the case has come down to the proper calculation of damages. In 2011, a California jury found Samsung liable for infringement of Apple’s design patents and awarded Apple $399 million in damages, which represented Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Samsung’s argument that patent design damages should be limited because the relevant “articles of manufacture” were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. Section 289 of the Patent Act provides that one who “applies the patented design … to any article of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, … but [the owner] shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.” Samsung then took its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Samsung could be liable for only those profits associated with the infringing components of the phone rather than the whole device. According to the unanimous Court, the relevant “article of manufacture” for determining damages award is not limited to the end product sold to the consumer, but may also be only a component of that product.
In its decision, the Court failed to create a specific test for determining whether the profits should apply to a product as a whole or its individual components. “We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Instead, the justices remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, Apple requested that the Federal Circuit keep the case and reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance. Meanwhile, Samsung requested that the Federal Circuit remand the case to the district court for a new trial on damages.
The Federal Circuit elected to let the district court determine how best to proceed. Its per curium opinion states:
On remand, the trial court should consider the parties’ arguments in light of the trial record and determine what additional proceedings, if any, are needed. If the court determines that a new damages trial is necessary, it will have the opportunity to set forth a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of § 289, and to apply that test to this case. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings.
The case now returns to Judge Lucy Koh of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. Since Judge Koh is clearly the most familiar with the facts of the case, it makes sense that she takes the first stab at creating and applying a design patent damages test that reflects the new guidance from the Supreme Court. Of course, one of the parties is likely to be unhappy with her decision, which makes it almost certain that the Federal Circuit will not be able to sidestep the issue forever.
Do you have any questions regarding the design patent dispute? Would you like to discuss the case or matter further? If so, please contact me, Brent “Giles” Davis, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga

A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) are becoming an increasingly important component of the electric grid throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As renewable generation expands, electricity demand increases and grid operators seek greater flexibility, battery storage can help balance supply and demand while providing additional capacity and reliability. For developers, battery storage presents […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

A falling out between partners can be disastrous for any business. In many cases, the partnership will not survive. If you are in an unworkable situation with your partners, it may be time to consult a partnership dispute lawyer experienced in handling partnership breakups and dissolutions before the situation deteriorates any further. It is easy […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

When a company enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many assume the process will culminate in a lengthy reorganization plan. However, distressed businesses are increasingly being sold through a different mechanism — a sale under Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. A Section 363 sale allows a company, as a debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy, to sell […]
Author: John D. Giampolo
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!