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.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!