Supreme Court Obfuscates Design Patent Damages Issue

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
December 6, 2016

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (843 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4813 Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
damages, lost profits, patent infringement, expert testimony, reasonable royalty, apportionment
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc. (VI)
2016 U.S. LEXIS 7419
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States Supreme Court
Terry Musika, Julie L. Davis (Apple); Michael Wagner (Samsung)
Sotomayor

Summary

Supreme Court agrees with Samsung that design patent infringement damages statute (Section 289) does not per se require infringer to pay profits from entire product but can be limited to profits from component(s) to which the protected design was applied.

See Also

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc. (VI)

Full Text of Court Cases
December 6, 2016

Supreme Court agrees with Samsung that design patent infringement damages statute (Section 289) does not per se require infringer to pay profits from entire product but can be limited to profits from component(s) to which the protected design was applied.

Supreme Court Obfuscates Design Patent Damages Issue

BVLaw Case Update
February 2017

Supreme Court agrees with Samsung that design patent infringement damages statute (Section 289) does not per se require infringer to pay profits from entire product but can be limited to profits from component(s) to which the protected design was applied.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition