In its recent opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court answered this question posed by Samsung: \u201cWhere a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer\u2019s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?\u201d The reply of the unanimous court, in an opinion written by Judge Sotomayor: \u201cThe term \u2018article of manufacture\u2019 is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not.\u201d That answer rejects the Federal Circuit\u2019s longstanding interpretation of Section 289.<\/p>\n
However, experts say the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion raises many more questions. The Federal Circuit must now create a test that will allow a jury to determine whether the \u201carticle of manufacture\u201d covered by a design patent is the entire product or a component, and what that component is. For now, it is not clear whether the patent owner or the defendant bears the burden of proof. Then, it will be up to a judge to apportion to the component some part of the infringer\u2019s entire profits on the product. Our panel — a design patent litigator, a damages expert, and a law professor specializing in patent damages — will discuss how the law of design patent damages might evolve, and see what the options might mean applied to cases currently being litigated, such as Apple v. Samsung<\/i> and Nordock v. Systems<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Speakers:<\/p>\n
In its recent opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court answered this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n