For all its eye-popping size, the $533 million award that Apple won against Samsung in a design patent infringement case was seen by few as legally significant.\u00a0 Now that the case has settled, it is an interesting time for our expert panel \u2014 an attorney who specializes in design patents, a damages expert, and in-house counsel at an automaker \u2014 to assess the current state of damages law for design patents.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court in 2016 held that the relevant \u201carticle of manufacture\u201d could be either all or <\/i>part of the infringing product.\u00a0 One possible standard for determining the relevant \u201carticle of manufacture\u201d for Section 289 purposes was proposed by the United States Department of Justice in an amicus brief it submitted to the Supreme Court.\u00a0 And that test is taking on a vigorous life of its own.<\/p>\n
This summer, Seirus will file a brief in its appeal at the Federal Circuit after it was required by a jury last year to pay $3 million in design patent damages to Columbia.\u00a0 Columbia v. Seirus<\/i> was the first case after Samsung v. Apple<\/i> to charge a jury to use the DOJ\u2019s test.\u00a0 The outcome of this case is thus eagerly anticipated.<\/p>\n
Our panelists will discuss the Federal Circuit\u2019s options in addressing the DOJ standard.\u00a0 They will also discuss:<\/p>\n
Speakers:<\/p>\n
For all its eye-popping size, the $533 million award that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"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-23915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n