The State of Design Patent Infringement Damages Calculations Following the Battle Between Apple and Samsung

Author: Mike Khoury

Many people have heard of the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung dating back to a 2011 Northern District of California lawsuit. In a legal battle that has lasted over 6 years, gone through two jury trials, and endured appeals to the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, one issue remains uncertain: the measure by which to calculate damages in a design patent infringement case.

In 2011, Apple sued Samsung for infringing upon iPhone design patents. The following year, a jury awarded Apple $399 million in design patent infringement damages—Samsung’s entire profit from sales of the infringing phones. Samsung appealed, arguing that the jury’s damage award should have been limited to only part of the profit (as only part of the phone’s design was copied from Apple). After the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s award, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016).

At the center of the Supreme Court’s decision is the damages provision specific to design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 289. In relevant part, section 289 reads: “Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit[.]” (emphasis added).

In interpreting section 289 for the first time, the Supreme Court explained that “[a]rriving at a damages award under § 289 . . . involves two steps. First, identify the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the infringed design has been applied. Second, calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture.” Samsung Electronics, 137 S. Ct. at 434. As used in section 289, the term “article of manufacture,” the Supreme Court continued, “encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.” Id. In other words, “reading ‘article of manufacture’ in § 289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase.” Id. at 436 (emphasis added). However, not surprisingly, the Supreme Court stopped short of establishing a test for identifying the article of manufacture under section 289 and remanded to the Federal Circuit for reassessing damages. The Federal Circuit, in turn, remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 Fed. Appx. 1012 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2017).

The case is now back before Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California. On October 22, 2017, after Apple and Samsung briefed the issue, Judge Koh ordered a new trial. In her order, Judge Koh adopted a test proposed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court appeal in this case. “The test for determining the article of manufacture for the purpose of § 289 shall be the following four factors: [1] The scope of the design claimed in the plaintiff’s patent, including the drawing and written description; [2] The relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole; [3] Whether the design is conceptually distinct from the product as a whole; and [4] The physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product, including whether the design pertains to a component that a user or seller can physically separate from the product as a whole, and whether the design is embodied in a component that is manufactured separately from the rest of the product, or if the component can be sold separately.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177199, at *111 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2017)

This test is short of a victory for either side. As Judge Koh notes, and as expected, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on identifying both the relevant article of manufacture as well as the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. Id. If plaintiff succeeds in meeting both, only then does the burden shift to defendant to present evidence of an alternative article of manufacture and any deductible expenses. Id. at *111-12.

To date, it remains unclear whether this test will withstand scrutiny. That said, given that both Apple and Samsung suggested in their briefs at least some level of acceptance of the test, it is unlikely either party will challenge it. It is likely, however, that Apple and Samsung will settle their dispute short of another trial. A settlement means that, at least for now, the test will not be challenged. Since Judge Koh’s order is not binding on any court, it will be interesting to see whether other courts in the Northern District and within the Ninth Circuit will adopt the same test. But even then, short of an appeal to the Federal Circuit, the issue remains unresolved. For now, though, Judge Koh’s order provides some much-needed guidance.

A more promising appeal, however, comes from Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-1781-HZ (S.D. Cal. 2017), a Southern District of California design patent infringement case and the first case involving a jury verdict awarding damages after the Supreme Court’s Samsung decision. Like Judge Koh, Judge Marco Hernandez in Columbia Sportswear also adopted the DOJ’s test, and on September 29, 2017, the jury awarded Columbia $3 million in damages.

Judgement in Columbia Sportswear was entered on November 22, 2017. The parties have 30 days to appeal.

Stay tuned.

Further Venue Guidance for Patent Infringement Suits

Author: Conor McElroy

As anticipated, the Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ____ (2017) ruling, which recognized 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) as the exclusive statute governing venue in patent infringement actions, has presented district and circuit courts with the opportunity to provide further guidance on §1400(b). Section 1400(b) states, “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Before TC Heartland, the vast majority of cases only addressed the first prong (“where the defendant resides”) due to the fact that the first prong’s standard was relatively easy to meet. Essentially, venue was proper anywhere a defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. TC Heartland changed the analysis by determining that “resides” for purposes of §1400(b) only includes the state of incorporation. As a result, more litigants increasingly rely on the second prong (“where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business”), which is therefore, being addressed and analyzed more by the courts.

On September 11, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued two decisions regarding venue challenges in patent cases. In Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cook Grp., Inc., No. 15-980-LPS-CJB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146126 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 17-379-LPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146372 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), the District Court gave instructions on various aspects of post-TC Heartland §1400(b), including the burden of proof for a venue challenge, and whether TC Heartland effected an intervening change of law for waiver purposes. As for its analysis of the second prong of §1400(b), the court looked to the words of the statute, as well as some of the few decisions that applied the second prong, and determined that a permanent and continuous physical presence is required. In further elaborating, the Court noted circumstances that did not amount to a permanent and continuous presence. Specifically, simply doing business in a district or being registered to do business in a district, merely demonstrating that a business entity has sufficient “minimum contacts” with a district for purposes of personal jurisdiction, maintaining a website that allows consumers to purchase a defendant’s goods within the district, and simply shipping goods into a district are all insufficient to demonstrate that a defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district. In Boston Scientific, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the case because there was not a regular and established place of business in Delaware, while in Bristol-Myers Squibb, the court ordered further discovery into how the defendant operated its business.

On September 21, 2017, the Federal Circuit also issued post-TC Heartland guidance. In In re Cray Inc., No. 2017-129, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18398 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017), the court reversed the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s denial of motion to transfer. In doing so, the court identified three general requirements relevant to the §1400(b) “regular and established place of business” venue inquiry. First, there must be a physical place in the district. This “place” need not be a formal office or store, but there must still be a physical, geographical location in the district from which the business of the defendant is carried out.” Therefore, mere virtual spaces or electronic communications do not meet the definition of “place.”

Second, the place must be a regular and established place of business. “Regular” means the business operates in a “steady, uniform, orderly, and methodical manner,” while “established” requires that the place in question must be “settled certainly, or fixed permanently.” Finally, the business must be “the place of the defendant.” In other words, “the defendant must establish or ratify the place of business.” Relevant considerations for this factor include whether the defendant owns or leases the place and whether the defendant conditioned employment on the employee’s continued residence in the place of business. In applying these venue requirements to the specifics of the case, the Federal Circuit found that the facts involving an employee’s home being located in the Eastern District of Texas “do not show that [the defendant] maintains a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas; they merely show that there exists within the district a physical location where an employee of the defendant carries on certain work for his employer.” Thus, the court ruled that case should have been transferred.

While the foregoing cases help to clarify how venue challenges in patent infringement cases may be evaluated, the question of proper venue is often a fact-specific inquiry. Nevertheless, as case law after TC Heartland grows, and as more and more §1400(b) challenges are litigated, the contours and confines of what the “regular and established place of business” prong requires will be clarified. But for now, TC Heartland and cases following it continue to adopt a more restrictive view on venue and the requirements for proper venue.

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods: “Residency” in Patent Infringement Suits

Author: Conor McElroy

On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that residency for domestic corporations is determined by its state of incorporation for venue purposes in patent infringement suits. The unanimous decision (from which Justice Neil Gorsuch abstained) reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding that the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), and its requirements for residency, applied to patent infringement suits. Instead, the Court ruled that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), is the exclusive statute governing venue in patent infringement actions.

The case, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ____ (2017) involved Kraft Foods (“Respondent”), organized under Delaware law with a principal place of business in Illinois, filing a patent infringement suit against TC Heartland (“Petitioner”), which is headquartered in Indiana and organized under Indiana Law, in the District Court for the District of Delaware. Petitioner argued venue was improper in Delaware since it did not meet the definition of “resid[e]” as set forth in §1400(b) and interpreted in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957).  The Federal Circuit upheld the District Court’s rejection of Petitioner’s argument based on amendments to 28 U.S.C. §1391 which deem a defendant to have “residency” if it is subject to personal jurisdiction, a test which was met here based on Petitioner’s shipments of allegedly infringing products into Delaware.

In reversing, the Supreme Court analyzed §1400(b), past and present versions of §1391, and case law interpreting the statutes.  According to § 1400(b), “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” For the definition of “resides,” the Court looked to Fourco, which determined “resides” for purposes of §1400(b) only includes the state of incorporation. The inquiry could not end there however. According to the Federal Circuit, subsequent amendments to §1391 have made it applicable to patent infringement cases. Section 1391(c) now provides that, “[f]or all venue purposes,” entities, “whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” Therefore, as concluded by the Federal Circuit, §1391(c), not Fourco, provides the definition of “resides” in §1400(b). To bolster this conclusion, the Federal Circuit cited VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (1990), which ruled that similar earlier amendments to §1391 affected the meaning of §1400(b).

The Supreme Court held that the Fourco interpretation of §1400(b) is still the authority. “The current version of §1391 does not contain any indication that Congress intended to alter the meaning of §1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion of the unanimous Court. According to the Court, Congress customarily provides a clear indication that it intends to make a change of that kind in the text of the amended provision. With no such indication present here, it was clear to the Court that §1400(b) was not altered by changes to §1391. Furthermore, the Court also noted that the 2011 change to §1391 includes a savings clause stating that it does not apply when “otherwise provided by law.” As a result, the Court held that §1391 “expressly contemplates that certain venue statutes may retain definitions of ‘resides’ that conflict with its default definition.” Therefore, the venue provision found in §1400(b), and the definition of “resides” found in Fourco, apply to patent infringement suits.

A copy of the Court’s slip opinion can be found here.

TC Heartland Likely to Bring a Sea Change in Patent Venue Law and the End of Forum Shopping

On December 14, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC to decide the following issue:

Whether the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides that patent infringement actions ‘may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides[,]’ is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by the statute governing ‘[v]enue generally,’ 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts.

The determination of this issue has potentially significant consequences for accused infringers and their counsel who have routinely faced patent suits in distant venues with plaintiff-friendly local rules and procedures that together drive settlements often unrelated to the value of the asserted technology. As the Petitioner TC Heartland (“Petitioner”) and the amici curiae in support of the cert petition have noted, the Federal Circuit’s unwavering adherence to its holding in VE Holdings Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) has created conditions that allow rampant forum shopping by plaintiffs and even forum selling by certain district courts. Petitioner and the amici argue that forum shopping and forum selling undermines the economic utility of patent system and ultimately destabilizes public confidence in the judiciary. These important policy concerns, together with strong legal arguments that the Federal Circuit’s holding in VE Holding was misguided, will likely signal the end of an era in patent litigation and restore treatment of patent venue to a pre-1990 scope.

TC Heartland is an Indiana limited liability company headquartered in Indiana. Kraft Food Brands (“Respondent”) is organized and exists under Delaware law and has its principal place of business in Illinois. Respondent sued Petitioner in the United States District court for the District of Delaware, alleging Petitioner’s liquid water enhancer products infringed three patents owned by Respondent. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Petitioner also moved to either dismiss the action or transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406. Petitioner contended that the accused products were designed and manufactured in Indiana and that a mere 2% of its sales in 2014 were shipped to destinations in Delaware at the sole direction of one of its national customers based in Arkansas. Petitioner therefore argued that because it had no local presence in Delaware, was not registered to do business there, and had not solicited sales in Delaware, Delaware was not the “judicial district where the [Petitioner] resides” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Petitioner also argued that the district court was bound by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), and that the 2011 amendments to § 1391 repealed the statutory language upon which the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding relied in circumventing Fourco.

In the proceedings below, the Magistrate Judge determined that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Petitioner based on a stream-of-commerce type theory under Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Magistrate Judge also rejected Petitioner’s arguments that the 2011 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 altered the general venue statute and thereby nullified the Federal Circuit’s holding in VE Holding. Accordingly, the judge held that venue was proper based upon a finding of personal jurisdiction.

The district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report in full and expressly concluded that Congress’ 2011 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 “did not undo” the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding. Petitioner timely petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, stating that “[t]he arguments raised concerning venue have been firmly resolved by VE Holding, a settled precedent for over 25 years[,]” and asserted that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of patent venue in Fourco is “no longer the law.”

Taking a Step Back: Brief History of Patent Venue Law

Under Section 48 of the Judiciary Act of 1897, Congress limited jurisdiction in patent cases to districts where the defendant inhabited or had a place of business and committed infringing acts. (Act of March 3, 1897, c. 395, 29 Stat. 695.) In 1942, the Supreme Court unequivocally concluded that “Congress did not intend the Act of 1897 to dovetail with the general provisions relating to the venue of civil suits, but rather that it alone should control venue in patent infringement proceedings.” Stonite Prods. C. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561, 563 (1942). Then, in 1948, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which, consistent with the Judiciary Act of 1897 and the Supreme Court’s holding in Stonite, provided:

Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

The newly codified title 28 also included a provision, § 1391, for “venue generally,” which stated in relevant part:

(c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.

In 1957, following a circuit split that developed over whether corporate residence under § 1391 applied to the term “resides” in § 1400(b), the Supreme Court held that the patent venue statute was to be read in isolation and not within the context of the general venue statute: “28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) . . . is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions, and that it is not to be supplemented by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. [§] 1391(c).” Fourco , 353 U.S. at . The Supreme Court’s holding in Fourco has never been overruled.

In 1988, Congress changed the statutory language in § 1391 from defining residence “for venue purposes” to defining residence “for purposes of venue under this chapter.” Petitioner and amici in support of the cert petition argue that there is no legislative history to suggest that Congress intended this minor change to the statutory language to supplant Supreme Court precedent or otherwise impact the patent venue statute. In fact, the legislative history shows a Congressional intent to further constrain corporate venue rather than expand it: “[A] corporation that confines its activities to Los Angeles (Central California) should not be required to defend in San Francisco (Northern California).” H.R. Rep. No. 100-889, at 70 (1988). Nonetheless, in 1990, the Federal Circuit deviated from longstanding Supreme Court precedents and the plain language of the statute when it determined that the ministerial amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in 1988 effectively overruled Stonite and Fourco. VE Holding, 917 F.2d at 1584. The Federal Circuit held that “the first test for venue under § 1400(b) with respect to a defendant that is a corporation, in light of the 1988 amendment to § 1391(c), is whether the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in the district of suit at the time the action was commenced.”

As a result of the Federal Circuit’s holding in VE Holding, numerous amici curiae argue that the Federal Circuit effectively expanded the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to permit filing of patent lawsuits in any federal district court where the accused products are sold. See, e.g., In re TC Heartland, LLC, No. 2016-105, at 10 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) (holding that jurisdiction is proper in a patent suit “where a nonresident defendant purposefully shipped accused products into the forum through an established distribution channel and the cause of action for patent infringement was alleged to arise out of those activities”). In at least one recent case, the Federal Circuit held that there was personal jurisdiction in Delaware over a defendant who had never sold an accused product in Delaware because the defendant’s application for drug approval indicated a prospective desire to sell the drug nationally. Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 817 F.3d 755, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit concluded this planned future conduct satisfied the minimum contacts requirement, and nothing in the court’s opinion suggests that such conduct would not give rise to personal jurisdiction in every jurisdiction. Id. at 762-63.

Finally, in 2011, Congress enacted further amendments to § 1391, adding section (a), entitled “Applicability of Section.” This section currently reads: “Except as otherwise provided by law . . . (1) this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) (2012). Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court interpreted § 1391 as governing venue where a more specific venue provision is lacking. See Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 577 n.2 (2013) (noting “[s]ection 1391 governs ‘venue generally,’ that is, in cases where a more specific venue provision does not apply” and citing by way of example 28 U.S.C. § 1400 as “identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits”).

TC Heartland’s petition for writ of certiorari seeks a restoration of Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 1400(b) under Fourco and reversal of the decision below.

Arguments in Support of TC Heartland

The brief of amici curiae 56 professors of law and economics persuasively argues that VE Holding ignores fundamental canons of statutory construction, namely that Congress does not alter vital details of a regulatory schemes by vague changes to ancillary provisions, and that a statute should not be read so as to render parts of it mere surplusage. For example, under the Federal Circuit’s interpretation in VE Holding, the latter half of § 1400(b) would be largely superfluous. That is, the term “resides” in § 1400(b) must have some definition other than “a regular and established place of business,” since § 1400(b) already provides that patent venue is proper where the defendant has a “regular and established placed of business.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) as amicus curiae argues that the Federal Circuit’s holding in VE Holding should be overruled in light of existing Supreme Court precedent and the plain language of the patent venue statute in order to cure – in its view – the fundamental lack of fairness and protection to defendants. The EFF also persuasively argues that whereas personal jurisdiction provides sufficiently reliable limits on personal jurisdiction in non-patent suits, the same does not hold true for patent cases because the Federal Circuit has also more-or-less adopted an expansive stream-of-commerce-type theory, holding personal jurisdiction is proper where “defendants, acting in consort, placed the accused [product] in the stream of commerce, they knew the likely destination of the products, and their conduct and connections with the forum state were such that they should reasonably have anticipated being brought into court there.” Beverly Hills Fan, 21 F.3d at 1566. Therefore, the current state of Federal Circuit law often permits essentially nationwide personal jurisdiction.

Upending the (Un)intended Consequences of VE Holding

TC Heartland and the amici in support of TC Heartland’s petition argue forcefully that the consequences of the Federal Circuit’s holding in VE Holding have been overwhelmingly negative and contend that virtually limitless venue under the VE Holding construct has corrupted the underpinnings of the patent system. Whether this is an overly dramatic view of patent law may depend on what side of the courtroom a particular patent litigator sits, but certain underlying facts cannot be disputed. For example, it is true that the Eastern District of Texas still sees a disproportionate number of patent case filings. On average, a quarter of all patent cases are filed in that district – one with a relatively small population and relatively few companies – and in 2015, this figure spiked to 44% of all patent-infringement cases. (By contrast, the Northern District of California, a district of more than double the population and home to many companies, sees only 4-5% of all patent-infringement cases filed annually.) In the Eastern District of Texas’s banner year of 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, referred to as the “busiest patent judge” in the country, heard a quarter of all patent cases filed nationwide. TC Heartland argues that this kind of undue case concentration diminishes the integrity of the patent system. The amici agree, pointing to nuisance-value settlements that arise when patentees have unfettered ability to file in the Eastern District of Texas and then take advantage of the local rules to extract settlements tied to the costs of litigation rather than the value of the asserted technology.

The amici also argue that the Eastern District of Texas, among other districts, have been attempting to attract patent-infringement cases through the use of patent-holder-friendly local rules, standing orders, and other judge-specific practices. For instance, TC Heartland and the amici argue that the time to rule on motions to transfer (150 additional days on average) and the timing and scope of discovery place undue settlement pressure on accused infringers. They argue that ultimately the whole system suffers when monetary settlements are reached as a result of defendants seeking to avoid the burden and cost of discovery and protracted litigation instead of a good faith belief in the legitimacy of the patented technology and its value to society. TC Heartland seeks to upend these practices through its appeal. At the end of the day, these policy arguments regarding the integrity of the overall system may be more persuasive to the Supreme Court justices than any statutory interpretation arguments advanced in the appeal.

The Federal Circuit’s decisions and general confusion at the district court level have set the stage for the Supreme Court to settle this issue. This case promises to be particularly important for large companies accused of patent infringement, as the Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether they may be haled into any forum in the United States or instead into a limited number of venues under § 1400(b). The recent trend of the high court’s limiting access to the federal courts and its propensity for reversing the Federal Court over the last decade strongly suggest a decision in TC Heartland’s favor, a sea change in the practice of patent litigation, and the end of forum shopping in patent cases. Oral arguments in this appeal are set for Monday, March 27, 2017.

Apple v. Samsung – Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has decided one of the most contentious ongoing legal battles, Samsung Electronics v. Apple, No. 15-777, slip op. (Dec. 6, 2016). On October 11, 2016, the two companies faced off on how much of a $399 million patent infringement award Samsung must pay. Samsung argued that the damages awarded in the case should be greatly reduced to just the profits attributable to the parts that infringed upon Apple’s patents, instead of profits based on the entire phone.

The underlying statute, 35 U.S.C. § 289, states that any person who applies a patented design “to any article of manufacture” is “liable . . . to the extent of his total profit.” The question at issue—one that the high court had not yet interpreted before this case—is the definition of “total profit”: Should the patent holder be entitled to damages based on profits from the entire device, or only profits attributable to the infringing parts?

The Federal Circuit had upheld the Northern District of California’s decision that Samsung’s product infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and diluted Apple’s trade dresses.1 The Court also upheld the district court’s damages award for the design patent infringement. The design patents were based on the design elements on the front face of the iPhone, the design features that extended to the bezel of the iPhone, and “the ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof.” These elements served as the bases for the overall look of the first-generation iPhone in 2007, which, at the time, changed the way other companies began designing their phones. On appeal, Samsung relied on a basic causation argument that Apple had failed to establish that infringement of its limited design patents resulted in any Samsung sales or profits. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, instead expressly holding that based on the statutory language and prior case law, Section 289 expressly authorized the award of the totality of profits from the article of manufacture bearing the patented design.2 The appellate court also expressly rejected Samsung’s argument that the damages should be limited to the portion of the sales attributed to the infringing product.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari for the limited question of the meaning of Section 289. The Justices’ questioning centered on how to create a test that determines what drives the sale of a product and subsequently what profits should be attributed to such component parts. A popular analogy compared the Volkswagen Beetle to the iPhone. Justice Kagan noted that, “nobody buys a car, even a Beetle, just because they like the way it looks,” but acknowledged that the primary reason for its success could be because of its design. Samsung argued that determining that a company is permitted damages based on total profit for infringing a narrow design patent could produce an absurd result. Samsung argued that, for example, if someone was found to infringe a design patent for a cup holder in a car, to permit them total profits on the sale of the whole car would be absurd.

On December 6, 2016, Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the relevant “article of manufacture” for a Section 289 damage award should not be based on the end product sold to the consumer, but rather may be based only on a component of the product. Samsung Electronics v. Apple, No. 15-777, slip op. at 6.  Rejecting the Federal Circuit’s holding that “components of the infringing smartphones could not be the relevant article of manufacture because consumers could not purchase those components separately from the smartphones,” id. at 7-8, the Supreme Court instead held that “the ‘total profit’ for which Section 289 makes an infringer liable is thus all of the profit made from the prohibited conduct, that is, from the manufacture or sale of the ‘article of manufacture’ to which [the patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied,” id. at 5. To determine the calculations the high court created a two-part test: (1) identify the “articles of manufacture” to which the infringed design has been applied; and (2) calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture. Id. However, the Court declined to engage in any analysis of the two-part test and did not provide any guidance to district courts or the Federal Circuit on how to implement the test. Id. at 8. Thus, this area of law will continue to be shaped as the lower courts attempt to analyze damages under Section 289 with the new two-part test.

____________________________________________________________________________________
1 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
2 Design patent infringement has long required a different calculation of damages than utility patent infringement. To calculate damages for infringement of utility patents, causation is required to be proved and damages are limited to lost profits caused by the infringement, whereas for infringement of design patents, damages equal to whole products sold were awarded. Section 284 states, “upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonably royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” 35 U.S.C. § 284.