Latest Blog Post

Jury Decides Icon Patents Should Award Profits On Entire Phone

Yesterday, after almost four days of deliberation, the Apple v. Samsung jury decided Samsung owed Apple over $500 million of Samsung’s profits.  

Faced with an artificial and unsound test, the jurors struggled to understand just what they were supposed to do.

Ultimately, the jurors awarded Apple profits on the entire Samsung device for Apple’s icon grid patent.  One juror is reported to have explained that the article of manufacture for the icon grid patent “was the whole phone because you need the phone to see it.”  If Microsoft Solitaire (with cards originally designed by Apple’s own expert witness) had an infringing design, all of a sudden the entire computer is at risk—without a processor, display, memory, and hard drive, there’s no way to display the cards.  That logic creates real risks for the computing industry and for new industries like smart home and IoT products.  

Samsung will almost certainly appeal this verdict.  But unless the Federal Circuit decides that the flawed government test selected by Judge Koh isn’t the right test, the disincentive to investment created by this decision will remain.  It’s time to consider whether design patents still need an additional remedy and whether § 289 has outlived its useful lifespan.

Frederick Fish might as well have been talking about design patents when he wrote “[t]he only solution of the difficulty is to eliminate the recovery of profits which as [sic] been allowed purely because of a series of historical accidents.”

Recent posts

Sovereign Immunity, Upper Skagit, and Patents

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court released their decision in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren.  The opinion effectively held that the simple fact of in rem jurisdiction does not always bar claims of tribal sovereign immunity. In rem jurisdiction is one argument that might bar the new practice of renting tribal sovereign immunity to…

Smartphones, Diapers, and Design Patents

Apple v. Samsung is obviously about high tech smartphones.  Other recent design patent cases have focused on high tech products as well—both the Nikola v. Tesla case Patent Progress covered recently and the Microsoft v. Corel case that Prof. Sarah Burstein described over on Patently-O deal with high tech products. But the basic issue with…