Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 2, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
The design patent dispute between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. has come full circle. In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to determine the proper test for assessing design patent infringement damages.
After a five-year legal battle over whether Samsung infringed a series of design patents that protect various aspects of the iPhone’s iconic design, the case has come down to the proper calculation of damages. In 2011, a California jury found Samsung liable for infringement of Apple’s design patents and awarded Apple $399 million in damages, which represented Samsung’s entire profits from the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented designs.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Samsung’s argument that patent design damages should be limited because the relevant “articles of manufacture” were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. Section 289 of the Patent Act provides that one who “applies the patented design … to any article of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, … but [the owner] shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.” Samsung then took its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Samsung could be liable for only those profits associated with the infringing components of the phone rather than the whole device. According to the unanimous Court, the relevant “article of manufacture” for determining damages award is not limited to the end product sold to the consumer, but may also be only a component of that product.
In its decision, the Court failed to create a specific test for determining whether the profits should apply to a product as a whole or its individual components. “We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Instead, the justices remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, Apple requested that the Federal Circuit keep the case and reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance. Meanwhile, Samsung requested that the Federal Circuit remand the case to the district court for a new trial on damages.
The Federal Circuit elected to let the district court determine how best to proceed. Its per curium opinion states:
On remand, the trial court should consider the parties’ arguments in light of the trial record and determine what additional proceedings, if any, are needed. If the court determines that a new damages trial is necessary, it will have the opportunity to set forth a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of § 289, and to apply that test to this case. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings.
The case now returns to Judge Lucy Koh of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. Since Judge Koh is clearly the most familiar with the facts of the case, it makes sense that she takes the first stab at creating and applying a design patent damages test that reflects the new guidance from the Supreme Court. Of course, one of the parties is likely to be unhappy with her decision, which makes it almost certain that the Federal Circuit will not be able to sidestep the issue forever.
Do you have any questions regarding the design patent dispute? Would you like to discuss the case or matter further? If so, please contact me, Brent “Giles” Davis, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Operating a business in the New Jersey and New York City metropolitan region offers incredible opportunities, but it also requires navigating a dense and highly regulated legal environment. From entity formation to regulatory compliance, seemingly minor legal oversights can expose business owners to significant risk. In our work with businesses throughout the region, our attorneys […]
Author: Dan Brecher

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!