throbber
No. 15-___
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Respondent.
`
`————
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`————
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`————
`KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN
`Counsel of Record
`WILLIAM B. ADAMS
`DAVID M. COOPER
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue
`22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`kathleensullivan@
`quinnemanuel.com
`
`MICHAEL T. ZELLER
`B. DYLAN PROCTOR
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 S. Figueroa Street
`10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`VICTORIA F. MAROULIS
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive
`5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 801-5000
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`December 14, 2015
`WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
`
`

`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`Design patents are limited to “any new, original and
`ornamental design for an article of manufacture.”
`35 U.S.C. 171. A design-patent holder may elect
`infringer’s profits as a remedy under 35 U.S.C. 289,
`which 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.”
`The Federal Circuit held that a district court need
`not exclude unprotected conceptual or functional
`features from a design patent’s protected ornamental
`scope. The court also held that a design-patent holder
`is entitled to an infringer’s entire profits from sales of
`any product found to contain a patented design, with-
`out any regard to the design’s contribution to that
`product’s value or sales. The combined effect of these
`two holdings is to reward design patents far beyond
`the value of any inventive contribution. The questions
`presented are:
`1. Where a design patent includes unprotected
`non-ornamental features, should a district court be re-
`quired to limit that patent to its protected ornamental
`scope?
`2. Where a design patent is applied to only a com-
`ponent of a product, should an award of infringer’s
`profits be limited to those profits attributable to the
`component?
`
`(i)
`
`

`
`ii
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) is a
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd. (“SEC”), a publicly held corporation organized
`under the laws of the Republic of Korea. SEC is not
`owned by any parent corporation and no other publicly
`held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. No
`other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of
`SEA’s stock. Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung
`Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) merged
`with and into SEA, and therefore STA no longer exists
`as a separate corporate entity.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...............................
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ...................................
`INTRODUCTION ................................................
`OPINIONS BELOW ............................................
`JURISDICTION ..................................................
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..............................
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................
`A. Statutory Background ................................
`B. The Smartphone Industry ..........................
`C. Apple’s Asserted Design Patents And
`Trade Dresses .............................................
`D. The District Court Proceedings ..................
`E. The Federal Circuit Decision .....................
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........
`I. THIS COURT SHOULD REVIEW THE
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S HOLDING THAT
`A DISTRICT COURT NEED NOT LIMIT
`A DESIGN PATENT TO ITS PRO-
`TECTED ORNAMENTAL SCOPE ..........
`A. The Decision Below Conflicts With
`Section 171 Of The Patent Act ............
`B. The Decision Below Conflicts With
`This Court’s Precedents Requiring
`Judicial Construction Of Patent
`Claims ..................................................
`
`(iii)
`
`Page
`
`i
`ii
`1
`3
`4
`
`4
`4
`4
`6
`
`10
`14
`17
`20
`
`21
`
`21
`
`24
`
`

`
`iv
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`26
`
`27
`
`II. THIS COURT SHOULD REVIEW THE
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S HOLDING THAT
`DESIGN-PATENT OWNERS ARE
`ENTITLED TO ALL PROFITS FROM A
`PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS AN
`INFRINGING DESIGN ............................
`A. The Decision Below Conflicts With
`Section 289 Of The Patent Act And
`Prior Decisions .....................................
`B. The Decision Below Conflicts With
`Background Principles Of Causation
`And Equity ...........................................
`III. THE DECISION BELOW PRESENTS
`ISSUES OF RECURRING AND
`NATIONWIDE IMPORTANCE ...............
`CONCLUSION ....................................................
`APPENDIX A – Federal Circuit Opinion
`(May 18, 2015) ..................................................
`APPENDIX B – District Court Order Re-
`garding Design Patent Claim Construction
`(July 27, 2012) .................................................. 37a
`APPENDIX C – District Court Order Grant-
`ing In Part And Denying In Part Motion For
`Judgment As A Matter Of Law (January 29,
`2013) ................................................................. 56a
`APPENDIX D – District Court Order Re-
`garding Damages (March 1, 2013) .................. 114a
`APPENDIX E – Federal Circuit Order Deny-
`ing Rehearing (August 13, 2015) ..................... 154a
`
`32
`
`35
`39
`
`1a
`
`
`
`

`
`v
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX F – Relevant Statutory Provi-
`sions .................................................................. 156a
`APPENDIX G – Excerpts Of Transcript
`Of District Court Proceedings (August 21,
`2012) ................................................................. 159a
`
`
`
`

`
`vi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`23
`
`36
`
`32
`
`23
`
`28
`
`29
`
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................... 5, 21
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats,
`Inc.,
`489 U.S. 141 (1989) ............................... 5, 21, 38
`Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.,
`960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................
`Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
`222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) ..........................
`Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
`234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ............................
`Carey v. Piphus,
`435 U.S. 247 (1978) ...................................
`Church of Scientology of Cal. v. IRS,
`484 U.S. 9 (1987) .......................................
`Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Altai, Inc.,
`982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) ......................
`Dep’t of Revenue v. ACF Indus., Inc.,
`510 U.S. 332 (1994) ...................................
`Dobson v. Dornan,
`118 U.S. 10 (1886) ..................................... 1, 34
`
`33
`
`35
`
`23
`
`31
`
`
`
`

`
`vii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`34
`
`1
`
`33
`
`25
`
`Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co.,
`114 U.S. 439 (1885) ...................................
`Dunlap v. Schofield,
`152 U.S. 244 (1894) ...................................
`Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo,
`544 U.S. 336 (2005) ...................................
`eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ............................. 26, 33, 36
`Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................
`Gorham Co. v. White,
`81 U.S. 511 (1871) ..................................... 1, 21
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................
`Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,
`513 U.S. 561 (1995) ...................................
`High Point Design, LLC v. Buyers Direct,
`Inc.,
`730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................
`Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp.,
`503 U.S. 258 (1992) ...................................
`Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc.,
`456 U.S. 844 (1982) ...................................
`Livingston v. Woolworth,
`56 U.S. 546 (1853) .....................................
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................
`
`38
`
`30
`
`24
`
`33
`
`24
`
`33
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`viii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`32
`
`38
`
`32
`
`33
`
`30
`
`Meyer v. Holley,
`537 U.S. 280 (2003) ...................................
`Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc.,
`803 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................
`Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v.
`Malibu Boats, LLC,
`2014 WL 4185297
`(M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2014) ..........................
`Paroline v. United States,
`134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) ...............................
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................
`Riley v. California,
`134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) ...............................
`Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.,
`56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................
`Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.,
`309 U.S. 390 (1940) ................................... 31, 33
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. DB Shoe Co.,
`No. 14-cv-07009 (C.D. Cal.) ......................
`Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co.,
`148 U.S. 674 (1893) ................................... 1, 5
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .................................
`Tilghman v. Proctor,
`125 U.S. 136 (1888) ...................................
`TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc.,
`532 U.S. 23 (2001) .....................................
`
`6
`
`30
`
`32
`
`25
`
`33
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`ix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`34
`
`Trans-World Mfg. Corp. v. Al Nyman &
`Sons Inc.,
`750 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................
`Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar,
`133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) ...............................
`Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.,
`268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920) .........................
`In re Zahn,
`617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ................... 10, 28
`
`33
`
`29
`
`CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, AND
`REGULATION
`
`5
`
`U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8 .......................... 4, 38
`Act of May 9, 1902, ch. 783,
`Pub. L. No. 57-109, 32 Stat. 193 ..............
`Act of Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 726,
`6
`Pub. L. No. 79-587, 60 Stat. 778 ..............
`31
`17 U.S.C. 25(b) (1940) ..................................
`4
`28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ..........................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. 1 ....................................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. 101 ................................................
`35 U.S.C. 171 ................................... i, 4, 21, 23, 28
`35 U.S.C. 284 ................................................ 5, 30
`35 U.S.C. 289 ................................................ i, 2, 3,
`5, 6, 19, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35
`37 C.F.R. 1.362(b) .........................................
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`x
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`18 Cong. Rec. 835 (1887) .............................. 34, 35
`H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 (1886) .......................
`34
`H.R. Rep. No. 57-1661 (1902) .......................
`5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Alex Cocotas, Samsung Maintains Lead In
`The Smartphone Market, Despite iPhone
`5, BUSINESS INSIDER (Feb. 9, 2013),
`http://www.businessinsider.com.au/sams
`ung-is-the-smartphone-king-2013-2 ........
`Apple iPhone, http://www.gsmarena.com/a
`pple_iphone-1827.php ..............................
`iPhone 4 Official Introduction,
`Apple
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEa
`LJpFxR9Q .................................................
`Bartlett Cleland, Flawed by design, THE
`HILL (Oct. 12, 2015), http://thehill.com/
`blogs/congress-blog/technology/256563-
`flawed-by-design ......................................
`BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (1st ed. 1891) ......
`Chris Ziegler, The LG KE850: touchable
`chocolate, ENGADGET (Dec. 15, 2006),
`http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/the
`-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/ .................
`
`9
`
`7
`
`9
`
`37
`27
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`xi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`Daniel O’Connor, One In Six Active U.S.
`Patents Pertain To The Smartphone,
`PROJECT DISCO
`(Oct.
`17,
`2012),
`http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-
`property/one-in-six-active-u-s-patents-
`pertain-to-the-smartphone/ ......................
`David Drummond, When Patents Attack
`Android (Aug. 3, 2011), https://google
`blog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-
`attack-android.html ..................................
`David M. Marcus & Shawn K. Leppo,
`Welcome Fallout from the Smartphone
`Wars:
`Federal
`Circuit
`embraces
`strong protection of design patents,
`METROPOLITAN CORPORATE COUNSEL
`(July 17, 2015), http://www.metrocorp
`counsel.com/articles/32603/welcome-
`fallout-smartphone-wars-federal-circuit-
`embraces-strong-protection-design-pat ...
`Gary L. Griswold, 35 USC 289—After Apple
`v. Samsung, Time for a Better-Crafted
`Judicial Standard for Awarding “Total
`Profits”?, PATENTLYO (Aug. 14, 2015),
`http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/08/gris
`wold-patent-damages.html .......................
`Giuseppe Macri, Patent Trolls are Already
`Abusing the Apple v. Samsung Ruling,
`INSIDESOURCES (Oct. 1, 2015), http://
`www.insidesources.com/patent-trolls-are
`-already-abusing-the-apple-v-samsung-
`ruling/ ........................................................
`
`37
`
`38
`
`10
`
`10
`
`37
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`xii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`Jason Rantanen, Apple v. Samsung: Design
`Patents Win, PATENTLYO (May 18, 2015),
`http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/05/sam
`sung-design-patents.html .........................
`Jeff John Roberts, Apple, rounded corners
`and the new debate over design patents,
`FORTUNE (Aug. 19, 2015), http://fortune.
`com/2015/08/19/apple-patents-rounded-
`corners/ ......................................................
`Joel Reidenberg et al., Patents and Small
`Participants in the Smartphone Industry,
`18 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 375 (2015) ............
`Kent German, A Brief History of Android
`Phones, CNET (Aug. 2, 2011), http://
`www.cnet.com/news/a-brief-history-of-
`android-phones/.........................................
`MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
`§ 1503.02, available at http://www.uspto.
`gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1503.html ......
`Michael Risch, Software Patents and the
`Smartphone, PRAWFSBLAWG (Nov. 15,
`2012), http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/pra
`wfsblawg/2012/11/software-patents-and-
`the-smartphone.html ................................
`Mike Musgrove, Apple Seeks To Muscle Into
`Telecom With iPod Phone, WASHINGTON
`POST, Jan. 10, 2007, at D1, available at
`http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
`content/article/2007/01/09/AR200701090
`0698.html ..................................................
`
`37
`
`37
`
`10
`
`9
`
`11
`
`10
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`xiii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF RESTITUTION &
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT § 51(4) (2011) .........
`Samsung F700, http://www.gsmarena.com/
`samsung_f700-1849.php ............................
`Samsung Handsets Through The Ages: A
`Photo Tour of Phone Firsts, ZDNET (May
`28, 2015), http://www.zdnet.com/pictures
`/samsung-handsets-through-the-ages-a-
`photo-tour-of-phone-firsts/ ........................
`Steve Lebsock, Court battle over design
`patents could affect Colorado economy,
`THE BUSINESS TIMES (Nov. 17, 2015),
`http://thebusinesstimes.com/court-battle-
`over-design-patents-could-affect-colorado-
`economy/ ....................................................
`USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/corda/dash
`boards/patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVI
`D=1005 ......................................................
`USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/corda/dash
`boards/patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVID
`=1006 .........................................................
`Vintage Mobiles, http://www.gsmhistory.
`com/vintage-mobiles/ ................................
`WALTER ISAACSON, STEVE JOBS (2011) .........
`
`33
`
`8
`
`6
`
`38
`
`5
`
`5
`
`6
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`This Court has decided many utility-patent cases in
`recent Terms, but has not reviewed a design-patent
`case in more than 120 years. Late nineteenth-century
`cases considered design patents on such products
`as a spoon handle, Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511
`(1871), a carpet, Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886),
`a saddle, Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674
`(1893), and a rug, Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U.S. 244
`(1894). This case, by contrast, involves three design
`patents covering partial features of smartphones—
`complex products that contain hundreds of thousands
`of features that have nothing to do with a phone’s de-
`sign.
`With the recent explosion of design patents in
`complex products like smartphones, the time is ripe
`for this Court to again take up the issue. A patented
`design might be the essential feature of a spoon or rug.
`But the same is not true of smartphones, which
`contain countless other features that give them
`remarkable functionality wholly unrelated to their
`design. By combining a cellphone and a computer, a
`smartphone is a miniature internet browser, digital
`camera, video recorder, GPS navigator, music player,
`game station, word processor, movie player and much
`more.
`The three design patents at issue here cover only
`specific, limited portions of a smartphone’s design: a
`particular black rectangular round-cornered front
`face, a substantially similar rectangular round-cor-
`nered front face plus the surrounding rim or “bezel,”
`and a particular colorful grid of sixteen icons. Each of
`these patents contains
`indisputably unprotected
`elements within its overall claimed “ornamental”
`design. Some of those elements are not protected as
`
`

`
`2
`“ornamental” because they are conceptual: No one
`may own rectangles, round corners, the color black or
`the concept of a grid of icons. And some of those
`elements are not protected as “ornamental” because
`they are functional: Rectangular shapes and flat
`screens allow a user to view documents and media.
`Round corners make phones easier to slip into a pocket
`or purse. A bezel prevents the glass screen from
`shattering if a phone is dropped. Icons on a screen
`inform a user how to touch the screen to initiate
`various functions.
`But the Federal Circuit nonetheless held that a
`district court need not instruct a jury to disregard
`those unprotected elements when assessing the
`similarities between a patented design and an accused
`product. The court allowed the jury to find infringe-
`ment based merely on similarities
`in “overall
`appearance” and indeed, based on “any perceived
`similarities or differences” whatsoever.
`Compounding this problem, the Federal Circuit al-
`lowed the jury to award Samsung’s entire profits from
`the sale of smartphones found to contain the patented
`designs—here totaling $399 million. It held that
`Apple was “entitled to” those entire profits no matter
`how little the patented design features contributed to
`the value of Samsung’s phones. In other words, even
`if the patented features contributed 1% of the value of
`Samsung’s phones, Apple gets 100% of Samsung’s
`profits.
`The Federal Circuit did not dispute that such a
`result is ridiculous, but said it was compelled by
`Section 289 of the Patent Act. That is incorrect.
`Section 289 nowhere defines the “article of manufac-
`ture” to which a patented design is applied as the
`entire product (here, a smartphone) rather than the
`
`

`
`3
`portion of the product depicted in the design patent.
`And nothing in Section 289 suggests that Congress
`exempted design patents
`from the background
`principles of causation and equity that inform all of
`patent law, which after all is a species of tort.
`Both holdings clearly warrant this Court’s review.
`Each independently conflicts with the Patent Act.
`Together, they provide a vehicle for design-patent
`holders to obtain unjustified windfalls far exceeding
`the conceivable value of any inventive contribution.
`The decision below is thus an open invitation to
`litigation abuse, and has already prompted grave
`concern across a range of U.S. companies about a new
`flood of extortionate patent litigation, especially in the
`field of high technology.
`Because the Federal Circuit has exclusive nation-
`wide jurisdiction over patent law, only this Court’s re-
`view can correct that court’s misreading of the Patent
`Act and avert the potentially devastating conse-
`quences of the decision below. This Court should grant
`the petition.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit is reported at 786 F.3d 983 and
`reproduced at App. 1a-36a. The order of the court of
`appeals denying rehearing en banc is reproduced at
`App. 154a-155a. The order of the U.S. District Court
`for the Northern District of California regarding
`design patent claim construction is unreported but is
`available at 2012 WL 3071477 and reproduced at App.
`37a-55a. The district court’s orders denying in part
`certain post-trial motions are reported at 920 F. Supp.
`2d 1079 and 926 F. Supp. 2d 1100 and are reproduced
`at App. 56a-113a and App. 114a-153a, respectively.
`
`

`
`4
`JURISDICTION
`
`The court of appeals denied rehearing en banc on
`August 13, 2015. App. 154a-155a. On October 20,
`2015, the Chief Justice extended the time for filing a
`petition for a writ of certiorari to December 14, 2015.
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`U.S. Constitution art. I, § 8, cl. 8 provides in
`pertinent part that:
`The Congress shall have Power … To promote
`the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
`securing for limited Times to Authors and
`Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec-
`tive Writings and Discoveries.
`The relevant provisions of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.
`1, et seq., are reproduced at App. 156a-158a.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. Statutory Background
`
`This case involves the permissible scope of “design
`patents” as well as the remedies available for
`infringement of those patents. This Court is familiar
`with “utility patents,” which are available for “any
`new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful
`improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. 101 (emphasis
`added). By contrast, design patents are available for
`“any new, original and ornamental design for an
`article of manufacture.” 35 U.S.C. 171 (emphasis
`added). Design patents are historically cheaper and
`easier to obtain than utility patents—with a higher
`
`

`
`5
`allowance rate1 and no requirement to pay mainten-
`ance fees, see 37 C.F.R. 1.362(b).
`The statute does not define what constitutes a
`protected “ornamental” design, but it cannot protect
`“abstract ideas” or “physical phenomena” like basic
`shapes or concepts, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601
`(2010), and there is a well-accepted contrast with
`unprotected “functional” features, see Bonito Boats,
`Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 148
`(1989). Although design patents were once available
`for “useful” product configurations, see Smith, 148
`U.S. at 677, in 1902 Congress eliminated “the
`word ‘useful’ as applied to design patents … and
`substitut[ed] the word ‘ornamental,’” H.R. Rep. No. 57-
`1661, at 1 (1902); see Act of May 9, 1902, ch. 783, Pub.
`L. No. 57-109, 32 Stat. 193.
`While utility-patent holders may recover only
`“damages adequate to compensate for the infringe-
`ment,” 35 U.S.C. 284, such as an award of lost profits
`or a reasonable royalty, design-patent holders may
`elect those remedies or infringer’s profits under 35
`U.S.C. 289. That section provides:
`Whoever during the term of a patent for a
`design, without license of the owner …
`applies the patented design … to any article
`of manufacture … shall be liable to the owner
`to the extent of his total profit, but not less
`than $250 ….
`
`
`1 Compare USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/
`patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVID=1006 (84% of design-patent
`applications allowed), with USPTO, http://www.uspto.gov/corda/
`dashboards/patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVID=1005
`(67.8% of
`utility, plant, and reissue patent applications allowed).
`
`

`
`6
`Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen,
`or impeach any other remedy which an owner
`of an infringed patent has under the provi-
`sions of this title, but he shall not twice
`recover the profit made from the infringement.
`35 U.S.C. 289.2 The statute does not define what
`constitutes “an article of manufacture.”
`
`B. The Smartphone Industry
`
`Although “unheard of ten years ago,” smartphones
`are now owned by “a significant majority of American
`adults.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482
`(2014). They “are now such a pervasive and insistent
`part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars
`might conclude they were an important feature of
`human anatomy.” Id.
`Samsung has long been an industry leader in the
`field of mobile phones, which it has made and sold
`since 1988.3 Samsung was the first mobile-phone
`manufacturer, for example, to introduce devices that
`incorporated 3-D cameras, MP3 music players, and
`voice recognition.4 Apple, by contrast, was a latecomer
`
`
`2 Congress eliminated infringer’s profits as a remedy for
`utility-patent infringement in 1946. See Act of Aug. 1, 1946, ch.
`726, Pub. L. No. 79-587, 60 Stat. 778.
`3 See Samsung Handsets Through The Ages: A Photo Tour of
`Phone Firsts, ZDNET (May 28, 2015), http://www.zdnet.com/
`pictures/samsung-handsets-through-the-ages-a-photo-tour-of-
`phone-firsts/.
`4 See Vintage Mobiles, http://www.gsmhistory.com/vintage-
`mobiles/.
`
`

`
`7
`to the mobile-phone industry, announcing the iPhone
`in January 2007 and launching it in June 2007.5
`Well before Apple’s iPhone entered the market in
`2007, companies other than Apple were independently
`developing rectangular, round-cornered smartphone
`devices with large, flat, clear touchscreens. For
`example, Samsung and LG had developed product
`designs by 2006 that incorporated configurations
`similar to those in Apple’s design patents:
`
`
`
`
`
` Samsung Q-Bowl LG Prada Apple iPhone6
`
`
`5 E.g., Mike Musgrove, Apple Seeks To Muscle Into Telecom
`With iPod Phone, WASHINGTON POST, Jan. 10, 2007, at D1,
`available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
`article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900698.html.
`6 A7408-09, A7415, A7465-73 (Samsung Q-Bowl); A24675,
`A29563-71, Chris Ziegler, The LG KE850: touchable chocolate,
`ENGADGET (Dec. 15, 2006), http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/15/
`the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/ (LG Prada); Apple iPhone,
`http://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone-1827.php (Apple iPhone).
`(Citations in the form A___ refer to the joint appendix before the
`Federal Circuit, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 14-
`1335 (Fed. Cir.).)
`
`

`
`8
`Samsung also developed additional prototypes and
`mock-ups in 2006, including those below, all before the
`iPhone was announced:
`
`
`A7401-13. The Samsung F700, which was announced
`in early 2007 and went to market later that year,
`retained the same essential design concept:
`
`See A27594.7
`
`
`
`
`
`7 See also Samsung F700, http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung
`_f700-1849.php.
`
`

`
`9
`The use of such rounded rectangular shapes as the
`basic design for the iPhone and other contemporary
`smartphones is unsurprising. As Apple’s CEO Steve
`Jobs told Apple engineers when earlier convincing
`them to use such shapes, one need only look around at
`ordinary objects like no-parking signs to see that
`“‘[r]ectangles with rounded corners are everywhere!’”8
`The worldwide smartphone market grew tenfold
`between 2007 and 2014, with sales rising from 122
`million devices to 1.24 billion devices. That explosion
`in popularity results from smartphones’ functionality.
`Apple’s own advertising touts the functional features
`of its phones.9 And after Samsung adopted Google’s
`Android operating system for its flagship products in
`2010, its share of the smartphone market rose
`considerably.10
`As of 2012, the Patent and Trademark Office
`(“PTO”) had issued more than 250,000 smartphone-
`related patents, constituting 16% of all active U.S.
`
`
`8 WALTER ISAACSON, STEVE JOBS 130 (2011). According to his
`biographer, Jobs continued, ‘“Just look around this room! … And
`look outside, there’s even more [rectangles with rounded corners],
`practically everywhere you look! Within three blocks, we found
`seventeen examples …. I started pointing them out everywhere
`[e.g., a No Parking sign] until he was completely convinced.’” Id.
`9 See, e.g., Apple iPhone 4 Official Introduction, https://www.
`youtube.com/watch?v=KEaLJpFxR9Q (emphasizing videoconfer-
`encing, camera, video recording, processing chip and battery
`features).
`10 See, e.g., Alex Cocotas, Samsung Maintains Lead In The
`Smartphone Market, Despite iPhone 5, BUSINESS INSIDER (Feb. 9,
`2013), http://www.businessinsider.com.au/samsung-is-the-smart
`phone-king-2013-2; Kent German, A Brief History of Android
`Phones, CNET (Aug. 2, 2011), http://www.cnet.com/news/a-brief-
`history-of-android-phones/.
`
`

`
`10
`patents.11 Any individual smartphone may incorpo-
`rate the vast majority of those 250,000 patented
`technologies.12 About six percent of all smartphone-
`related patents are design patents.13
`
`C. Apple’s Asserted Design Patents And
`Trade Dresses
`
`This petition arises from a decision affirming a
`judgment awarding Apple $399 million for supposed
`infringement of three of Apple’s design patents. A
`design patent uses pictures rather than verbal
`descriptions to claim its invention. While some design
`patents depict entire products or decorative patterns
`that can be applied to entire products, other design
`patents (as here) cover only a portion or small
`component of a product. The Federal Circuit’s
`predecessor confirmed the PTO’s authority to allow
`such partial claiming. See In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261,
`267 (C.C.P.A. 1980). Partial design patents use
`
`
`11 See Daniel O’Connor, One In Six Active U.S. Patents Pertain
`To The Smartphone, PROJECT DISCO (Oct. 17, 2012), http://www.
`project-disco.org/intellectual-property/one-in-six-active-u-s-pate
`nts-pertain-to-the-smartphone/.
`12 David Drummond, When Patents Attack Android (Aug. 3,
`2011), https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-
`attack-android.html; Michael Risch, Software Patents and the
`Smartphone, PRAWFSBLAWG (Nov. 15, 2012), http://prawfsblawg.
`blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/11/software-patents-and-the-smart
`phone.html (noting the “oft repeated statistic: that there are
`250,000 patents that might be
`infringed by any given
`smartphone”).
`13 See Joel Reidenberg et al., Patents and Small Participants in
`the Smartphone Industry, 18 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 375, 394 (2015).
`
`

`
`11
`broken lines in their drawings to exclude features that
`are not part of the “claimed design.”14
`All three design patents at issue here claim “[t]he
`ornamental design … as shown and described” in such
`pictures, and all three claim only partial features of a
`smartphone’s design. Using solid lines for the claimed
`subject matter and broken lines for disclaimed fea-
`tures, Apple’s D618,677 (“D’677”) patent shows a black
`rectangular front face with rounded corners, as
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`14 As the PTO states in its Manual of Patent Examining
`Procedure (“MPEP”), “[t]he two most common uses of broken lines
`are to disclose the environment related to the claimed design and
`to define the bounds of the claim. Structure that is not part of
`the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the
`environment in which the design is associated, may be
`represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any
`portion of an article in which the design is embodied or applied to
`that is not considered part of the claimed design.” MPEP
`§ 1503.02, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/
`mpep/s1503.html.
`
`

`
`12
`
`
`
`A1310-14.
`Apple’s D593,087 (“D’087”) patent is substantially
`similar to the D’677 as it depicts a rectangular front
`face

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket