This post will track the issued remedies in the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The post will not cover patent invalidity decisions from the USPTO or the district court. The dispute started on April 15, 2011, with a complaint by Apple against Samsung in the Northern District of California, …
This post deals with recovering total profits under 35 U.S.C. §289 for design patent infringement. Under Section 289, a design patent infringer is “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit,” that is, all the profit made from the manufacture or sale “of the article of manufacture …
Nordock v. Systems is a nonprecedential case decided on March 17, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and awarded Nordock $46,825 as a reasonable royalty, indicating that Systems’ profits were $0. The …
Apple v. Samsung was decided on February 7, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California, on remand from the Supreme Court. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million — the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The …
Link to article on Law360. 2016 was a busy year for patent remedies. The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases, one on willfulness and the other on design patent damages. The Federal Circuit made law on willfulness, enhancement, attorney fees, antitrust damages, preissuance patent damages, and laches. This article will review these …
Samsung v. Apple was decided by the Supreme Court on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, a jury found that several of defendant Samsung’s smartphones infringed plaintiff Apple’s design patents, and awarded Apple $399 million, the entire profit Samsung made from the infringing phones. The Federal Circuit affirmed …
Nordock v. Systems was decided on September 29, 2015 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There, a jury found defendant Systems infringed plaintiff Nordock’s design patent, and that the patent was not invalid. Nordock’s damages expert testified that System’s net profit for the sale of the infringing items was …