i need to solve the case from the issues in the picture.Apple Inc. released its first-generation iPhone in 2007. The iPhone is a smartphone, a cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and internet connectivity. Apple secured the following design patents for the iPhone: (1) D618,677 patent, covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, (2) D593,087 patent, covering a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and (3) D604,305 patent, covering a grid of 16 color-ful icons on a black screen. After Apple released its iPhone, Samsung Electric Co., Ltd. (Samsung) manu-factured and sold a series of smartphones that resem-bled the iPhone in design. Apple sued Samsung in U.S. district court, alleging that various Samsung smart-phones infringed Apples design patents. The jury found that several of Samsungs smartphones infringed Apples design patents that covered the front face of its smartphone with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 mil-lion in damages, the entire profit Samsung made from its sales of the infringing smartphones. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the design infringement and damage award. The court of appeals identified the entire smart-phone as the only permissible article of manufacture for calculating damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the smart-phones. The court of appeals rejected Samsungs argument that the profits awarded should be limited to infringing parts and not the entire smartphone. Samsung appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue

When determining damages for the infringement of design patents of products comprised of many com-ponents, must the court award as damages the entire profits made from the sale of the product or partial damages relating to only the infringing components?

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 137 S.Ct. 429, 2016 U.S. Lexis 7419 (2016) Supreme Court of the United States

The Patent Act provides a damage remedy specific to design patent infringement. Sotomayor, Justice

Facts

Apple Inc. released its first-generation iPhone in 2007. The iPhone is a smartphone, a cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and internet connectivity. Apple secured the following design patents for the iPhone: (1) D618,677 patent, covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, (2) D593,087 patent, covering a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and (3) D604,305 patent, covering a grid of 16 color-ful icons on a black screen. After Apple released its iPhone, Samsung Electric Co., Ltd. (Samsung) manu-factured and sold a series of smartphones that resem-bled the iPhone in design. Apple sued Samsung in U.S. district court, alleging that various Samsung smart-phones infringed Apples design patents. The jury found that several of Samsungs smartphones infringed Apples design patents that covered the front face of its smartphone with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 mil-lion in damages, the entire profit Samsung made from its sales of the infringing smartphones.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the design infringement and damage award. The court of appeals identified the entire smart-phone as the only permissible article of manufacture for calculating damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the smart-phones. The court of appeals rejected Samsungs argument that the profits awarded should be limited to infringing parts and not the entire smartphone. Samsung appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue When determining damages for the infringement of design patents of products comprised of many com-ponents, must the court award as damages the entire profits made from the sale of the product or partial damages relating to only the infringing components?

Language of the U.S. Supreme Court The Patent Act provides a damage remedy specific to design patent infringement. The only question we resolve today is whether, in the case of a multi-component product, the relevant article of manufacture must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that product. The term article

of manufacture

encompasses both a product sold to a con-sumer and a component of that product.

Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that damages for infringing a design patent of a multi-component prod-uct may either be the entire profits made from the sale of the product or the profits attributable to the infring-ing components, depending on the facts of the case. The Supreme Court reversed the award of $399 mil-lion to Apple and remanded the case for a determina-tion of damages based on the facts of this case.

Critical Legal Thinking Questions

Did Samsung act ethically when it infringed on Apples design patents? Should Apple be awarded the entire profit made by Samsung on the sale of the smartphones that contained the infringing compo-nents? Or should Apple be awarded damages attrib-utable to only the infringing components? How difficult would it be to make this calculation?

10:33 Aa 1 Q 0 0 138 PART II Torts, Crimes, and intellectual Property Design Patent despub is that be lehe t Heades t valid for 18 years Examples. The design of a c ita doorbro, a perfumic bottle and the side of the damages In the f for the inte ace, the US Sport nt of a deten patent C H Information Technology CASE 7.2 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE Design Patent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 13 S.C.429,3615US.LT 7419 2019 Supreme Court of the United Swis The Patent des a da y hacific Issue to design put infring ." When determining damages for the intringement of Sotomayor, Justice design patents of products comprised of many com ponents, as the u ndis dumnes the entire Facts a rice from the sk Apple Inu, released sts stration Phone ind ltung to only the initing n et 2007. The Phone is a smartphone, a ll phone with a broad range of other tinns based on advanced Language of the US Supreme Court i ne ility, largo de capacity, and The Pune Act prices odiomate mily ivity A ihe: Fullfie to decantet m en The derin patents for the l'hones (1) D618,677 tent, only gidation we al day in scher coverind a black rectangular front free with rounded Coon, (2) LX54.3.167 tent, covering a rectangular men det vich MI AVEYR I t will be mix rim, and be the und product said to the consumer op (3) 1604 305 en Euring a car lo culor- whether it can also be a comment of the Hul leuns on a black women. After Apele released its pradu. The wille omanere Phone, wund Eletric Co., Ltd. (Nusu mano ructured and sold a series of ma i les te resells sumer and more on P C Ithach ihn in den Apple s u urin ' like crt, alleging the VTS Samsung smart Decision phones infrindod Applus design patents. The tury The US Supreme Court chat damage for Pound that werel Nu m artphones linfringed aufringing a design patent of a multi-croponent pro Al s that the front face of its Lit may be be the cat pots from the sale with amalan eril l the producor the profits tributable to the intrine B unaciun. Aple was warded $399 mal- Lson la danses, the catre prodit Samsung made from The Supreme Court N i ewano Vinil Its siles of the Indianartphones loon to Apple and reminded the case for a determin The oth e r ton of dumnes scd on the fiets och ske. at the innent ad awardini The vent of appua latite the entire start- Critical Legal Thinking Questions pha thely beautike of manufacture Di Sumat chially what son of a su cul ple de poleted They run the play the wall ple. The EU u preal rejected SunSmartbomes that contained the an that the proces wanded should be ad D Or should Arple be awarded dam t b to da parts and the phone table to the fragm e nts on the US 138 Reader Contents Notebook Bookmarks Flashcards 10:33 Aa 1 Q 0 0 138 PART II Torts, Crimes, and intellectual Property Design Patent despub is that be lehe t Heades t valid for 18 years Examples. The design of a c ita doorbro, a perfumic bottle and the side of the damages In the f for the inte ace, the US Sport nt of a deten patent C H Information Technology CASE 7.2 U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE Design Patent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 13 S.C.429,3615US.LT 7419 2019 Supreme Court of the United Swis The Patent des a da y hacific Issue to design put infring ." When determining damages for the intringement of Sotomayor, Justice design patents of products comprised of many com ponents, as the u ndis dumnes the entire Facts a rice from the sk Apple Inu, released sts stration Phone ind ltung to only the initing n et 2007. The Phone is a smartphone, a ll phone with a broad range of other tinns based on advanced Language of the US Supreme Court i ne ility, largo de capacity, and The Pune Act prices odiomate mily ivity A ihe: Fullfie to decantet m en The derin patents for the l'hones (1) D618,677 tent, only gidation we al day in scher coverind a black rectangular front free with rounded Coon, (2) LX54.3.167 tent, covering a rectangular men det vich MI AVEYR I t will be mix rim, and be the und product said to the consumer op (3) 1604 305 en Euring a car lo culor- whether it can also be a comment of the Hul leuns on a black women. After Apele released its pradu. The wille omanere Phone, wund Eletric Co., Ltd. (Nusu mano ructured and sold a series of ma i les te resells sumer and more on P C Ithach ihn in den Apple s u urin ' like crt, alleging the VTS Samsung smart Decision phones infrindod Applus design patents. The tury The US Supreme Court chat damage for Pound that werel Nu m artphones linfringed aufringing a design patent of a multi-croponent pro Al s that the front face of its Lit may be be the cat pots from the sale with amalan eril l the producor the profits tributable to the intrine B unaciun. Aple was warded $399 mal- Lson la danses, the catre prodit Samsung made from The Supreme Court N i ewano Vinil Its siles of the Indianartphones loon to Apple and reminded the case for a determin The oth e r ton of dumnes scd on the fiets och ske. at the innent ad awardini The vent of appua latite the entire start- Critical Legal Thinking Questions pha thely beautike of manufacture Di Sumat chially what son of a su cul ple de poleted They run the play the wall ple. The EU u preal rejected SunSmartbomes that contained the an that the proces wanded should be ad D Or should Arple be awarded dam t b to da parts and the phone table to the fragm e nts on the US 138 Reader Contents Notebook Bookmarks Flashcards