直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Media Mention

Apple v. Samsung: A New Day for Design Patents

May 21, 2015

Managing Intellectual Property

On May 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled in Apple v. Samsung, finding that Samsung infringed Apple’s design patents and utility patents and awarded Apple approximately $1 billion. Despite ruling in Apple’s favor on the design and utility patents, the court ruled that Apple’s registered and unregistered trade dresses were not protectable. Managing Intellectual Property reached to Finnegan attorneys Douglas A. Rettew and Elizabeth D. Ferrill for their thoughts on the case.

The court found that Apple’s registered and unregistered trade dress were not protectable because the claimed features were functional rather than for the sole purpose of identification. This stood out to Rettew who believed the Federal Circuit used an extraordinarily high standard for functionality in comparison to other courts. The decision also provided guidance for claim construction of design patents, specifically how to treat the functional parts of a claim. Citing the Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc. case, Samsung argued that the functional elements of the claim should be ignored when considering the scope of the design patent. In Apple v. Samsung, the Federal Circuit clarified Richardson, which actually states that the claim construction should not be ignored and in fact should include the ornamental aspects of functional components. Ferrill noted that this application of Richardson is heard regularly but often misunderstood, and she believes the clarification that the Federal Circuit provided is needed.

Tags

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Apple, Inc., trade dress, claim construction

Related Practices

Design Rights

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Trademark and Brand Management

Related Professionals

Douglas A. Rettew
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4161
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Related News

Commentary

East Texas Reclaims Its Patent Crown

August 21, 2026

Commentary

Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial

August 21, 2026

Media Mention

Law360's Legal Lions of the Week: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

August 21, 2026

Award/Ranking

31 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers 2027

August 20, 2026

Press Release

USPTO Denies Super Lighting Reexamination Request Following PVTECH Pre-Order Submission Under New USPTO Procedure

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

VW Wins in Patent Appeal Over Electrically Controlled Glasses

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

Federal Circuit Backs Volkswagen’s $207,500 Fees Against NPE

August 19, 2026

Commentary

Why Global IP Litigants Keep Turning to English Courts

August 19, 2026

Press Release

Federal Circuit Overrules Precedent En Banc in Finnegan Pro Bono Victory for Federally Employed Veterans

August 18, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP