October 13, 2016
Bloomberg BNA
On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Apple v. Samsung, a case revolving around design patents and the standard of awarding damages in patent infringement cases at the Supreme Court. During oral arguments, Apple accepted a multi-factor test proposed by the United States government that would attempt to determine what portion of the infringer’s profits correspond to the design it copied. However, many IP practitioners expressed concern about the effect that this type of test would have on design patent litigation in the future. Bloomberg BNA contact Finnegan attorney Elizabeth D. Ferrill for her thoughts on the oral arguments.
"Both parties argued that although the test resulted in a division of profits, this was not the type of apportionment that the Congress had tried to avoid in enacting Section 289 [which allows a district court to award damages in design patent cases only to the extent of the infringer's total profit if it sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture that infringes the patent owner’s design patents]. At the end of the day, this is likely a distinction without a difference."
Award/Ranking
Managing IP Americas Awards 2024: Finnegan Shortlisted for Nine Awards, Including Firm of the Year
March 12, 2024
Commentary
February 29, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Another Patent Victory for BMW Group in the District of Delaware
February 27, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.