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."
Commentary
Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects
June 30, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings
June 25, 2026
Press Release
BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret
June 23, 2026
Award/Ranking
Six Finnegan Partners Recognized in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers
June 22, 2026
Commentary
U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case
June 15, 2026
Award/Ranking
World Trademark Review Recognizes Three Finnegan Partners on its 2026 Global Leaders List
June 24, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.