• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights Publication Magazine Corner
Main image for Apple v Samsung Decision Throws Spotlight on Design Patent Damages
News|Quote

Apple v Samsung Decision Throws Spotlight on Design Patent Damages

World Trademark Review blog

5.19.2015

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacating the jury’s damages awards against Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution may be grabbing mainstream media headlines, but it is the affirmation of design patent damages that practitioners will find more significant.

In Apple v Samsung Electronics, the US District Court for the Northern District of California previously found that Samsung had infringed Apple’s design and utility patents, and diluted Apple’s trade dresses, making headlines when it awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages. Samsung appealed and this week the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict on the design patent infringements, the validity of two utility patent claims, and the damages awarded for the design and utility patent infringements appealed by Samsung, while reversing the jury’s findings that the asserted trade dresses are protectable. It therefore vacated the jury’s damages awards against the Samsung products that were found liable for trade dress dilution.

Leaving aside the utility patent aspects, it is the design patent and trade dress dimensions that are worth focusing on from a trademark practitioner’s perspective.

James H Donoian, partner at McCarter & English, comments: “The reversal of the trades dress claims isn’t surprising because it’s so difficult to protect trade dress when it’s a common geometric shape with functional characteristics. The iPhone may have suffered from a bit of both as the claimed trade dress included a rectangle with colourful icons under a flat screen. It’s difficult to imagine a touch screen handheld device without a flat screen and colourful icons to identify each app. The biggest lesson is to carefully define the trade dress.”

Considering the design patent and trade dress dimensions in tandem, Donoian suggests: “The reason for the court’s seemingly odd split between the design patent and the trade dress claims is due to the slight differences in the design patent drawings and the defined trade dress, and the difference between the Federal Circuit standard for the former and the Ninth Circuit standard for the latter (which doesn’t require a lot for functionality). So, strategy in framing claims needs to account for those possible differences and perhaps choice of venue where the claims include both types of IP rights and functionality may be an issue.”

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: James H. Donoian
James H. Donoian

Partner

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Design, Fashion & Luxury
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel