apple vs samsung patent case study

You are using an outdated browser no longer supported by Oyez. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Submit to Digest

Apple inc. v. samsung electronics co., ltd..

Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible

Samsung electronics co. v. apple inc..

• Supreme Court

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. 786 F. 3d 983, reversed and remanded.

• Syllabus [Syllabus] [PDF]
• Opinion , Sotomayor [Sotomayor Opinion] [PDF]

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v . APPLE INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit

Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289 . As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufactured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.

Held : In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. Pp. 4–9.

 (a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manufacture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act, which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to  only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g. , Ex parte Adams , 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; Application of Zahn , 617 F. 2d 261 , 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U. S. 303 , 308. Pp. 4–7.

 (b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not, the Federal Circuit’s narrower reading cannot be squared with §289’s text. Absent adequate briefing by the parties, this Court declines to resolve whether the relevant article of manufacture for each design patent at issue here is the smartphone or a particular smartphone component. Doing so is not necessary to resolve the question presented, and the Federal Circuit may address any remaining issues on remand. Pp. 7–8.

786 F. 3d 983 , reversed and remanded.

 Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

_________________

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. , PETITIONERS v. APPLE INC.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit

 Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court.

 Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages rem- edy specific to design patent infringement. A person who manufactures or sells “any article of manufacture to which [a patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289 . In the case of a design for a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the “article of manufacture” to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the “article of manufacture” to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task.

 This case involves the infringement of designs for smartphones. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit identified the entire smartphone as the only permissible “article of manufacture” for the purpose of calculating §289 damages because consumers could not separately purchase components of the smartphones. The question before us is whether that reading is consistent with §289. We hold that it is not.

 The federal patent laws have long permitted those who invent designs for manufactured articles to patent their designs. See Patent Act of 1842, §3, 5 Stat. 543 –544. Patent protection is available for a “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” 35 U. S. C. §171(a) . A patentable design “gives a peculiar or distinctive appearance to the manufacture, or article to which it may be applied, or to which it gives form.” Gorham Co. v. White , 14 Wall. 511, 525 (1872). This Court has explained that a design patent is infringed “if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same.” Id., at 528.

 In 1885, this Court limited the damages available for design patent infringement. The statute in effect at the time allowed a holder of a design patent to recover “the actual damages sustained” from infringement. Rev. Stat. §4919. In Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. , 114 U. S. 439 (1885) , the lower courts had awarded the holders of design patents on carpets damages in the amount of “the entire profit to the [patent holders], per yard, in the manufacture and sale of carpets of the patented designs, and not merely the value which the designs contributed to the carpets.” Id., at 443. This Court reversed the damages award and construed the statute to require proof that the profits were “due to” the design rather than other aspects of the carpets. Id., at 444; see also Dobson v. Dornan , 118 U. S. 10 , 17 (1886) (“The plaintiff must show what profits or damages are attributable to the use of the infringing design”).

 In 1887, in response to the Dobson cases, Congress enacted a specific damages remedy for design patent infringement. See S. Rep. No. 206, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 1–2 (1886); H. R. Rep. No. 1966, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 1–2 (1886). The new provision made it unlawful to manufac ture or sell an article of manufacture to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof had been applied. An act to amend the law relating to patents, trademarks, and copyright, §1, 24 Stat. 387 . It went on to make a design patent infringer “liable in the amount of” $250 or “the total profit made by him from the manufacture or sale . . . of the article or articles to which the design, or color- able imitation thereof, has been applied.” Ibid.

 The Patent Act of 1952 codified this provision in §289. 66 Stat. 813 . That codified language now reads, in relevant part:

“Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250 . . . .” 35 U. S. C. §289 .

 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 connectiv- ity.” Riley v. California , 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 2). Apple secured many design patents in connection with the release. Among those patents were the D618,677 patent, covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, the D593,087 patent, covering a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and the D604,305 patent, covering a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. App. 530–578.

 Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (Samsung), also manufacture smartphones. After Apple  released its iPhone, Samsung released a series of smartphones that resembled the iPhone. Id., at 357–358.

 Apple sued Samsung in 2011, alleging, as relevant here, that various Samsung smartphones infringed Apple’s D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305 design patents. A jury found that several Samsung smartphones did infringe those patents. See id., at 273–276. All told, Apple was awarded $399 million in damages for Samsung’s design patent infringement, the entire profit Samsung made from its sales of the infringing smartphones. See id. , at 277–280, 348–350.

 The Federal Circuit affirmed the design patent infringement damages award. 1 In doing so, it rejected Samsung’s argument “that the profits awarded should have been limited to the infringing ‘article of manufacture’ ”—for example, the screen or case of the smartphone—“not the entire infringing product”—the smartphone. 786 F. 3d 983 , 1002 (2015). It reasoned that “limit[ing] the dam- ages” award was not required because the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers.” Ibid.

 We granted certiorari, 577 U. S. ___ (2016), and now reverse and remand.

 Section 289 allows a patent holder to recover the total profit an infringer makes from the infringement. It does so by first prohibiting the unlicensed “appli[cation]” of a  “patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale” or the unlicensed sale or exposure to sale of “any article of manufacture to which [a patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied.” 35 U. S. C. §289 . It then makes a person who violates that prohibition “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250.” Ibid. “Total,” of course, means all. See American Heritage Dictionary 1836 (5th ed. 2011) (“[t]he whole amount of something; the entirety”). The “total profit” for which §289 makes an infringer liable is thus all of the profit made from the prohibited conduct, that is, from the manufacture or sale of the “article of manufacture to which [the patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied.”

 Arriving at a damages award under §289 thus involves two steps. First, identify the “article of manufacture” to which the infringed design has been applied. Second, calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture.

 This case requires us to address a threshold matter: the scope of the term “article of manufacture.” The only question we resolve today is whether, in the case of a multicomponent 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. Under the former interpretation, a patent holder will always be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from the end product. Under the latter interpretation, a patent holder will sometimes be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from a component of the end product. 2

 The text resolves this case. The term “article of manufacture,” as used in §289, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product.

 “Article of manufacture” has a broad meaning. An “article” is just “a particular thing.” J. Stormonth, A Dictionary of the English Language 53 (1885) (Stormonth); see also American Heritage Dictionary, at 101 (“[a]n individual thing or element of a class; a particular object or item”). And “manufacture” means “the conversion of raw materials by the hand, or by machinery, into articles suitable for the use of man” and “the articles so made.” Stormonth 589; see also American Heritage Dictionary, at 1070 (“[t]he act, craft, or process of manufacturing products, especially on a large scale” or “[a] product that is manufactured”). An article of manufacture, then, is sim- ply a thing made by hand or machine.

 So understood, the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product. A component of a product, no less than the product itself, is a thing made by hand or machine. That a component may be integrated into a larger product, in other words, does not put it outside the category of articles of manufacture.

 This reading of article of manufacture in §289 is consistent with 35 U. S. C. §171(a) , which makes “new, original and ornamental design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection. 3 The Patent  Office and the courts have understood §171 to permit a design patent for a design extending to only a component of a multicomponent product. See, e.g., Ex parte Adams , 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311 (1898) (“The several articles of manufacture of peculiar shape which when combined produce a machine or structure having movable parts may each separately be patented as a design . . . ”); Application of Zahn , 617 F. 2d 261 , 268 (CCPA 1980) (“Section 171 authorizes patents on ornamental designs for articles of manufacture. While the design must be embodied in some articles, the statute is not limited to designs for complete articles, or ‘discrete’ articles, and certainly not to articles separately sold . . . ”).

 This reading is also consistent with 35 U. S. C. §101 , which makes “any new and useful . . . manufacture . . . or any new and useful improvement thereof” eligible for utility patent protection. Cf. 8 D. Chisum, Patents §23.03[2], pp. 23–12 to 23–13 (2014) (noting that “article of manufacture” in §171 includes “what would be considered a ‘manufacture’ within the meaning of Section 101”). “[T]his Court has read the term ‘manufacture’ in §101 . . . to mean ‘the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.’ ” Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U. S. 303 , 308 (1980) (quoting American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co. , 283 U. S. 1 , 11 (1931)). The broad term includes “the parts of a machine considered sepa- rately from the machine itself.” 1 W. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions §183, p. 270 (1890).

 The Federal Circuit’s narrower reading of “article of manufacture” cannot be squared with the text of §289. The Federal Circuit found that components of the infringing smartphones could not be the relevant article of manu facture because consumers could not purchase those components separately from the smartphones. See 786 F. 3d, at 1002 (declining to limit a §289 award to a component of the smartphone because “[t]he innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers”); see also Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc. , 803 F. 3d 1344 , 1355 (CA Fed. 2015) (declining to limit a §289 award to a design for a “ ‘lip and hinge plate’ ” because it was “welded together” with a leveler and “there was no evidence” it was sold “separate[ly] from the leveler as a complete unit”). But, for the reasons given above, the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not. Thus, reading “article of manufacture” in §289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase.

 The parties ask us to go further and resolve whether, for each of the design patents at issue here, the relevant article of manufacture is the smartphone, or a particular smartphone component. Doing so would require us to set out a test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture at the first step of the §289 damages inquiry and to parse the record to apply that test in this case. The United States as amicus curiae suggested a test, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27–29, but Samsung and Apple did not brief the issue. We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties. Doing so is not necessary to resolve the question presented in this case, and the Federal Circuit may address any remaining issues on remand.

 The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is  remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

1  Samsung raised a host of challenges on appeal related to other claims in the litigation between Apple and Samsung. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part—with respect to the design patent infringement finding, the validity of two utility patent claims, and the design and utility patent infringement damages awards—and reversed and remanded in part—with respect to trade dress dilution. Only the design patent infringement award is at issue here.

2  In its petition for certiorari and in its briefing, Samsung challenged the decision below on a second ground. It argued that 35 U. S. C. §289 contains a causation requirement, which limits a §289 damages award to the total profit the infringer made because of the infringement. Samsung abandoned this theory at argument, and so we do not address it. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.

3  As originally enacted, the provision protected “any new and original design for a manufacture.” §3, 5 Stat. 544 . The provision listed examples, including a design “worked into or worked on, or printed or painted or cast or otherwise fixed on, any article of manufacture” and a “shape or configuration of any article of manufacture.” Ibid. A streamlined version enacted in 1902 protected “any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” Ch. 783, 32 Stat. 193 . The Patent Act of 1952 retained that language. See §171, 66 Stat. 813 .

The following state regulations pages link to this page.

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

The apple-samsung case: what it means for patents — and innovation, august 29, 2012 • 35 min listen.

A California jury awarded Apple what could be a decisive victory in the smartphone wars last week by ruling that Samsung infringed on a number of patents relating to the functionality and design of the iPhone. Samsung plans to appeal, but Apple is now calling for a ban on U.S. sales of some of the devices at issue in the case. Some observers believe the verdict might open the door for additional Apple lawsuits against other smartphone makers -- including Google. Wharton professors David Hsu and Andrea Matwyshyn discuss the key players, the future of smartphone design and the U.S. patent system. (Podcast with transcript)

In what some are calling “the patent trial of the century,” a federal grand jury in California last week decided in favor of Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung. In addition to awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages, the jury found that Samsung violated several iPhone utility and design patents when it created phones such as the Galaxy S II and the Fascinate.

Following the verdict, Apple requested that eight Samsung phones be banned from sale in the U.S. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for December. In the meantime, Samsung has said it will appeal the case. Many observers believe Friday’s verdict could open the door to Apple pursuing litigation against other companies — including Google, maker of the Android operating system used in Samsung phones and tablets.

To discuss the key issues of the case, Knowledge at Wharton turned to Wharton management professor David Hsu and Wharton legal studies and business ethics professor Andrea Matwyshyn .

Edited versions of both transcripts appear below.

In the first conversation, Hsu talked about the case’s impact on innovation as it relates to design and creativity.

Knowledge at Wharton: David, first of all, could you tell us some of the winners and losers as a result of the jury’s decision?

David Hsu: Apple is the clear winner here, and the device makers on the Android system are the ones that are going to be scrambling and trying to figure out in what areas they’re going to have to retrofit, or even redesign, their products. Of course, Google is kind of the company lurking in the background — it isn’t being attacked directly, but it’s getting closer [to being directly impacted]. My interpretation of why Apple leadership was so insistent on pursuing this case to the end is because they feel strongly that the design elements in conjunction with the functional elements of their products really make the user experience, and they want to protect that. As a result, the likes of Samsung, HTC, Motorola Mobility (owned by Google) and the other large handset makers on the Android platform are the ones that will be trying to figure out their next moves.

Knowledge at Wharton: Are there other winners besides Apple? I know there’s been some discussion that Microsoft, which makes the Windows mobile operating system used in Nokia devices, could get a boost from this decision because their product is so different from Apple/Android.

Hsu: I think that may be true in that this opens up the landscape of competition beyond just the functionality. Maybe it would be useful to take one step back and to analyze the patents that were under dispute here. A number of them were on the design side, so it’s not protecting the functionality of the innovation, but rather the packaging of it. And then a few of the others did not go to the core of the operating system, but were about some of the more design-oriented aspects, [such as] the [feature in which pages viewed on Apple’s iOS operating system “bounce back” into place when a user reaches the top or bottom] or the array of the icons on the grid.

I interpret it as a strengthening of design-related patents. Previously, it was the case that if you were a furniture designer and came up with an innovative design, that did not necessarily stop competitors from coming in and marketing say, an “Eames-like” chair, so long as they were clear that it was not the genuine product. [The Apple/Samsung case indicates] that there seems to be a broadening of the protection of design elements. And so this, I think, broadens the landscape for how companies — including electronics companies or fashion design companies — will seek protection of their creative efforts, their intellectual property.

For the direct competitors in the handset space, [the implications] will play out in terms of acquiring patents, as we’ve already seen over the last two years or so. There has been lots of interest in trying to acquire whole “patent portfolios” that surround smartphones. Obviously, the smartphone is going to be the Swiss Army knife of the 21st century — it already is, and is becoming more so. And as a result, there is almost a land grab for the various kinds of more elemental patents in intellectual property that undergird that platform.

So to summarize my answer, I think that this case will broaden the landscape of competition. It may open the landscape a little bit more. You mentioned Nokia and Microsoft, and clearly they have their own operating systems for the smartphone hardware, and they may be kind of waiting on the edges. But it is pretty clear that the dominant competition, at least right now, is the Android versus the Apple operating system. So this is why the case was billed “the [patent] trial of the century,” as a result of the two large manufacturers going head-to-head in this battle.

Knowledge at Wharton: So you don’t think that one impact will be Nokia and Microsoft immediately elbowing out Samsung, HTC, Google and the rest of the Android-based phones? It would be for the number one space, since Apple phones are really number two in the U.S. market.

Hsu: No, I don’t think that this is going to radically reconfigure the landscape because in this kind of platform-oriented competitive space, there tend to be tipping points. And there has to be enough of a critical mass of users, a developer community and support by the companies to really enable the critical mass because people are not necessarily just looking at today’s functionality: They’re trying to anticipate the functionality down the road as they decide to adopt one platform or another.

While I think that there’s going to have to be some redesign [as a result of this case] — not only in the smartphone market but also in the tablet market, where these operating systems naturally share a common code — what we’re going to see if anything, is perhaps more of a creative or innovative effort by the manufacturers of the Android platform to try to differentiate themselves.

But I do think that there’s a window now, a little bit of a window of opportunity for Microsoft and Nokia to take advantage of this particular event. Whether or not they’ll be able to successfully navigate that obviously remains to be seen.

Knowledge at Wharton: You just mentioned the potential that this case will encourage more innovation in smartphone design. Patents are intended to encourage innovation, but do you feel that cases like this — where some of the aspects Apple is trying claim as proprietary would seem to severely limit the design and functionality options for all of the other players in the market — can actually have the opposite effect? Have we reached a kind of inflexion point with this so-called “smartphone patent land grab” that’s been taking place?

Hsu: Let me try to lay out the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, you could certainly think about companies like Apple, which spent many years coming up with the perfect design that might appeal to the users, as just trying to protect that and trying to blockade any efforts [to copy that design]. It’s much more about the symbolic value of what Apple is doing, despite the judge urging the CEOs of Samsung and Apple to try to come to a private settlement. Apple wasn’t interested in that, of course, because they wanted to assert and send a signal to the broader market about trying to protect their efforts.

It is true, and I think the Samsung team tried to make these arguments of should it really be the case that the casing of the phone, the rounded corners on the rectangle and the spacing between icons on the grid need to be protected. And we have to keep in mind that there is this distinction between the design patents and the utility patents. The utility patents are much more about the functionality of the phone; the design patents are just about the non-functional elements. These things come together as a package to the consumer.

I think we are treading a line a bit in terms of how much protection should we as a society give to the innovators — and we should think about innovation very broadly, not just in the technical sense, but here broadened out to the design sense — balanced against a free market economy in which there is healthy competition that can observe market signals, try to build on top of what’s already been done and basically unlock more value for consumers.

As I said earlier, before now, design patents were thought to be fairly ineffective, not really enforceable. Utility patents have always been a domain where companies have really tried to be both offensive and defensive in the patent space. And so this judgment will give companies and managers a reason to start thinking about design as the basis of protection.

To your broader question of whether this is good or bad for society, I think it always has to be a balancing act. Whether or not these particular patents being enforced this way will send a chilling signal to the rest of the market remains to be seen because this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is one trial. Apple and Samsung have something like 19 or 20 trials around the world slated. Of course, this judgment will impact how Samsung will put forward their products, as well as others that use the Android system, but there remains in this case an appeal that’s looming, as well as many other jury trials that will be in different jurisdictions around the world. And so I think that this is not necessarily just the beginning, but it’s also not close to the end in terms of this patent war.

Knowledge at Wharton: I think I had read that Samsung has said they’re willing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Hsu: This will actually be an interesting test case for many creative industries, not just electronics or information technology. I alluded to design, fashion, product design, industrial design — all these things tend to be converging and increasingly are differentiated…. I think Apple has shown repeatedly that users care not just about the raw technical horsepower of the product, but also how they interact with it. And so my interpretation of this case is much more about the implications for the design community and protection of creative advances in thought very broadly, not just in the technical space.

Knowledge at Wharton: Apple is the winner in the court of law for now, at least, but what about the court of consumer perception? How do you see this affecting Apple in that space, and Samsung as well?

Hsu: That brings up a point that I should have probably mentioned earlier, which is that these product lifecycles tend to be fairly quick. We’re used to a new iPhone every year. And while [companies are] not completely abandoning some of the core design, it’s not like some other industries in which one design will rule for decades and decades. And so you wonder why Apple and Samsung took this case all the way to a final judgment … since it’s likely that the design a couple years from now will be obsolete.

In terms of public sentiment, Apple has to be a little bit careful. I think this can work both ways. On the one hand, there could be a little bit of a backlash from users saying, “Well, I actually prefer, for example, an Android platform and Apple is trying to assert these rights about how things are laid out, the physical form of the product, in ways that aren’t necessarily novel or that deserve patent protection.” And so [consumers] could be more willing to experiment with some of these other platforms, like Nokia, Microsoft, etc.

On the other hand, I could see perhaps some users acknowledging that Apple did spend quite a bit of effort and put a great deal of detail into the design, as well as the functionality, and they should be rewarded for that.

Apple has had a blockbuster set of years in terms of their performance on the stock market and the value of their company. There is this danger that maybe they’re going to be perceived as, in some sense, the next Microsoft, trying to come up with one innovation and then trying to blockade everyone, and not allowing competitors to come in and innovate. There is this double-edged sword phenomenon that could work here. Apple has to, as they’ve been doing, continue this pace of innovation, and as I said before, it is this delicate balancing act between trying to protect versus trying to innovate and allowing others to come in as well to try to push the envelope forward.

Knowledge at Wharton: Do you feel like this case represents a new strategy going forward for Apple? Apple has always been able to capitalize on this sort of cool aesthetic that’s attached to its devices. Is that put in danger if the company goes into more of a protectionist mode?

Hsu: That’s the danger of being the market leader: All of the sudden, they become the targets of all types of consumer sentiments. That was certainly true when Microsoft ruled the day. [Apple] is a company that obviously stresses industrial design, as well as functionality and obsessing over the details. I think consumers have clearly appreciated that. I’m sympathetic to this argument of, now that Apple has been so successful in the market, companies like Samsung coming in and just basically taking everything that it’s done after lot of experimentation doesn’t seem fair.

On the other hand, as these types of cases get sharper in the courts of law in terms of protectability versus not, I think what is allowable versus not will become clearer. Before now, it hasn’t been such a big, high-stakes type of enterprise. Now that landscape has shifted a bit.

But in terms of the overall corporate image, it’s clear that Apple’s brand and what it means as a brand to consumers is quite valuable. And so this litigation is an effort to try to, in accordance with its late founder, Steve Jobs, defend itself there. But as you allude to, there is this danger that if they become perceived as litigious, or if that part of the company crowds out the more innovative, creative, design-oriented side of things, then obviously it becomes problematic for Apple. They don’t want to lose what’s been at the core of their identity and what’s caused them to become the world’s most valuable company.

In a separate interview immediately following the interview with Hsu, Matwyshyn talked about the case’s implications for U.S. patent law and how patents are being employed by companies seeking to protect their inventions and technology.

Knowledge at Wharton: Andrea, I’ll start by asking you the same question we posed to David earlier: Who would you say are the key winners and losers from the court’s decision last week?

Andrea Matwyshyn: The winners and losers in this decision still remain to be determined. The commentary that’s been running in the press and in academic circles is, frankly, a little divided. On the one hand, the commentators and academics who are very supportive of patent holder rights view this as a strong win for Apple. However, of course, the decision is likely to be appealed. And so the ultimate outcome with respect to the damages award and the crafting of the decision itself may come under scrutiny at a higher level.

On the other hand, we have some commentators who are pointing to Samsung getting an indirect kind of market base win in this case with [the decision] highlighting a kind of de facto comparison of similarity between the products that Apple and Samsung are offering. Some consumers may view this in essence as a court saying, “Hey, these are functionally equivalent products.” And then the consumers look at the price point and recognize that one is significantly less expensive than the other.

However, I think the big-picture questions that are perhaps most interesting with respect to this case are the questions about the identity crisis that exists in the U.S. patent system and the conversation that we need to have as society about what it is that we’re trying to achieve in our models of innovation and in our intellectual property law. There were many different bases for Apple’s assertion that Samsung was infringing on its intellectual property rights: utility patent arguments, trade dress arguments, they really ran the gamut. And the way that these legal rights are constructed is somewhat problematic.

When we’re talking about patent reform — as we are these days in Congress and in society as a whole — this case really kind of brings to the fore and encapsulates some of these legal and policy discussions about different models of innovation and what we’re trying to achieve when we are affording certain individuals rights to enforce limited access to their creations. And, on the other hand, we have companies or individuals who are leveraging that existing knowledge — perhaps overly aggressively, but nevertheless leveraging that existing knowledge — to bring new products to market and potentially offering more choices to the consumer in the marketplace.

So this is a broader social conversation that needs to happen, and that’s the big take away here — that the law and social policy and innovation are confused. This is just the first round of this broader battle that’s going to be playing out over many years to come.

Knowledge at Wharton: Do you feel that patent law as it exists now is accomplishing what it was intended to achieve? Or has it become a hindrance to innovation?

Matwyshyn: That’s the big debate that we need to have as a society. On the one hand, certainly in some cases, affording a patent holder the right to defend their created product means that perhaps more research and development will happen in some cases because companies and individuals will be motivated by the desire for financial gain and to be able to control the creations that they’re making. However, we also know from creativity theory research that many people create not because they’re seeking financial rewards; they create for other reasons. So this bigger-picture question of what we’re trying to accomplish with our legal regimes and whether we’re accomplishing those goals, that’s what I’m really highlighting in this case.

The patent system has also evolved across time to include what some commentators view to be problematic players. For example, “patent trolls,” or people who aren’t really using the inventions for which they hold patents, but they nevertheless seek to enforce the rights that pertain in connection with their granted patents. So some commentators view these patent trolls as being part of the problem. And although they technically have the legal rights to enforce these patents, they’re not necessarily adding value to the business space because they’re not bringing new products to market; they’re not really actively using the rights that they hold to research and develop in new directions.

Knowledge at Wharton: The decision has prompted some outcry over Apple seeking to enforce patents that would seem to severely limit competitors, such as the shape of the phone or the way you move your fingers to zoom in. Do you feel like this is just another form of being a “patent troll”?

Matwyshyn: That’s the debate that I’m pointing to, that you have these different overlapping legal categories of potentially protectable interests. And it’s not clear which of these categories necessarily pertain in all cases. There’s a debate over whether the way that technology related patents are currently granted is simply not sustainable in the long term. There’s a debate over whether the types of patents that you’re pointing to, the utility and design patents, whether those should even be protectable through patent law. Maybe they’re better protectable through copyright…. It’s not clear that we have optimized the balance between giving innovators the right to defend their products and simultaneously offering the marketplace more product choice by allowing for building off of those products.

These two parties, Apple and Samsung, have approximately 50 rounds of litigation going on in various different forums throughout the world, so this battle is an epic one that spans continents, not merely the U.S. courts. Another interesting wrinkle in this particular relationship is that apart from the drama of the scope of this legal battle, there was a failed attempt to license some of these technologies that existed prior to the filing of some of the litigation.

So we have this discussion also in terms of should we be encouraging parties to collaborate more and to share their technologies? And are there ways to create incentives for licensing of technology, rather than having the result of tension in the technology space end up in the courts? It’s not always a socially or even individually efficient solution to have people going to court all the time. Lawyers are expensive. Judicial resolutions to these kinds of questions take time. Ultimately, that is time that maybe we should refocus toward more research and development, more innovation and the streamlining of the squabbles that exist between players in this space through encouraging licensing and sharing of research, rather than creating legal incentives for people to want to duke it out in courts of law.

Knowledge at Wharton: Do you feel that there is the will in the technology industry to do that? David had mentioned in our earlier conversation that the judge in this case had previously, unsuccessfully, urged Apple and Samsung to reach a private settlement.

Matwyshyn: This demonstrates the reality that when tensions run high, companies or individuals don’t necessarily see it to be in their best interest to be accommodating of each other and to want to resolve battles. Press reports indicate that Steve Jobs was very upset over the emergence of, for example, some Google [Android-based] products and viewed it as almost a personal betrayal, and that, by press accounts, he was “ready to go thermonuclear” on this situation.

When you have inventors’ emotions wrapped up in legal battles, or really in almost any business scenario, it’s not always the case that parties will act in their economic best interests. Humans are not always rational and predictable creatures. And so that has to be factored in when we are analyzing optimal regimes for incentivizing innovation.

The other moving piece in this litigation that many press accounts have highlighted, and in particular as jurors are being interviewed by the press [is that] it’s becoming evident that the jury deliberations that happened in this case — although perhaps they weren’t unusual in terms of the quality of deliberation that happens in various jury cases — were a bit rushed and that the jurors did not necessarily fully process the information at the high level of analytical specificity that certainly legal experts would have preferred.

Some of the comments that the jurors are sharing with the press indicate that perhaps there was a desire to punish Samsung rather than to obtain a redress for Apple for real economic harms that they had suffered. That, again, calls into question the broader structure of the way that we resolve intellectual property disputes, particularly in a technology context. The question of whether code, computer code, is even patentable subject matter is up for grabs right now in terms of the way the different courts are analyzing these questions. Legal commentators expect to see more action in this space, potentially resulting in the Supreme Court ultimately accepting the case for resolution.

Knowledge at Wharton: Moving away from the patent question a little, how do you think the case will affect consumer perception of the companies involved?

Matwyshyn: That’s a great question. As I mentioned in the beginning of my comments, there is some discussion of whether this legal process has highlighted the similarity between the Apple and the Samsung products, and maybe some consumers will, in fact, consider a Samsung product now when they would not have in the past.

Other consumers might perceive Apple to be acting as a bit of a bully by using courts rather than research and development labs to continue to innovate. Consumers might argue that even if there is recognition [that Apple was behind] a particularly useful mechanism, such as the pinch and zoom method, that they want to have other companies model that winning development, and to build on each other’s knowledge and bring more products into the market. So I think consumer reaction will be mixed.

Now of course, there’s a very strong “Apple fan boy” dynamic in the consumer marketplace as well, so Apple supporters will undoubtedly be very pleased with this result. I think it’s a mixed bag all around, and we will have to take a look, again, and revisit these questions in about two or three years to see how the big picture has evolved in this space.

Knowledge at Wharton: This case is just one of a number of patent-related lawsuits and moves that have taken place in the smartphone and tablet market. For example, Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility was widely believed to be motivated by acquiring patents. What do you think this “patent land grad” means for the future of smartphone and tablet design?

Matwyshyn: There’s speculation that exists in the press, in part because of what has been reported to be personal animosity that existed between Steve Jobs and Google, that the ultimate target or goal of Apple’s aggressive litigation posture is to ultimately go after Google Android, which has been building market share very aggressively. Attacking or highlighting the manufacturers of the physical hardware upon which Android runs is a way to undercut or slow down Android adoption throughout the marketplace. So the exact outcome of that strategy and Apple’s future relationship to Google are certainly two of the most interesting moving pieces in this broader conversation.

More From Knowledge at Wharton

How Gen AI Could Trigger the Next CrowdStrike Catastrophe

Without Guardrails, Generative AI Can Harm Education

Generative AI Can Have a Negative Impact on Learning

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Apple v. Samsung heads to Supreme Court: What you need to know

FAQ: Remember that tiff about how Galaxy phones look like iPhones? The highest court in the land hears arguments Tuesday.

The biggest patent case to hit the modern tech world is back again.

Apple and Samsung will appear before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday to argue why their opponent was wrong when it came to a patent case from 2012. This is the first time a design patent case has been examined by the Supreme Court since the 1800s.

A decision by the court could have a ripple effect across the technology industry and ultimately affect the gadgets you buy. What's at question is how much money one company has to pay for copying the designs of another. Samsung says an Apple victory would stifle innovation. Apple argues that a Samsung win would weaken the protections afforded to new creations.

Notably, none of the devices in question has been on the market for years.

Samsung's infringing devices (pictures)

"One of the interesting things about this whole odyssey is it's a great demonstration of how slowly the law moves relative to technology," said Mark A. Lemley , a Stanford Law School professor and one of the people who signed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Samsung. "Here, we're on the first-generation trial, but...we're generations behind what the companies are selling."

You're forgiven if you don't remember what this was all about beyond phones and patents. Don't worry, CNET has you covered. And we've done the homework about SCOTUS so you don't have to scramble to remember your high school civics class.

Samsung said in a comment that it looks "forward to the Supreme Court's guidance on a very important matter that has the potential to stifle innovation and consumer choice. Samsung is honored to lead the charge in helping pave the way for future innovators and foster an environment where the fear of unreasonable law suits don't impinge upon their creativity."

Apple didn't have a comment ahead of Tuesday's hearing.

What was this about again?

Yeah, this all seems like it happened a long time ago. The original Apple v. Samsung trial in 2012 captivated Silicon Valley and the tech industry because it exposed the inner workings of two notoriously secretive companies. It was just one of many cases around the world as the rivals sparred both in the marketplace and in the courtroom.

At issue were design patents for a black, rectangular, round-cornered front face; a similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding rim, known as the bezel; and a colorful grid of 16 icons. Those three patents are what's being considered in the Supreme Court case.

For more on Apple v. Samsung

• CNET's full Apple v. Samsung coverage
• Supreme Court steps into Apple v. Samsung fray
• Samsung to Supreme Court: Apple got too much money for its design patents
• Apple tells Supreme Court that Samsung case is 'legally unexceptional'

What devices were accused of infringing Apple's patents?

The products in question included the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.

What was the decision in the original case?

In August of 2012, a nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. At that time, the jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, much less than the $2.75 billion sought by the Cupertino, California, electronics giant. Samsung, which asked for $421 million in its countersuit, didn't get anything.

How much did Samsung end up paying Apple?

District Court Judge Lucy Koh, in striking $450.5 million off the original judgment against Samsung, ordered a new trial to begin in November 2013 to recalculate some of the damages in the case. South Korea-based Samsung ultimately paid Apple $548 million in damages in December 2015.

The amount was based on the total profits Samsung made from its infringing devices. That's what Samsung -- and other tech companies like Dell and Facebook -- want the Supreme Court to change. In this case, Samsung sold 10.7 million infringing devices, generating $3.5 billion in revenue.

Only $399 million of the $548 million paid to Apple -- considered the "additional remedy" amount under Section 289 of the Patent Act of 1952 (35 U.S.C. 289) -- is being examined in the Supreme Court case. The additional $149 million in damages Samsung paid Apple is not at stake.

So what's the issue with money?

This is what the entire Supreme Court case is about. Samsung wanted the court to give guidance on what's covered by design patents (which protect the way an item looks) and also on what damages can be collected. But the Supreme Court is looking only at the second issue: "Where a patented design is applied only to a component of a product, should an award of infringer's profits be limited to profits attributable to that component?"

Samsung believes design patents are given too much value when it comes to legal damages. The company contends that Apple should get profits only from the parts of a smartphone that infringe Apple's patents -- the front face and a grid of icons on a user interface -- not the profits from the entire phone.

Apple, meanwhile, quotes Congress in saying that "it is the design that sells the article" and, because profits attributable to design are often "not apportionable," it wants the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling. It did admit, in recent court filings, that sometimes a patent holder shouldn't collect profits on an entire product, but instead only on an infringing portion. But it said Samsung didn't provide enough evidence of that during this case.

Weren't there some other cases between Apple and Samsung?

Yes. The 2012 case wasn't the only time Apple accused Samsung of patent infringement. The two companies also battled in April 2014 over newer devices, specifically the Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4S. In that case, a jury told Samsung to pay Apple $119.6 million for infringing some of its patents, while Apple owed Samsung $158,400 for infringing one of the Korean company's patents.

Another damages retrial -- which would have been the fourth showdown between the companies -- was slated to start in late March in San Jose, California. But Koh put the trial on hold until the Supreme Court reviews the case.

The companies also were battling in overseas courts but agreed in August 2014 to settle all litigation outside the US.

Who sides with Samsung?

Dozens of legal experts, nonprofit organizations and technology companies filed amicus , or friend of the court, briefs in support of Samsung in January when it was trying to get the Supreme Court to hear its case.

Tech companies that support Samsung include Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google and HP. Other groups supporting Samsung included 50 professors of intellectual-property law, from places like Stanford and Georgetown universities, and digital-rights nonprofits like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Who sides with Apple?

More than 100 design industry professionals , including well-known fashion names like Calvin Klein and Alexander Wang, signed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Apple. The designers and educators said the iPhone's distinctive look drove people to buy it, so a similar-looking Samsung phone could hurt Apple's sales.

How is the government involved in this?

The US Department of Justice's Office of the Solicitor General (the group tasked with supervising and conducting government litigation in the Supreme Court) in June filed an amicus brief "supporting neither party." The attorney for the US will be Brian Fletcher, assistant to the solicitor general

Top evidence in Apple v. Samsung according to juror (pictures)

But it largely sided with Samsung in believing the lower court interpreted the law incorrectly. Still, it kept open the possibility that Samsung didn't present enough evidence to show it shouldn't have to pay remedies on the entire profits from its infringing devices.

The Justice Department believes patent holders should get full profits from the sale of an "article of manufacture," (as detailed in the patent law) but it doesn't believe the definition of an article is clear. Instead of an article being the entire phone, an article may actually be only the physical shell of the phone.

The agency said the ruling of the US Court of Appeals should be vacated and the case should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings.

When is the Supreme Court hearing?

It starts at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday and lasts for an hour.

Who will be representing the companies at the Supreme Court?

Kathleen Sullivan, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel , will be speaking for Samsung. Her firm represented Samsung in the earlier trials. She's argued nine cases before the US Supreme Court.

Seth Waxman, a partner at law firm WilmerHale , will be speaking for Apple. He's a former solicitor general of the US and works for the same firm as Bill Lee, one of the lead attorneys in the previous trials. Waxman has delivered 75 oral arguments in the Supreme Court.

Wait, there are only eight justices now. Could there be a tie?

Yes. Because there are eight justices, there's no tiebreaker. The Supreme Court was split 4-4 in June in a case challenging Obama's 2014 immigration policies . If there's a tie, the lower court's ruling is affirmed.

But over the last three SCOTUS terms, seven patent cases were decided unanimously. And patent cases typically don't split along liberal versus conservative lines.

What happens if Apple wins?

More court time. There's still litigation going on between Apple and Samsung for other patents, and a second damages retrial from the 2012 case was slated to start in mid-March. Along with the $548 million Samsung agreed to pay, Apple argued its rival owed an additional $180 million in supplemental damages and interest. Koh put that trial on hold until after the Supreme Court reaches its decision.

What happens if Samsung wins?

Yep: more trials. If the Supreme Court limits the money that can be collected on infringing patents, a lower court will have to decide how much Apple is owed.

Other current design patent cases and those going through appeal would face the new Supreme Court interpretation, which means damages would be much lower than in the past.

When will there be a decision?

The Supreme Court recesses for the year on June 30, which means a decision should come before then. It's likely a ruling will come in the first quarter of 2017.

Inside the Apple v. Samsung courtroom (sketches)

First published October 9 at 5:00 a.m. PT. Updated through October 11 at 5:50 a.m. PT Added details, including the profits Apple wants to collect, and clarified the description of design patents.

Mobile Guides

• Best iPhone
• Best Galaxy S24 Deals
• Best iPhone Deals
• Samsung Galaxy S24 Review
• Best Android Phones
• Best Samsung Galaxy Phone
• Pixel 8 Pro Review
• iPhone 15 Pro/Pro Max Review
• Best iPhone 15 Deals
• Best Foldable Phones
• Galaxy Z Fold 5 Review
• OnePlus Open Review
• Best Galaxy Z Flip Deals
• Best Wireless Earbuds
• Best Noise Canceling Headphones
• Best Headphones
• Best Over Ear Headphones
• Best Wireless Earbuds and Headphones for Making Calls
• Best Headphones for Work at Home
• Best Noise Canceling Wireless Earbuds
• Best Sounding Wireless Earbuds
• Best Cheap Wireless Earbuds
• Best Wireless Headphones
• Best iPhone 15 Cases
• Best iPhone 14 Cases
• Best Power Bank for iPhone
• Best Airpods Pro Accessories
• Best Magsafe iPhone Accessories
• Best Speakerphone
• Best Wireless Car Charger and Mount
• Best iPhone Fast Charger
• Best Portable Chargers and Power Banks for Android
• Apple Watch Series 8 vs Series 7
• Best Apple Watch Bands
• Best Android Smartwatch
• Apple Watch Ultra Review
• Best Smartwatch
• Best Prepaid Phone Plans
• Best Cheap Phone Plans
• Best Unlimited Data Plans
• Best Phone Plans
• Best Phone Plan Deals
• Best Senior Phone Plans
• Best Family Phone Plans
• Best Travel Phone Plans
• Best Verizon Plans

Apple and Samsung settle seven-year-long patent fight over copying the iPhone

By Jacob Kastrenakes , a deputy editor who oversees tech and news coverage. Since joining The Verge in 2012, he’s published 5,000+ stories and is the founding editor of the creators desk.

Share this story

Apple and Samsung have finally put an end to their long-running patent battle whose central question was whether Samsung copied the iPhone. In a court filing today, Judge Lucy Koh said the two companies had informed her that they had reached a settlement. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

The patent battle started in 2011 and initially resulted in a $1 billion ruling in Apple’s favor. But it didn’t end there. A series of appeals pushed the dispute to the Supreme Court and back, as the companies continually rehashed which patents were infringed and, more recently, exactly how much Samsung owes Apple because of the infringement.

“This case has always been about more than money.”

The case revolved around a number of design and utility patents for basic functions of a smartphone, like tap to zoom and the home screen app grid. But while the fight was hashed out using specific patents, the battle was ultimately about whether Samsung copied Apple in the early days of smartphones to gain an edge. The jury decided that, in many ways, it had.

Most recently, the verdict had been whittled down to $539 million for Apple. Samsung filed to appeal that earlier this month. But the two companies were able to reach an agreement before it could be litigated again.

Apple declined to give terms of the settlement and pointed to a statement it made in May, when the case was last ruled on:

We believe deeply in the value of design, and our teams work tirelessly to create innovative products that delight our customers. This case has always been about more than money. Apple ignited the smartphone revolution with iPhone and it is a fact that Samsung blatantly copied our design. It is important that we continue to protect the hard work and innovation of so many people at Apple.   We’re grateful to the jury for their service and pleased they agree that Samsung should pay for copying our products.

Samsung declined to comment.

It’s not entirely clear why, after all these years, this case is finally coming to a close now. As Apple points out, money was hardly the issue here — and really, the amounts being discussed never amounted to anything substantial for either company. It’s seemed more like neither company was willing to break over the years and put an end to such a symbolically important battle. Perhaps, so many years (and some leadership changes) later, they no longer cared enough to see this through to the bitter end.

Apple and Samsung had one other major patent battle, which was first decided in 2014 but didn’t end until last year. In that case, Apple won $120 million over violations of its slide-to-unlock patent and several others. The two companies also had patent fights going internationally, but they agreed to drop those lawsuits back in 2014.

With both of these cases wrapped up, the seemingly endless, occasionally dramatic, and often extremely technical battle between these two smartphones giants is finally, officially over. At least until the next one.

What to expect from Apple’s ‘It’s Glowtime’ iPhone 16 event

The remarkable paper pro is as outrageous as it is luxurious, the internet archive just lost its appeal over ebook lending, microsoft to announce ‘next phase of copilot’ on september 16th, concord was worse than bad — it was forgettable.

More from this stream Apple vs. Samsung: the complete lawsuit timeline

Samsung drags apple back to court for a retrial over $400 million patent damages, samsung gets another chance to reduce apple’s $400 million patent win, samsung will take its legal fight with apple to the supreme court, court will reduce apple's $930 million win in samsung patent case.

• Vote: Reader’s Choice
• Meta Quest 4
• Google Pixel 9
• Google Pixel 8a
• Apple Vision Pro 2
• Nintendo Switch 2
• Samsung Galaxy Ring
• Yellowstone Season 6
• Recall an Email in Outlook
• Stranger Things Season 5

Why are Apple and Samsung throwing down? A timeline of the biggest fight in tech

On March 31, a $2 billion trial between Apple and Samsung began in California court. Apple is accusing Samsung of infringing on software patents related to its iPhone. If you’re feeling a sense of deja vu, you aren’t crazy. The legal battle between the two largest mobile tech companies has been raging quietly and loudly for nearly four years, and it’s set to last for at least another three.

To help catch you up (and honestly, keep track of this mess ourselves) we’ve put together a timeline of what’s happened in the last few years. If you want to know what happens when two immovable objects crash into each other, this is a good case study.

The Players

Samsung is a tech powerhouse:  Not only does it make many of the components used in devices from many vendors, it owns key patents related to wireless communication technology and is the most successful Android device maker by a massive margin.

Apple arguably invented the modern smartphone and tablet: It tries to protect its products by dotting every i and crossing every t with patents on from outward design to that rubber-band stretchy effect you get on iOS when you scroll past the edge of a page or photo.

The Apple-Samsung Timeline

Aug. 2010: The warning

Apple warns Samsung it believes some Samsung phones and tablets infringe on Apple patents. Since Samsung is a major Apple supplier and a “trusted partner,” Apple wants to work out a deal.

Oct. 2010: The failed meeting

Apple meets with Samsung to propose a licensing deal where Samsung would pay Apple up to $30 per phone an $40 per tablet. In comparison, six months earlier HTC agreed to pay Microsoft a reported $5 for every Android device sold. Samsung declines.

April 2011: The first lawsuit, and the countersuit

Apple sues Samsung , claiming Samsung “slavishly” copied its product designs. Within days, Samsung countersues over 3G technology patents, and takes the fight international by filing claims against Apple in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

Aug. – Sept. 2011: Products pulled from shelves

Apple has sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 put on hold in Australia and secures an injunction on Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in the EU , claiming its design too closely resembled the iPad. The EU injunction is quickly scaled back to just Germany , but Apple gets the German ban extended to the Galaxy Tab 7.7 .

Apple’s patents include design elements as well as slide-to-unlock, rubber-banding, and universal search features.

Both companies start to get specific about patents at play. Apple’s patents include design elements as well as slide-to-unlock, rubber-banding, and universal search features; Samsung’s complaints center on standards-essential patents for 3G mobile technology that are supposed to be available to anyone on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ( FRAND ) terms.

Nov. – Dec. 2011: 30 open lawsuits

Australia allows the Galaxy tablet to go on sale many months after its planned debut, but Samsung changes the design to get around the sales ban in Germany. Samsung manages to get iPhones and iPads banned in Germany for a few hours, and Apple loses a bid to block sales of specific Samsung 4G phones in the United States.

More cases get filed. The fight now spans about 30 cases spanning North America, Asia, Europe, and Australia.

March – May 2012: Settlement talks begin (and fail)

July 2012: Apple publicly admits Samsung didn’t copy

Samsung and Google are forced to scale back the universal search bar on the Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S3 in response to an injunction granted by Judge Koh.

A UK court orders Apple to post public notice that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad’s design — ostensibly because Samsung’s tablets just weren’t as cool . (Apple eventually complied rather cheekily , and was forced to take a do-over .)

Judge Koh asked if Apple was “on crack” for submitting a 75-page list of potential witnesses at the last minute.

Apple and Samsung are now engaged in more than 50 lawsuits worldwide.

August 2012: Apple’s $1 billion victory

Boom. After three days of deliberation the U.S. jury sides with Apple , awarding over $1 billion in damages and finding that 26 Samsung products infringed on both Apple software and design patents. The decision is controversial, generating debate about whether the jury acted properly and if lay juries should sit on patent cases at all.

Apple quickly files a second U.S. lawsuit against Samsung, asserting 21 more devices released since August 2011 infringe on Apple patents, including the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note.

Oct. – Nov. 2012: Galaxy Nexus ban lifted

An appeals court lifts an injunction on U.S. sales of the Samsung-made Galaxy Nexus, which had been Apple’s strongest blow against a flagship Android product.

Dec. 2012: Apple’s patents called into question

Judge Koh denies Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung. Despite Apple’s court victory, Samsung’s infringing products remain on sale.

March 2013: Apple’s victory shrinks, retrial set

Judge Koh finds the U.S. jury calculated damages incorrectly, so she invalidates $450 million of the $1 billion awarded to Apple and orders a retrial to determine proper damages.

June 2013: ITC rules iPads infringe on Samsung patents

In a surprise win for Samsung, the U.S. International Trade Commission rules older iPhones and iPads should be barred in the United States for infringing on a standards-essential patent belonging to Samsung.

Aug. 2013: ITC ruling vetoed, ITC blocks older Samsung phones

The United States Trade Representative outright vetoes the June ITC ruling two days before going into effect. Some view the decision as Apple pulling strings in Washington D.C., while others call it a victory for not allowing companies to use standards-essential patents as weapons in litigation.

A few days later, the ITC blocks some older Samsung phones from sale in the United States for violating two Apple patents.

Nov. 2013: Retrial starts, Apple seeks $379.8 million

The retrial on damages invalidated by Judge Koh gets underway . Apple seeks $379.8 million; Samsung argues the amount should be $52 million. A Samsung representative concedes in court some of its devices “contain some elements of Apple’s property.” Judge Koh awards Apple $290 million in damages, bringing the Samsung’s total penalty in the first U.S. case down from $1.05 billion to $929 million.

March 2014: Samsung asked for $1 billion, immediately appeals

The $929 million judgement against Samsung in the first U.S. trial becomes official. The next day, Samsung files a formal appeal.

Steve Jobs hated Android and once called it a “stolen” product — a ripoff of the iPhone.

April 2014: New $2 billion trial underway

During the first days of April, the jury was selected and Apple’s Phil Schiller sat in the hot seat .

Here’s what to expect in the coming weeks and months:

• An initial decision (or mistrial) in the second U.S. case.
• Samsung’s appeal of the first U.S. case, expected to hinge on the validity of key Apple patents. However, the appeals process will likely run ahead of the patent review process, putting the whole thing into question.
• Samsung (or Apple!) appealing the second U.S. case.
• Final rulings on the validity of key Apple patents in the first U.S. case. Even if they’re invalidated, Apple thinks the process will take at least until mid-2017 .

Where we stand now

As of early 2104, Apple has been largely successful against Samsung, with the bulk of rulings and court decisions going in Apple’s favor. Apple has also struck a blow against companies (like Motorola) using predatory licensing on standards-essential patents to seek bans on competing products, and can perhaps claim a moral victory with Samsung outright admitting some of its products copied Apple technology.

However, Apple has almost nothing concrete to show for its efforts with Samsung. Apple hasn’t managed to get Samsung’s key products banned in major markets, Apple hasn’t collected a penny of damages from the high-profile first U.S. trial, and the ongoing international litigation is at best a distraction and at worst a long-term drain on the company.

(Lead image courtesy of  Valentin Agapov  and  hurricanehank  via Shutterstock )

Editors’ Recommendations

• Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra vs. Apple Watch Ultra 2: Which one is the best?
• Samsung’s next smartwatch is going full-on Apple Watch Ultra clone
• Apple just admitted defeat to Android phones
• Why I ditched my iPhone 15 Pro for the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra
• The OnePlus 12 has one big advantage over Samsung and Apple

Samsung Galaxy season is almost here. The S24 line is on its way, and you can pre-order the S24, S24+ and S24 Ultra right now. You're almost out of time to get pre-orders, as the phone drops on January 31. Nearly every retailer and carrier has a discount on the new line, so it can be hard to pick the best offer. We dug into all the deals and chose the absolute best. Check it out below, then see what each individual carrier is offering. The best unlocked Galaxy S24 pre-order deal Go direct to the source with the Samsung Galaxy S24 and Samsung has a great pre-order deal. Pre-order now and you can benefit from up to $550 off the Samsung Galaxy S24 when you trade in an eligible phone. Additionally, there’s a free storage upgrade with the phone coming with 256GB of space instead of 128GB, while there’s $25 Samsung credit on the standard phone. Upgrade to the Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus and you gain $75 Samsung credit and up to $650 through the enhanced trade-in scheme. In both cases, follow the link below and you gain an extra $50 Samsung credit which you can’t get through the site. The Samsung Galaxy S24 offers a 6.2-inch full HD+ screen while the S24 Plus is bigger with a 6.7-inch quad HD+ display. Both offer speedy performance, great cameras, new AI-powered features, and up to 2,600 nits of peak brightness as well as variable 120Hz refresh rates.

The best Galaxy S24 pre-order deals at T-Mobile Score one of the best Android phones on T-Mobile and the discounts are a little different. Here, you can get up to $800 off the phone via an eligible trade-in. The amount is paid back via 24 monthly bill credits and requires you to sign up to a Go5G Plus or Go5G Next plan. For the Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus, the amount increases to up to $1,000. Alternatively, sign up for a ONE, Magenta, or Go5G plan and you can gain up to $500 back depending on which phone you trade in.

Samsung has been sitting pretty at the top of the global smartphone market for more than a decade. Until now, that is.

Data released this week by research firm IDC shows that the Korean tech giant has been knocked off its perch by archrival Apple thanks in part to robust sales of the iPhone.

If you're always losing and misplacing stuff, you may want to invest in Bluetooth trackers. These handy devices can be placed or attached to any object -- and even held by people or pets! If you think they'll be very useful for you, there are three options with discounts right now from Amazon -- the Tile Mate for $18, down $7 from $25; the Samsung Galaxy SmartTag2 for $20, down $10 from $30; and the Apple AirTag for $27, down $2 from $29. You're going to have to hurry if you want to take advantage of any of these offers though, especially if you're planning to buy multiples, because they may expire at any moment. Tile Mate --  Samsung Galaxy SmartTag2 --  Apple AirTag -- 

Tile Mate -- $18, was $25

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2016)

The Patent Act prohibits the manufacture or sale an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable “to the extent of his total profit,” 35 U.S.C. 289. A jury found that Samsung smartphones infringed Apple's design patents, which covered a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 million—Samsung’s entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed and remanded. In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for a section 289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. The Court noted Patent Act section 171(a), which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection and permits a design patent that extends to only a component of a multicomponent product. The term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not. The Court declined to resolve whether the relevant article of manufacture for each design patent at issue is the smartphone or a particular smartphone component.

For a damages award under 35 U.S.C. 289, a patent infringement statute, the relevant article of manufacture may be only a component of the product sold to the consumer if the product has multiple components.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. v . APPLE INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit

No. 15–777. Argued October 11, 2016—Decided December 6, 2016

Section 289 of the Patent Act makes it unlawful to manufacture or sell an “article of manufacture” to which a patented design or a colorable imitation thereof has been applied and makes an infringer liable to the patent holder “to the extent of his total profit.” 35 U. S. C. §289. As relevant here, a jury found that various smartphones manufactured by petitioners (collectively, Samsung) infringed design patents owned by respondent Apple Inc. that covered a rectangular front face with rounded edges and a grid of colorful icons on a black screen. Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire profit from the sale of its infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone. The court reasoned that such a limit was not required because the components of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately to ordinary consumers and thus were not distinct articles of manufacture.

Held : In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a §289 damages award need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. Pp. 4–9.

(a) The statutory text resolves the issue here. An “article of manufacture,” which is simply a thing made by hand or machine, encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product. This reading is consistent with §171(a) of the Patent Act, which makes certain “design[s] for an article of manufacture” eligible for design patent protection, and which has been understood by the Patent Office and the courts to permit a design patent that extends to only a component of a multicomponent product, see, e.g. , Ex parte Adams , 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311; Application of Zahn , 617 F.2d 261, 268 (CCPA). This reading is also consistent with the Court’s reading of the term “manufacture” in §101, which makes “any new and useful . . . manufacture” eligible for utility patent protection. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303 , 308. Pp. 4–7.

(b) Because the term “article of manufacture” is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not, the Federal Circuit’s narrower reading cannot be squared with §289’s text. Absent adequate briefing by the parties, this Court declines to resolve whether the relevant article of manufacture for each design patent at issue here is the smartphone or a particular smartphone component. Doing so is not necessary to resolve the question presented, and the Federal Circuit may address any remaining issues on remand. Pp. 7–8.

786 F.3d 983, reversed and remanded.

Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

• Opinion (Sotomayor)

• Oral Arguments
• Download PDF Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Supreme Court Gives Samsung a Reprieve in Apple Patent Case

By Adam Liptak and Vindu Goel

• Dec. 6, 2016

WASHINGTON — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Samsung may not have to give up $399 million in profits for copying parts of the distinctive look of Apple’s iPhone.

A federal law says that companies found liable for infringing design patents on an “article of manufacture” are liable for their total profits. The decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, turned on the meaning of the quoted phrase.

Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said an article of manufacture may sometimes be the entire product sold to consumers — here, Samsung’s phones — and sometimes be the components found to have infringed a design patent.

Apple’s patents covered specific design elements of the iPhone, including its black rectangular front face with rounded corners and its colorful grid of 16 icons. A jury found in 2012 that Samsung had infringed those patents .

“All told,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Apple was awarded $399 million in damages for Samsung’s design patent infringement, the entire profit Samsung made from its sales of the infringing smartphones.”

Design patents, which address what products look like, are far less common than utility patents, which cover how products work. The Supreme Court had not heard a design patent case in over a century.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Apple vs. Samsung: The Design Patent War Between Two Technology Giants

By- dhani Editors - paruli upadhyaya

Nokia and Motorola dominated the mobile phone market before Apple and Samsung became the world’s largest smartphone manufacturers. In 2007, Apple took over the market with the launch of ‘iPhone’, a product that rapidly gained popularity due to its large and multi-touch user interface. Apple continued to dominate the smartphone market for years until Samsung introduced its Galaxy series in 2013 and emerged as a tough competitor. It was Samsung’s heavy advertising together with the distinct Android features that enabled Galaxy to overtake iPhone to become the most popular smartphone brand globally. This led to the beginning of a hostile competition and endless court battles between the two technology giants.

The following article discusses the design patent litigations and the battle of power between Apple and Samsung.

Table of Contents

The Beginning of Patent Lawsuits

Although filing lawsuits is a common strategy for Apple, its focus on Samsung is quite intense and recurrent. In 2011, when Apple was already embroiled with Motorola, it went after Samsung for tablet and smartphone designs. The first claim came in April and by August 2011, there were 19 continuing cases between Apple and Samsung in nine countries. The number of cases reached four dozen by mid-2012, wherein both firms claimed billions of dollars in damages. Each company won numerous decisions against the other during 2012-2015, quite often in contradictory rulings from German, American, Japanese, South Korean, Italian, French, British, Dutch, and Australian courts.

In 2012, Apple was victorious in an initial verdict in a case that targeted over one dozen Samsung phones. However, the appeals and counter lawsuit processes continued until 2014 when almost every target model was out of production. The actual damage, therefore, was not on the production line but in the massive legal costs incurred by the two companies.

However, there have been some production or distribution wins as well. For instance, in August 2011, a German court ordered an injunction on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 across the EU for infringing Apple’s interface patent. Though Samsung defended itself and the injunction was reduced to German markets, it was still a big win for Apple.

Timeline of the Apple vs. Samsung Legal Battle

• April 2011: In the actual legal action filed by Apple against Samsung, the former stated that Samsung had copied the design as well as the technology of Apple products.
• August 2011: Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement through its products, including the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. In response, Samsung sued Apple over 3G patents and stated that iPhone such as iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and iPad 2 infringed its patents.
• November 2011: In late 2011, Samsung was held victorious against Apple. A federal court in Australia lifted the preliminary sales injunction banning Galaxy tablet sales. A stay, however, was just another condition that stopped Samsung from selling the tablet till December 2, 2011.
• December 2011 – April 2012: Apple failed to block Samsung from selling some 4G-enabled products to US consumers. The iPhone manufacturer accused Samsung of “failing to comply” with the order set against it as part of the deal and “ partial compliance ” for not handing over everything that was agreed upon. US District Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over numerous Apple vs. Samsung cases, ordered both the parties to talk. The settlement talk dates were set for May 21-22 in San Francisco.
• May 2012: The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) gave Apple the consent to look for a sales injunction on Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. The CAFC also stated that the sales prohibition must be imposed until a trial.
• June 2012: Following the appeals court ruling, US District Judge Lucy Koh had to reconsider the preparatory sales injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1. Koh conveyed that Apple’s request to prevent Galaxy Tab sales in the US had to wait until the completion of court procedures. A higher appeals court was also required to formally give the jurisdiction back to her before the request could be admitted.
• July 2012: The dispute between the two firms which started in San Jose, California, was estimated to be resolved in four weeks. 10 individuals based in Santa Clara, California, were selected as the jury from a pool of 74 .
• August 2012: Apple won over $1 billion against Samsung in a huge US court decision. It was one of the largest patent cases in decades and its finding was anticipated to have vast market ramifications. As per reports, the jury awarded $1.049 billion to Apple but declined Samsung’s counterclaims against the US tech giant.

The Outcome

Under the US patent laws, the harm of infringing a design patent does not agree with the impairment calculation for infringing a utility patent. Although a design patent owner may recuperate the infringer’s total profits, the utility patent owner may recuperate his/her lost profits or a fair royalty. This explains why the jury’s award based on infringement of a design patent was 100X the award based on infringement of a utility patent. In 2016, the Supreme Court reviewed this case and held that the net profit damages for infringing design patents need not be calculated based on the product sold to the consumer. Instead, it may be worked out based on only a constituent of that product.

The Apple vs. Samsung case not only reminds us of the importance of filing multiple design patents for protecting a new product’s look but also the significance of conducting a patent search. In the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung, no matter who emerges as the winner, the consumer will continue to lose unless the companies agree on having a healthy competition and offering their best products.

-Dhani, Adeena, Shubham, Rishabh (ICT Licensing) and the Editorial Team

Having Queries? Contact Us Now!

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Your Work Email *
• Phone Number with Country Code *
• Country * Please Select Country United States Canada United Kingdom China India North Korea South korea United Arab Emirates Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan The Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Chile Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor (Timor-Leste) Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon The Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar (Burma) Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan South Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Company Name *
• Job Title *
• Message (if any)
• Yes, I want to register.
• Consent * I agree to the privacy policy. By clicking the submit button, you give Sagacious IP consent to store and process the personal information submitted above. Sagacious IP is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, we'll only use your information to provide the products and services you requested from us.

You may also like...

5 Tips for Timely Registering Your Intellectual Property and Beating the Competition

Patent Portfolio Pruning – An Effective Method for Immediate Cost Savings

When should you do a Patent Search?

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Next story How Sagacious IP’s Patent Opposition Strategy Helped A Client to Challenge their Competitor’s Patent
• Previous story IP Trends in the Automotive Industry Report

Subscribe for New Blog Updates

• In the News
• Past Webinars
• Press Releases
• Upcoming Webinars

Recent Posts

• Modernizing IP Budget Allocation and Utilization: Key Priorities, Challenges, and Best Practices – Webinar
• Navigating Terahertz Communication: The Crucial Role of IP Management in Telecom Advancements 
• Accelerating Global Patent Protection: Role of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) & AI
• How much does a Patent Cost in the US and Europe, including professional legal fee?
• Moving Beyond the Trademark Basics: Mastering All Aspects