Facebook and Google demand review of Apple v Samsung ruling
Facebook and Google are among a group of technology companies that has urged the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review its decision ordering Samsung to pay Apple damages for selling smart phones that infringed three design patents.
In an amicus brief filed by Facebook and Google, as well HP, eBay and Dell, the group argued that if the federal circuit’s decision is not reversed then it “will have significant ramifications” for the parties and the technology industry more generally.
Last month, Samsung asked the federal circuit to re-hear its dispute with Apple en banc.
Samsung had appealed against the court’s May 2015 decision that it should pay Apple $548 million in damages after it was found to have infringed the three design patents.
Of the $548 million, $399 million accounted for the total profits generated from the sale of the infringing smart phones. Samsung wanted the damages to be limited to the profits made.
Two of the three design patents at the centre of the dispute cover the outer shape of a smart phone with curved corners and straight sides, and the third covers the graphical user interface (GUI) of the iPhone.
The group said: “Although the design patents covered only minor features of those complex electronic devices, the panel rejected Samsung’s arguments that damages must be limited to profits made from those infringing features.
“If allowed to stand, that decision will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components.”
In ordering the damages to include to the total profits made by Samsung’s infringing products, the federal circuit cited section 289 of the US Code.
Under that section, an infringer is liable for the “total profit” of the sale of any “article of manufacture” that infringes another party’s design patents.
But the group stated in the amicus brief, filed on July 1, that courts should adopt a narrow interpretation of the phrase “article of manufacture”.
The group added: “There is no dispute that the designs at issue solely involved a portion of the smart phone’s outer shell and one GUI screen. A proper interpretation of section 289 should focus on these components, not the smart phones as a whole.”
Jeremy Oczek, a member at Bond, Schoeneck & King, said the dispute "woke up the tech industry" to the fact that "design patents are very valuable too".
Oczek added that the law on design patents outlined by section 289 is an example of the "problem when the law has not caught up with technology" and it may be something that "Congress may want to take up in the future".
Neither Apple nor Samsung had responded to a request for comment at the time of publication but we will update the story should either company get in touch.
