WIPR survey: Samsung v Apple decision won’t make determining damages easier
The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Samsung v Apple has not made determining damages for design patent infringement any easier, according to WIPR readers.
Responding to WIPR’s most recent survey, 66% of respondents believed that the ruling, which held that 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”, did not make determination of damages any easier.
In an 8-0 decision, the court reversed the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had ordered Samsung to pay Apple $399 million in damages.
According to one respondent, the “term is too broad for its meaning and could lead to misunderstandings”.
Another added that determining damages will always be difficult because “there are so many ways in which to construct possible scenarios which did not, in fact, happen”.
They said that the history of substantial damages awards being set by juries and then reset to a much lower figure by courts shows just how flexible the issue can be.
“Even the classic three-way option of your gain, my loss and reasonable royalty doesn't provide much of a resolution,” they said.
One respondent said that a more important issue in the case was that design damages will now be fairer.
“Damages will be harder to calculate but they will also be much fairer, as they will be much more closely related to the actual contribution that the owner of the design patent has made,” said the respondent.
They added that “the designer of a $1 component of a $1,000 smartphone cannot now claim the infringer's entire profits for that smartphone”—and that “can only be the correct result”.
Another respondent explained: “The judgment will allow lower courts to reach decisions in design patent infringement cases which may not have been possible with the uncertainty before the Supreme Court hearing.”
However, one reader was not so optimistic, stating that the court had “erred greatly” in its decision.
They explained that the ruling “will only go towards extending the litigation between Apple and Samsung, making it hard for determinations to be reached in other cases until the final judgment is reached”.
WIPR has listed 10 IP developments that are likely to be important in 2017. Please choose up to 5 answers and feel free to explain your choices.
