Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
786 F.3d 983
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Samsung appeals a final district court judgment in Apple’s favor after a jury found Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and diluted Apple’s trade dresses.
- Patents involved: Apple asserted three design patents (D’677, D’087, D’305) and three utility patents (‘381, ‘915, ‘163); trade dresses included the registered ’983 and an unregistered dress.
- Procedural history: first jury (2012) awarded Apple over $1B; district court upheld infringement, dilution, and validity findings; partial damages retrial; final judgment entered March 6, 2014.
- This appeal follows a Ninth Circuit review applying de novo for JMOL/NEW TRIAL and abuse of discretion for new trial claims.
- The court affirms design-patent infringement and damages, upholds two utility-patent validity findings, but reverses and remands on the two trade-dress claims as to protection for non-functionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Apple’s trade dresses non-functional and protectable? | Apple contends unregistered and ’983 dresses are non-functional. | Samsung argues both dresses are functional and not protectable. | Both unregistered and ’983 trade dresses found functional; reversed denial of JMOL; remand on trade-dress issues. |
| Were design-patent infringement and damages properly decided? | Apple's design patents infringed by Samsung; damages appropriately awarded. | Samsung disputes, citing functionality and damage apportionment issues. | Infringement upheld; damages affirmed; no prejudicial error in instructions; no new trial required. |
| Are the asserted utility patents valid (indefiniteness/anticipation) and damages proper? | Apple asserts validity and justified damages for utility patents. | Samsung contends indefiniteness (’163 claim 50) and anticipation (’915 claim 8). | Claim 50 not indefinite; claim 8 not anticipated; damages for utility patents affirmed; remand for final judgment consistent with trade-dress ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1872) (infringement requires likelihood of deception)
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc; design-patent infringement guidance; prior-art comparison)
- TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (functional features limit trade-dress protection; nonfunctional analysis key)
- Disc Golf Ass’n v. Champion Discs, Inc., 158 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1998) (Disc Golf factors for functionality guidance; functional features limit protection)
- Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) (functional vs. nonfunctional trade dress analysis; high bar for non-functionality)
- Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002) (alternative designs and functionality in trade dress)