Samsung V Apple Amicus Brief 1-7-2015

Case: 14-1335 Document: 196 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2015
Nos. 2014-1335 & 2015-1029
In the United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit
APPLE INC.,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(CIV. NO. 11-1846) (THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH, J.)
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

DELL INC., EBAY INC., FACEBOOK INC., GOOGLE INC., HEWLETT-
PACKARD CO., LIMELIGHT NETWORKS INC., NEWEGG INC., AND SAS
INSTITUTE INC. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
KANNON K. SHANMUGAM
DAVID M. KRINSKY
ALLISON B. JONES
CHRISTOPHER A. SUAREZ
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 434-5000
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4, undersigned counsel for amici curiae
certifies the following:
1. The full names of the amici curiae represented by me in this case are
Dell Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Limelight
Networks Inc., Newegg Inc., and SAS Institute Inc.
2. The names of the real parties in interest represented by me are the
same.
3. No parent corporation or publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or
more of the stock of any of the amici curiae represented by me.
4. Amici curiae did not participate in proceedings in the lower tribunals.
The following attorneys have appeared or are expected to appear in this Court on
behalf of the amici curiae: Kannon K. Shanmugam, David M. Krinsky, Allison B.
Jones, and Christopher A. Suarez, all of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005.
/s/Kannon K. Shanmugam
KANNON K. SHANMUGAM
JULY 1, 2015
(i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Interest of amici curiae...............................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Argument....................................................................................................................2
A. Modern technologies are highly complex and consist of numerous
technological components and software subsystems ......................................2
B. Section 289 envisions awarding total profits only on designs of
relatively simple products ................................................................................5
C. In light of the purpose of Section 289, this Court should adopt a
narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘article of manufacture’ ..........................9
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................10
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476 (D. Minn. 1980) ................. 7
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ...................... 7, 8
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) .................... 7, 8
Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,

295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 7
Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ..................................................................... 5
Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885) .............................................. 5
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) ................................................................ 6
Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp.,

270 F.2d 635 (5th Cir. 1959) ................................................................................ 7
Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................ 7
Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co.,

620 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1980) .............................................................................. 7
Trans-World Manufacturing Corp. v. Al Nyman & Sons, Inc.,

750 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 8
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................... 10
Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920)...................... 8
STATUTES
Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 105, § 1, 24 Stat. 387 .......................................................... 5
35 U.S.C. § 289 ............................................................................................1, 5, 9, 10
iii
Page
MISCELLANEOUS
18 Cong. Rec. 834 (1887) .......................................................................................... 6
Braden Cox & Steve DelBianco, Consumer Demand Drives Innovation and
Integration in Desktop Computing,
Ass’n for Competitive Technology (June 2007) .................................................. 5
Federal Trade Commission, The Evolving IP Marketplace (2011) ........................... 9
H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 (1886) ............................................................................... 5, 6
V. Ashnan Nasur et al., Factors Influencing Consumers’ Laptop Purchases,

Sixth Global Conference on Business and Economics (Oct. 15-17, 2006)
<goo.gl/nhi9OU> .................................................................................................. 4
Abraham Pai, Smart TV: Piece by Piece, Samsung Tomorrow

(Sept. 23, 2011) <goo.gl/5vvYWY> ................................................................ 2, 3
R&D Magazine, 2014 Global R&D Funding Forecast

(Dec. 2013) <goo.gl/7LIxBV> ............................................................................. 4
Jonathan Sallet, The Creation of Value: The Value Circle and Evolving
Market Structures, 11 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 185 (2013) ................. 5
S. Rep. No. 49-206 (1886) ......................................................................................... 5
Christopher Versace, What Do Consumers Want in a New Smartphone?,

Forbes (Aug. 21, 2013) <goo.gl/CMG4j6> .......................................................... 4
iv
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici are Dell Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard
Co., Limelight Networks Inc., Newegg Inc., and SAS Institute Inc. Amici are
companies that develop, manufacture, and sell modern technologies, including
smartphones, operating systems, computers, and online platforms, as well as the
components, software, and services that support them.* The panel’s decision in
this case regarding the appropriate measure of damages for the infringement of de-
sign patents will have significant ramifications for amici and the technology indus-
try more generally.
INTRODUCTION
In this closely watched case, the panel upheld a jury’s award of the entirety
of Samsung’s profits on smartphones that were found to have infringed three Ap-
ple design patents relating to a portion of the iPhone’s outer shell and one graph-
ical-user-interface screen. Although the design patents covered only minor fea-
tures of those complex electronic devices, the panel rejected Samsung’s argument
that damages must be limited to the profits made from those infringing features.
See slip op. 25-28. It instead concluded that the relevant statute, 35 U.S.C. § 289,
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c)(5), amici affirm that no
counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or part and no person other than
amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or
submission. Counsel for amici has represented defendants-appellants in other liti-
gation, including litigation against plaintiff-appellee.
(1)
“explicitly authorizes the award of total profit from the article of manufacture bear-
ing the patented design.” Id. at 26-27. Viewing the smartphone as a single “article
of manufacture,” the panel held that the statute required it to award the total profit
where the “innards of Samsung’s smartphones were not sold separately from their
shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers.” Id. at 27-28.
Amici urge rehearing en banc of the panel’s decision. If allowed to stand,
that decision will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on compa-
nies, including amici, who spend billions of dollars annually on research and de-
velopment for complex technologies and their components.
ARGUMENT
A. Modern Technologies Are Highly Complex And Consist Of Numerous

Technological Components And Software Subsystems
Complex, multicomponent products have become the norm in the modern
consumer electronics industry. To use but one example, a so-called “smart televi-
sion” contains over 2,500 high-tech components. See Abraham Pai, Smart TV:
Piece by Piece, Samsung Tomorrow (Sept. 23, 2011) <goo.gl/5vvYWY>. Those
components include an outer casing, speakers, a liquid crystal display, a circuit
board containing 1,200 semiconductors (including chips that support WiFi and
Bluetooth), a wall mount, a remotely controlled keyboard, a tuner, USB and HDMI
ports, graphics hardware, an operating system, and hundreds of software applica-
tions that may run on that system—including games, communication applications,
2
and news applications. Id. Those components, in turn, may be covered by indi-
vidual design patents for features such as the curvature of the wall mount, the look
and feel of the keyboard, the design of the speakers, or even the shape of a single
icon within an application. Despite containing numerous components, however, a
smart television is sold as a complete product to an ordinary purchaser. Under the
panel’s reasoning, the manufacturer of a smart television containing a component
that infringed any single design patent could be required to pay in damages its total
profit on the entire television, no matter how insignificant the design of the infring-
ing feature was to the manufacturer’s profit or to consumer demand.
Software products and online platforms face similar dangers. A design pa-
tent may cover the appearance of a single feature of a graphical user interface, such
as the shape of an icon. That feature—a result of a few lines out of millions of
code—may appear only during a particular use of the product, on one screen dis-
play among hundreds. But the panel’s decision could allow the owner of the de-
sign patent to receive all profits generated by the product or platform, even if the
infringing element was largely insignificant to the user and it was the thousands of
other features, implemented across the remainder of the software, that drove the
demand generating those profits.
As the foregoing examples demonstrate, the panel’s decision is disconnected
from the reality of complex modern technologies, and it attaches outsized signifi-
3
cance to the design of individual components. When it comes to complex technol-
ogies, design is but one factor that contributes to consumer demand. In a study of
the factors that influence consumers’ laptop purchasing decisions, for example, de-
sign was ranked 21st out of 26 factors—behind functional qualities such as proces-
sor speed, memory capacity, and even the number of USB ports. See V. Ashnan
Nasur et al., Factors Influencing Consumers’ Laptop Purchases, Sixth Global Con-
ference on Business and Economics 5 (Oct. 15-17, 2006) <goo.gl/nhi9OU>. So
too, in the smartphone context, consumers value numerous other qualities such as
battery life, durability, and security. See Christopher Versace, What Do Consum-
ers Want in a New Smartphone?, Forbes (Aug. 21, 2013) <goo.gl/CMG4j6>. And
it is beyond doubt that functionality is a major factor in consumers’ choice of
which software products and online platforms to use.
To state the obvious, the investment in research and development in infor-
mation and communication technologies—currently estimated at $250 billion an-
nually—extends well beyond design to include the hardware, software, and ser-
vices that are incorporated into the technologies. See R&D Magazine, 2014 Glob-
al R&D Funding Forecast 24 (Dec. 2013) <goo.gl/7LIxBV>. The reason is sim-
ple: technology companies know that consumers want a product that works well,
not simply one that looks good.
4
Consumer preferences exert influence over every component that is incorpo-
rated into modern technologies, even though those components may not be “sold
separately.” Slip op. 27. An “ordinary purchaser’s” demand for various hardware,
software, and service components drives a manufacturer’s purchasing decisions for
the components of a laptop or smartphone. See Braden Cox & Steve DelBianco,
Consumer Demand Drives Innovation and Integration in Desktop Computing,
Ass’n for Competitive Technology (June 2007). “[C]onsumers are demonstrating
a desire to shape demand through their own insistence on mixing and matching
products and product features,” Jonathan Sallet, The Creation of Value: The Value
Circle and Evolving Market Structures, 11 J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 185,
190 (2013), and manufacturers are heeding that call.
B. Section 289 Envisions Awarding Total Profits Only On Designs Of Rela-

tively Simple Products
Congress adopted the “total profit” rule now contained in Section 289 in re-
sponse to the Supreme Court’s rulings in two nineteenth-century cases that award-
ed nominal damages of six cents for infringement of design patents covering car-
pets. See Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886); Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co.,
114 U.S. 439 (1885). Concerned that the patent laws provided “no remedy” for
design-patent infringement in the wake of those decisions, S. Rep. No. 49-206, at 1
(1886), Congress passed a bill awarding the “infringer’s entire profit on the arti-
cle,” H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966, at 3 (1886); see Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 105, § 1, 24
5
Stat. 387. That bill was premised on the assumption that “it is the design that sells
the article,” and that the design, as the primary feature of the article, is the only
thing that “makes it possible to realize any profit at all.” H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966,
at 3.
The 1886 Congress did not have complex, multicomponent technologies in
mind. As the House Report explained, “[s]o far as the consumers are concerned,
the effect of design patent laws that are respected is to give them more beautiful
carpets and wall-papers and oil-cloths.” H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966, at 3. The bill’s
sponsor similarly noted that the bill protects “designs for carpeting, oil-cloths,
wall-paper, and things of that sort,” and that the bill was introduced in response to
“a great body of persons who are engaged in the manufacture of goods in which
designs are the principal feature.” 18 Cong. Rec. 834, 835 (1887) (statement of
Rep. Martin). Carpets, oilcloths, and wallpaper are relatively simple articles for
which the design embodies virtually the whole article and is the primary factor
driving sales.
In the immediate aftermath of Congress’s adoption of the total-profit rule,
design-patent cases largely focused on relatively simple products that are defined
by their designs. The seminal case articulating the standard for design-patent in-
fringement involved, of all things, an ornamental spoon. See Gorham Co. v.
White, 81 U.S. 511, 520-522 (1871). Other cases, including those cited by the
6
panel here, applied the total-profit rule to simple products such as garment racks,
fireplace grates, sofas, athletic shoes, and lamps—products much like the carpets
and oilcloths envisioned by Congress when it originally enacted the rule. See Cat-
alina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Ni-
ke, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Schnadig
Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., 620 F.2d 1166, 1167 (6th Cir. 1980); Henry
Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp., 270 F.2d 635, 638 (5th Cir.
1959); Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 480 (D. Minn.
1980).
By contrast, where courts have been faced with more complex, multicompo-
nent products, they have recognized that an award of total profit should not extend
to components of the article that do not embody the design. For example, in Bush
& Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902 (1915) and 234 F. 79 (1916), the
Second Circuit declined to award the total profit from a piano that included an in-
fringing piano case. As the court put it, the patentee “did not invent a piano, but a
piano case,” 222 F. at 905, and the piano’s instrument and case were distinct arti-
cles of manufacture. The court concluded that the “article” from which total profit
was awarded should depend on the “technical, mechanical, popular, and commer-
cial” circumstances in a particular case. 234 F. at 81.
7
The panel in this case attempted to distinguish Bush & Lane Piano on the
ground that “the commercial practice in 1915” was such that “ordinary purchasers
regarded a piano and a piano case as distinct articles of manufacture.” Slip op. 27.
But ordinary purchasers also view modern technology as containing multiple “arti-
cles” that are integrated into products based on their preferences. See p. 5, supra.
Just as Samsung or Apple purchases the components and features of its
smartphones from third parties based on consumer demand, the manufacturer of
infringing pianos in Bush & Lane Piano purchased the cases from others before as-
sembling them and selling the pianos as whole units. See 222 F. at 904.
Courts have applied similar principles in two other design-patent cases that
the panel did not address. In Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966
(1920), the Sixth Circuit refused to award total profits on a refrigerator that incor-
porated an infringing door latch. Because it is readily apparent that the design of a
latch does not permeate a refrigerator, “it [wa]s not seriously contended that all the
profits from the refrigerator belonged to the [patentee],” and damages were award-
ed based on the profit derived from the latch alone. Id. at 974. More recently, this
Court declined to award profits from eyeglasses that were sold on infringing dis-
play racks, because the design patent did not cover both articles of manufacture.
See Trans-World Manufacturing Corp. v. Al Nyman & Sons, Inc., 750 F.2d 1552,
1567 (1984).
8
C. In Light Of The Purpose Of Section 289, This Court Should Adopt A

Narrow Interpretation Of The Phrase ‘Article Of Manufacture’
Applying the total-profit rule to complex modern technologies without re-
gard for their numerous components would produce absurd consequences that
Congress would not have intended. Awarding a design patentee the total profit
from an infringer’s product when the design covers only a relatively minor portion
of the product is not only out of proportion with the significance of the design, it is
out of touch with economic realities. See p. 4, supra. Such disproportionate dam-
ages awards hinder innovation and can “disrupt[] the ability of the market to allo-
cate [research and development] resources to those areas most likely to generate
the products most valued by consumers.” Federal Trade Commission, The Evolv-
ing IP Marketplace 146 (2011). They may also foster a new basis for opportunistic
lawsuits.
The Court should avoid these pernicious consequences by interpreting “arti-
cle of manufacture,” consistent with the legislative history, case law, and statutory
text, to mean the component “to which [the] design . . . has been applied.” 35
U.S.C. § 289. The statute awards the “extent of [the infringer’s] total profit” for
“any article of manufacture to which such design . . . has been applied”; that is,
“the profit made from the infringement.” Id. Thus, where the design’s application
permeates the entire product and drives nearly all of its demand—as with carpets,
ornamental spoons, or athletic shoes—the “article of manufacture” would be the
9
whole product, and profit from the whole product may be awarded. But where a
design “has been applied” only to one portion of a multicomponent product and
does not drive demand for the entire product, the “article of manufacture” is rightly
considered to be only the component to which the design applies.
Such an approach would also be congruent with the “entire market value”
rule that this Court has applied in determining whether the royalty base for reason-
able royalty damages should extend to an entire multicomponent technology. Un-
der that rule, a patentee may “assess damages based on the entire market value of
the accused product only where the patented feature creates the basis for consumer
demand or substantially create[s] the value of the component parts.” Uniloc USA,
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
There is no dispute here that the designs at issue solely involved a portion of
the smartphone’s outer shell and one graphical-user-interface screen. A proper in-
terpretation of Section 289 should focus on those components, not the smartphones
as a whole. The panel erred in holding otherwise. If it is allowed to stand, the
panel’s decision will have significant detrimental consequences for the continued
development of useful modern technologies.
CONCLUSION
The petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.
10
Respectfully submitted,
KANNON K. SHANMUGAM
DAVID M. KRINSKY
ALLISON B. JONES
CHRISTOPHER A. SUAREZ
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 434-5000
JULY 1, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kannon Shanmugam, counsel for amici curiae and a member of the Bar of
this Court, certify that, on July 1, 2015, a copy of the attached Brief of Amici Curi-
ae was filed with the Clerk through the Court’s electronic filing system. I further
certify that all parties required to be served have been served.
KANNON K. SHANMUGAM

Samsung V Apple Amicus Brief 1-7-2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Samsung V Apple Amicus Brief 1-7-2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case: 14-1335 Document: 196 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2015

Nos. 2014-1335 & 2015-1029

In the United States Court of Appeals

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

certifies the following:

Networks Inc., Newegg Inc., and SAS Institute Inc.

2. The names of the real parties in interest represented by me are the

3. No parent corporation or publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or

more of the stock of any of the amici curiae represented by me.

4. Amici curiae did not participate in proceedings in the lower tribunals.

behalf of the amici curiae: Kannon K. Shanmugam, David M. Krinsky, Allison B.

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005.

Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,

Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ..................................................................... 5

Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885) .............................................. 5

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) ................................................................ 6

Henry Hanger & Display Fixture Corp. v. Sel-O-Rak Corp.,

Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co.,

Trans-World Manufacturing Corp. v. Al Nyman & Sons, Inc.,

Act of Feb. 4, 1887, ch. 105, § 1, 24 Stat. 387 .......................................................... 5

35 U.S.C. § 289 ............................................................................................1, 5, 9, 10

Federal Trade Commission, The Evolving IP Marketplace (2011) ........................... 9

H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 (1886) ............................................................................... 5, 6

V. Ashnan Nasur et al., Factors Influencing Consumers’ Laptop Purchases,

Abraham Pai, Smart TV: Piece by Piece, Samsung Tomorrow

R&D Magazine, 2014 Global R&D Funding Forecast

S. Rep. No. 49-206 (1886) ......................................................................................... 5

Christopher Versace, What Do Consumers Want in a New Smartphone?,

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

companies that develop, manufacture, and sell modern technologies, including

smartphones, operating systems, computers, and online platforms, as well as the

try more generally.

shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers.” Id. at 27-28.

Amici urge rehearing en banc of the panel’s decision. If allowed to stand,

velopment for complex technologies and their components.

A. Modern Technologies Are Highly Complex And Consist Of Numerous

Piece by Piece, Samsung Tomorrow (Sept. 23, 2011) <goo.gl/5vvYWY>. Those

components include an outer casing, speakers, a liquid crystal display, a circuit

ports, graphics hardware, an operating system, and hundreds of software applica-

tions that may run on that system—including games, communication applications,

icon within an application. Despite containing numerous components, however, a

smart television is sold as a complete product to an ordinary purchaser. Under the

panel’s reasoning, the manufacturer of a smart television containing a component

ing feature was to the manufacturer’s profit or to consumer demand.

demand generating those profits.

As the foregoing examples demonstrate, the panel’s decision is disconnected

cance to the design of individual components. When it comes to complex technol-

ference on Business and Economics 5 (Oct. 15-17, 2006) <goo.gl/nhi9OU>. So

it is beyond doubt that functionality is a major factor in consumers’ choice of

which software products and online platforms to use.

To state the obvious, the investment in research and development in infor-

mation and communication technologies—currently estimated at $250 billion an-

al R&D Funding Forecast 24 (Dec. 2013) <goo.gl/7LIxBV>. The reason is sim-

not simply one that looks good.

Consumer preferences exert influence over every component that is incorpo-

software, and service components drives a manufacturer’s purchasing decisions for

Consumer Demand Drives Innovation and Integration in Desktop Computing,

Ass’n for Competitive Technology (June 2007). “[C]onsumers are demonstrating

190 (2013), and manufacturers are heeding that call.

B. Section 289 Envisions Awarding Total Profits Only On Designs Of Rela-

design-patent infringement in the wake of those decisions, S. Rep. No. 49-206, at 1

The 1886 Congress did not have complex, multicomponent technologies in

In the immediate aftermath of Congress’s adoption of the total-profit rule,

fringement involved, of all things, an ornamental spoon. See Gorham Co. v.