17-09-28 Samsung Responsive Brief On Design Patent Damages

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3524 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 26

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378)
2 [email protected]
William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)
3 [email protected]
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
4 [email protected]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
6 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
7 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)

[email protected]
8 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[email protected]
9 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[email protected]
10 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
11 Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
12
Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
13 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
17
Plaintiff, SAMSUNGS RESPONSE TO APPLE
18 SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO ORDER
vs. OF JULY 28, 2017 REGARDING
19 NECESSITY OF NEW TRIAL ON
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a DESIGN-PATENT DAMAGES
20 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Hearing:
21 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, Date: October 12, 2017
22 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
23 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNGS RESPONSE TO APPLES SUBMISSION RE JULY 28, 2017 ORDER
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ ii
4 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
5 ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................2
6 Apples multifactor test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture is

incorrect and unworkable. ..........................................................................................2
7
Identification of the relevant article of manufacture is ultimately a factual
8 question for the jury but the critical factorthe scope of the design patent
is an issue of law for the court....................................................................................8
9
The patent plaintiff (here, Apple) bears the burden of proof to identify the
10 relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289. ..............................................9
11 The patent plaintiff (here, Apple) bears the burden of proof to demonstrate
total profit on the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289.................12
12
The relevant articles of manufacture for the D677 patent, D087 patent, and
13 D305 patent are not the entire phone; they are instead, respectively, the
phones round-cornered, glass front face; the phones round-cornered, glass
14 front face plus surrounding rim or bezel; and the phones display screen while
displaying the single, patented array of GUI icons. .................................................15
15
Ample evidence in the record supports Samsungs asserted articles of
16 manufacture, even under Apples proposed test. .....................................................15
17 Ample evidence in the record supports total profit amounting to a fraction of

the profit on the entire phone for the relevant articles of manufacture. ...................19
18
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................20
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Cases
3
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
4 735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 17
5 Astrue v. Ratliff,
560 U.S. 586 (2010) ............................................................................................................ 10
6
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.,
7 20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978).......................................................................................................... 12
8 In re Beckwith,
203 F. 45 (7th Cir. 1913)..................................................................................................... 13
9
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
10 402 U.S. 313 (1971) .............................................................................................................. 3
11 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,

222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915)...................................................................................................... 5
12
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
13 234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) .............................................................................................. 5, 7, 18
14 Campbell v. United States,

365 U.S. 85 (1961) .............................................................................................................. 12
15
Clem v. Lomeli,
16 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 2, 20
17 Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal.,
508 U.S. 602 (1993) ............................................................................................................ 12
18
Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc.,
19 256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................. 6
20 Erving Paper Mills v. Hudson-Sharp Machine Co.,

332 F.2d 674 (7th Cir. 1964)............................................................................................... 12
21
Garretson v. Clark,
22 111 U.S. 120 (1884) ...................................................................................................... 10, 11
23 Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

559 U.S. 77 (2010) ................................................................................................................ 2
24
United States v. Kim,
25 65 F.3d 123 (9th Cir. 1995)................................................................................................... 2
26 Kokesh v. S.E.C.,
137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017) ........................................................................................................ 14
27
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
28 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................... 4, 10, 15
-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,

776 F.2d 276 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................................................................... 9
2
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
3 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................... 13
4 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

517 U.S. 370 (1996) .............................................................................................................. 8
5
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
6 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014) ...................................................................................................... 3, 12
7 Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.,

320 U.S. 661 (1944) .............................................................................................................. 3
8
Michery v. Ford Motor Co.,
9 650 F. Appx 338 (9th Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ 12
10 Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................. 5
11
S.E.C. v. First City Financial Corp.,
12 890 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................... 14
13 Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc.,

137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) ................................................................ 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18
14
Schaffer v. Weast,
15 546 U.S. 49 (2005) .......................................................................................................... 9, 11
16 Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v. United States,

139 U.S. 560 (1891) ............................................................................................................ 12
17
Shinseki v. Sanders,
18 556 U.S. 396 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 20
19 In re Stevens,
173 F. 2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949)............................................................................................ 6
20
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
21 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ............................................................................................................ 8
22 Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................... 10, 15
23
White v. Baca,
24 676 F. Appx 724 (9th Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ 20
25 In re Zahn,
617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980)............................................................................................... 4
26
27
28
-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Statutory Authorities
2 15 U.S.C. 1117(a)......................................................................................................................... 10
3 17 U.S.C. 504(b) .......................................................................................................................... 10
4 35 U.S.C. 284 ............................................................................................................................... 11
5 35 U.S.C. 289 ........................................................................................................................... 3, 11
6
Treatises
7
2 McCormick on Evidence, 337 (7th ed. 2013)............................................................................ 11
8
Restatement (3d) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment 51 (2011) ............................................. 14
9
10 Legislative Materials
11 H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 (1886) .................................................................................................. 10, 13
12
Additional Authorities
13
Matt Levy, Apple is trying to muddy design patent law in order to get its way,
14 IPWatchdog (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/09/28/apple-
trying-muddy-design-patent-law/id=88535 .......................................................................... 2
15
Sarah Burstein, The Article of Manufacture Today, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
16 Data_Integrity_Notice.cfm?abid=3033231 (draft of Sept. 16, 2017) ......................... 2, 8, 15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-iv- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 INTRODUCTION
2 The Court should reject Apples proposed multifactor test for identifying the relevant article
3 of manufacture under Section 289 of the Patent Act, and should instead adopt the straightforward
4 and easily administered test proposed by Samsung. Apples test has no basis in the text of the
5 governing statute and ignores relevant Federal Circuit law. Apples test also creates great
6 complexity and vagueness that will render article of manufacture inquiries difficult to administer
7 in future cases. And Apples insistence that it is still entitled to Samsungs total profit on its entire
8 phones makes a mockery of the Supreme Courts intervening decision.
9 Contrary to Apples arguments, a patented design claiming only a portion of the exterior
10 appearance of a multi-component productwhether a piano, a car or a smartphonewarrants total
11 profit only from the component to which the patented design is applied. It warrants no profit from
12 the machines hidden, interior components or any exterior component disclaimed by dotted lines in
13 the patent drawing. Because Apple asserted only narrow, partial designs that were applied to only
14 narrow, partial portions of Samsungs phones, Apple is not entitled to total profit from Samsungs
15 entire phones. To the contrary, because Apple failed to meet its burden of both identifying the
16 relevant articles of manufacture and proving the profit therefrom, judgment for Samsung is
17 warranted. But if the Court declines to enter judgment for Samsung, then Samsung is most certainly
18 entitled to a new trial because the evidence here does not establish as a matter of law that the
19 entirety of Samsungs phones are the relevant article of manufacture. Dkt. 3509 at 29.
20 This is so no matter whose test the Court adopts for identifying the relevant article of
21 manufacture. Under Samsungs straightforward and easily administered test, the Court would
22 define, prior to trial, the relevant articles of manufacture based on the scope of the patents and the
23 undisputed facts in the existing record, and then hold a new trial solely on the quantum of total profit
24 from those articles. Under Apples complicated, cherry-picked, multifactor test, the Court would
25 put to the jury both the identity of the relevant articles of manufacture and the quantum of total profit
26 from those articles. In either case, a new trial is required; under no circumstance could this Court
27 forego a new trial and rule that the relevant articles of manufacture are the entire phones as a matter
28 of law. In light of the Supreme Courts decision, any such ruling would be reversible error.
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Nor may Samsung be denied a new trial based on Apples belated request that the Court
2 deem this instructional error harmless. Apple bears the burden of proving harmless instructional
3 error, and Apple has waived that argument by failing to raise it previously. See, e.g., Clem v. Lomeli,
4 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir. 2009). But even if the harmless-error argument were preserved (it is
5 not), it would be Kafkaesque to apply it here given the intervening change of law. Samsung cannot
6 be held to have failed to meet burdens that never before existed under a test that still has not been
7 determined. Thus, even if the Court adopts Apples newly minted test (it should not), Samsung
8 should have, at the very minimum, a fair opportunity to litigate [its] case in light of [the new]
9 holding. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 97 (2010); see. e.g., United States v. Kim, 65 F.3d
10 123, 126-27 (9th Cir. 1995) (remanding for new evidence based on change in law).
11 ARGUMENT
12 Apples multifactor test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture is
incorrect and unworkable.
13
Before addressing the specific flaws in the factors Apple includes in its multifactor test for
14
article of manufacture, it is critical to point out two overarching flaws in Apples test as a whole.
15
First, Apples multifactor test is needlessly complicated and vague, will create great uncertainty and
16
unpredictability in application, and thus will chill legitimate innovation and competition. This Court
17
should reject Apples invitation (Br. 3 n.2) to create the Georgia-Pacific of design-patent law. See
18
generally Sarah Burstein, The Article of Manufacture Today, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
19
Data_Integrity_Notice.cfm?abid=3033231 (draft of Sept. 16, 2017), at 16-43 (criticizing proposed
20
multifactor tests like Apples); id. at 24 (noting such a test would be problematic in practice
21
because it would necessitate a full trial on the merits on the identity of the article under a cloud
22
of uncertainty, increase the amount both sides would have to spend on damages experts, and give
23
design patent owners undue power to chill legitimate competition).1 By contrast, Samsungs test
24
25
26 1
See also Matt Levy, Apple is trying to muddy design patent law in order to get its way,
27 IPWatchdog (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/09/28/apple-trying-muddy-
design-patent-law/id=88535 (Rather than apply a straightforward objective analysis to identify
28
-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 (compare the patent claim to the corresponding part, portion or component of the product) is just
2 like other easily administered tests in patent law like the test for infringement (compare the patent
3 claim to the corresponding portion of the product).
4 Second, Apple conspicuously (and erroneously) leaves out of its test the most important
5 factor: the scope of the patent. This is surely Hamlet without the Prince. Section 289, by its terms,
6 allows for recovery of total profit from one who, without license of the owner, (1) applies the
7 patented design, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for
8 sale any article of manufacture to which such design has been applied. 35 U.S.C. 289
9 (emphases added). The statute cannot be administered without first ascertaining the scope of the
10 design claimed by the patent. Portions of an accused product that do not correspond with the claimed
11 attributes of a patented design cannot be part of the article of manufacture to which the patented
12 design is applied. Apple thus errs in suggesting (Br. 6-7) that the factfinder need not consider the
13 patented design in identifying the article of manufacture to which that design is applied.2
14 In fact, because a patent delineates the scope of a patentees lawful monopoly, consideration
15 of the patent could not be more critical. The Supreme Court has explained that a patentee should
16 not be ... allowed to exact royalties for the use of an idea ... that is beyond the scope of the patent
17 monopoly granted, Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 851-52
18 (2014) (quoting Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 349-50 (1971)),
19 and accordingly requires a patent be limited to the invention which it defines, Mercoid Corp. v.
20 Mid-Continent Inv. Co., 320 U.S. 661, 665-66 (1944). Thus, in the context of utility-patent
21 damages, the Federal Circuit cautions that, [w]here small elements of multi-component products
22 are accused of infringement, calculating a royalty on the entire product carries a considerable risk
23
24
which component(s) bears the patented design, Apple proposes a totally subjective four-factor test
25 .).
2
26 The U.S. government amicus brief on which Apple relies so heavily is in accord with Samsung
on this point. See Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party at 27-28
27 Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 (U.S. June 8, 2016) (U.S. Br.) (stating that the first
factor in determining the article of manufacture is the scope of the design claimed in the plaintiffs
28 patent).
-3- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 that the patentee will be improperly compensated for non-infringing components of that product.
2 LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). While such
3 smallest saleable practicing unit cases involve apportioning a royalty and not (as here) calculating
4 total profit from an article of manufacture, the same general principles apply in both contexts; here,
5 they require limiting the article of manufacture for purposes of Section 289 to the component of a
6 product that corresponds with the claimed, protected attributes of the patented design.
7 While Apples disregard of the single most vital factorthe patentis alone enough to
8 warrant rejection of its proposed test, the factors Apple does propose are also all flawed:
9 Apples first proposed factorHow the defendant sells its infringing product and
10 accounts for its profits on those sales (Br. 3-4)should be rejected out of hand. First, Apple
11 flagrantly disregards the Supreme Courts decision, which specifically rejected Apples contention
12 that the identity of the article of manufacture turns on how a product is sold. The Supreme Court
13 held that [t]he term article of manufacture, as used in 289, encompasses both a product sold to
14 a consumer and a component of that product, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429,
15 434 (2016), expressly overruling the Federal Circuits holding that limit[ing] the damages award
16 was not required because the innards of Samsungs smartphones were not sold separately from
17 their shells as distinct articles of manufacture to ordinary purchasers, id. (quoting Federal Circuit
18 decision; emphasis added, alterations in original). The Court held this interpretation of Section 289
19 necessary in light of Section 171, which authorizes patents for designs for article[s] of
20 manufacture and is certainly not limited to articles separately sold. Id. at 435 (quoting In
21 re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 268 (C.C.P.A. 1980)).
22 Second, Apple erroneously collapses the two steps the Supreme Court expressly listed as
23 separate and sequential, requiring (1) identifying the article of manufacture to which the patented
24 design has been applied, and only then (2) calculating the infringers total profit on that article.
25 Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. Contrary to Apples suggestion, whether the relevant article of
26
27
28
-4- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 manufacture was sold separately and how the defendant accounts for profits on such sales are
2 irrelevant to the identity of the article at step one; they are at most questions relevant to step two.3
3 Third, Apple misplaces reliance (Br. 4) on Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F.
4 902, 904 (2d Cir. 1915) (Piano I), and Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1447
5 (Fed. Cir. 1998), as supposed support for its how-product-is-sold factor. Apple fails to mention that
6 the second Piano Case expressly rejected a test based on whether pianos and piano cases are sold
7 in separate markets, holding that the existence of a separate market for piano cases makes no
8 difference in the rule of law that profits were recoverable only on the cases and not on the pianos,
9 which are different articles no matter how sold. Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F.
10 79, 82-83 (2d Cir. 1916) (Piano II) (emphasis added). By analogy, the court explained, [a] patent
11 for a book binding cannot, either justly or logically, be so identified with the entire book as to give
12 all the profits on a work of literary genius to the patentee of a binding, although the binding was
13 manufactured with and for that one book, and has no separate commercial existence. Id. at 81-82
14 (emphasis added). And in light of the Supreme Courts rejection of the Federal Circuits separately
15 sold test, Apple may no longer rely on Nike to argue that article of manufacture refers to the
16 product that is sold, as it repeatedly did earlier in this case (e.g. Dkt. 1694, at 140).
17 Finally, Apples how-product-is-sold factor would be harmful as a practical matter, because
18 complex multi-component products (like pianos and, a fortiori, cars and smartphones) almost
19 always have components that are not sold separately. Thus, considering this factor would either
20 give factfinders no help at all or else invite blatant evasion of the Supreme Courts core holding.
21 Apples second proposed factorThe visual contribution of the patented design to the
22 product as a whole (Br. 4-5)should also be rejected out of hand. First, this factor ignores the
23 key statutory language, which focuses on the article of manufacture to which the patented design
24
25 3
The Solicitor General again is in accord. See U.S. Br. 9, 19, Samsung, No. 15-777 (The
factfinder should identify the article in which the design prominently features, and that most fairly
26 may be said to embody the defendants appropriation of the plaintiffs invention, and, if that article
27 is a product component, then the sale of the complete product in commerce is properly viewed as
a sale of the component as well, since title to the component is transferred as an incident of the larger
28 sale.).
-5- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 is applied. Thus, what matters is what the design patent claims, and what component of the
2 infringing product corresponds with that claimed design. Nothing in the statute suggests that the
3 identity of the article depends on some free-form aesthetic judgment about product appearance.
4 Second, Apples proposed visual-contribution factor again collapses steps one and two of
5 the Supreme Courts mandated two-step test. The visual importance of the design to the product
6 has nothing to do with the identity of the relevant article of manufacture at step one; it is at most a
7 factor relevant to the amount of profit derived from that article at step two. For example (contra
8 Apple Br. 5), the article of manufacture to which a patented design for the exterior body of a car is
9 applied is the body of the infringing car, not the entire car. And the article of manufacture to which
10 a patented cupholder design is applied is the cupholder. A patent-holder might well recover more
11 from infringement of the car-body design than the cupholder design because the former makes a
12 greater contribution to profitbut such issues of quantification go only to step two, and have no
13 bearing on the identity issue presented at step one.
14 Third, Apples suggestion (Br. 4) that the article could somehow be the entire product if the
15 patented design gives a distinctive appearance to the product as a whole is simply wrong as a
16 matter of law. A design patent for a portion of a phones exterior may not be applied to hidden,
17 non-ornamental, interior components of a product, periodno matter how distinctive such a
18 design makes the exterior. Apple ignores this well-established law. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 173 F.
19 2d 1015, 1016 (C.C.P.A. 1949) (holding a design patent may not extend to a feature that is
20 concealed or obscure[d] in normal use); Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308,
21 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (similar; parties did not dispute that internal features of door were
22 concealed and thus [were] not protected by the design patent). As Chief Justice Roberts put this
23 common-sense point in colloquy: Maybe Im not grasping the difficulties in the case. It seems to
24 me that the design is applied to the exterior case of the phones. Its not applied to theall the chips
25 and wires. So there shouldthere shouldnt be profits awarded based on the entire price of the
26 phone. Samsung, No. 15-777, Tr. 40:7-19; see id. at 52:8-9 (Roberts, C.J.: Its applied to the
27 outside of the phone.); id. at 43:16-18 (Sotomayor, J.: it makes logical sense to me that the
28 Volkswagen body, not the innards, are the article of manufacture); id. at 51:11-12 (Alito, J.: a
-6- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 design for a smartphones exterior components is applied to the outside in a physical sense). Thus,
2 a design covering a portion of a phones exterior may never be applied to an entire phone,
3 including hidden, interior componentry, merely because it is visually distinctive.
4 Finally, the highly subjective nature of Apples proposed visual-contribution factor would
5 make the article-of-manufacture inquiry needlessly complex and unworkable in practice. Indeed,
6 Apple never explains how a factfinder should measure a designs visual contribution to a product.
7 Apples third proposed factorThe degree to which the asserted article of manufacture
8 is physically and conceptually distinct from the product as sold (Br. 5-6)once again flouts the
9 Supreme Courts decision and should be rejected, for it erroneously refers to separability at the time
10 of sale. To be sure, an article of manufacture may be a component of a product distinct from the
11 product as a whole. See Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 432 (suggesting that it is appropriate to ask whether
12 an accused product is a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, or a multicomponent
13 product, such as a kitchen oven); Piano II, 234 F. at 82 (The binding and the printed record of
14 thought respond to different concepts; they are different articles.). But what matters is whether the
15 infringing product is made up of more than one componentnot (contra Apple Br. 5) whether its
16 constituent components are separable when it is sold (emphasis added). That a component
17 may be integrated into a larger product does not put it outside the category of articles of
18 manufacture. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 435 (emphases added). Thus (contra Apple Br. 5), a cars
19 steering wheel and windshield are separate articles of manufacture even though steering wheels and
20 windshields cannot be physically separated from the [car] as a whole when it is sold. And
21 similarly, under the Supreme Courts decision, a smartphones front face, front face with bezel, or
22 display screen while displaying a specific array of icons are separate articles of manufacture even if
23 integrated into the phone at the time of sale.
24 Apples fourth proposed factorThe defendants reasons for appropriating the patented
25 design (Br. 6)is a factor made up by Apple out of whole cloth and has no place whatsoever in
26 the article of manufacture inquiry. First, Apple cites no authority supporting the relevance of this
27 factor, and there is none. The question is to which article of manufacture the patented design was
28 physically appliedi.e., which thing made by hand or machine corresponds with the patented
-7- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 design. What the defendant thought or intended cannot transform the relevant article of
2 manufacture, which is a physical thing, from a small component to a larger one.4
3 Second, in arguing (Br. 6) that the article might vary based on whether the defendant
4 intentionally copied the patented design, Apple merely duplicates its second, visual-importance
5 factor, thus seeking to consider twice a factor that should not be considered at all.
6 Third, in any event, Apple ignores that copying is irrelevant to patent infringement. See,
7 e.g., Dkt. 2219 at 14 (Evidence of copying is not evidence of infringement or knowledge
8 thereof). Because the proper article-of-manufacture test resembles the test for infringement, it
9 would be incongruous to deem supposed copying any more relevant here than there. Indeed, Apple
10 cites no authority holding that copying is material to infringement or infringers profits.
11 Identification of the relevant article of manufacture is ultimately a factual

question for the jury but the critical factorthe scope of the design patentis
12 an issue of law for the court.
13 Samsung (Br. 7-8) and Apple (Br. 7-9) agree that identification of the article of manufacture
14 to which a patented design has been applied is ultimately a factual question for the jury where there
15 are disputed issues. But the scope of the design patent, the first and critical step in this inquiry, is
16 an issue of law for the Court. The meaning of a patent claim is exclusively for the court to
17 determine, Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835 (2015) (quoting Markman
18 v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996)), and therefore the Court must either
19 determine the article of manufacture itself based on the patent claim and the undisputed facts or else,
20 if there is any factual dispute, instruct the jury on the scope of the claimed design in explaining how
21 to identify the article to which that design has been applied. See Burstein, supra, at 56 (arguing that
22 [j]udges, not juries would seem to be better suited to determine the relevant article of manufacture
23 under 289, because such determinations involve consideration of the scope of the patent claim
24 and are therefore analogous to the issue in Markman); id. at 57-58 (arguing that [t]reating the
25 article of manufacture issue as one of law would promote uniformity in patent law, provide
26
27 4
Not surprisingly, therefore, the test proposed by the Solicitor General, from which Apple
28 cherry-picks, conspicuously omits Apples fourth factor. See U.S. Br. 27-29.
-8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 predictability, allow for earlier judicial outcomes, and limit the in terrorem value of design patents
2 to chill innovation and competition).
3 The patent plaintiff (here, Apple) bears the burden of proof to identify the
relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289.
4
The Court should reject Apples burden-shifting proposal (Br. 9) under which a patent
5
plaintiff would bear only the initial burden of proving that the defendant applied the patented design
6
to a product that was sold. This proposalwhich adds nothing whatsoever to the patentees
7
existing burden to prove infringementhas no support in the text or history of Section 289,
8
disregards Federal Circuit precedent, and again flouts the Supreme Courts decision. As Apple
9
recognizes (Br. 3, 9), patent plaintiffs bear the burden of proving damages, and identification of the
10
relevant article of manufacture is an element of that proof under Section 289. Accordingly, the
11
burden of identifying the relevant article of manufacture belongs exclusively to the patent plaintiff,
12
and the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove that the jury should reduce damages by
13
identifying a different article of manufacture, as Apple wrongly suggests.
14
First, Apples proposed burden-shifting regime disregards the governing statute. As the
15
Supreme Court has explained, the ordinary default rule is that, when asserting a private cause of
16
action, plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims and therefore must bear the burden
17
of persuasion regarding the essential aspects of their claims. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56-
18
57 (2005); see id. at 56 (generally plaintiffs bear the burdens on the elements in their claims)
19
(internal quotations marks omitted). While Congress may choose to shift that burden, the question
20
whether it did so is one of legislative intent: Absent some reason to believe that Congress intended
21
otherwise the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief. Id.
22
at 57-58 (emphasis added); see Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 776 F.2d 276, 278-80 (Fed. Cir.
23
1985) (burden of proof fell on claimant because governing statute did not reveal intent to alter
24
ordinary burden allocation). When we are determining the burden of proof under a statutory cause
25
of action, the touchstone of our inquiry is, of course, the statute. Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 56. And
26
where Congress has demonstrated that it knows how to achieve a specific effect in one statute,
27
28
-9- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 another statute may not be interpreted to achieve that same effect absent clear textual evidence
2 supporting such an interpretation. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595 (2010).
3 Here, Apple ignores that the text of Section 289 stands in sharp contrast to the Copyright
4 and Lanham Acts, whose infringers profits provisions expressly provide for burden shifting. See
5 17 U.S.C. 504(b) (the infringer is required to prove the elements of profit attributable to factors
6 other than the copyrighted work); 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) (In assessing profits the plaintiff shall be
7 required to prove defendants sales only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or deduction
8 claimed). Because Congress chose, in contrast, not to include any burden-shifting language
9 whatsoever in enacting Section 289, the ordinary default rule applies.
10 Second, Apple ignores the legislative history of Section 289. When Congress overruled the
11 Dobson cases by relieving the design-patent plaintiff of the burden to prove infringers profits
12 attributable to the infringement, see Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 432-33, it authorized an award of total
13 profit from the article of manufacture to which the patented design was applied. Congress thus
14 changed the substantive burden on design-patent plaintiffs. But Congress did nothing to shift the
15 placement of that new burden to defendants. To the contrary, congressional supporters of Section
16 289s predecessor noted that a patent-holder may only recover[] the profit actually made on the
17 infringing article if he can prove that profit. H.R. REP. NO. 49-1966, at 3 (1886) (emphasis added).
18 If Congress had intended to change Dobsons rule that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving
19 infringers profits, it would have said so explicitly in the statute enacted in response to Dobson.
20 Third, Apples approach also conflicts with Federal Circuit precedent in analogous settings.
21 For example, in utility-patent cases, damages awards must be based not on the entire product, but
22 instead on the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, unless the patent-holder proves that the
23 demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented feature. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at
24 67-68 (quotation omitted). In those cases, patent plaintiffs alone bear the burden of proving both
25 the identity of the relevant product component and the amount of damages associated with that
26 component. [A] patentee must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the
27 defendants profits and the patentees damages between the patented feature and the unpatented
28 features. Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Garretson
-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884)). Thus, the burden falls on a patentee [to] identify damages
2 associated with the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, and this burden never shifts to a
3 defendant. Id. at 1327; see Samsung Br. 10-11 (collecting authorities).
4 The correct approach under Section 289 is similar, even though this case involves articles of
5 manufacture and not apportionment. Just as a utility-patent plaintiff may recover damages only for
6 the use made of the invention by the infringer, 35 U.S.C. 284, a design-patent plaintiff may
7 recover only the profit an infringer makes from the infringement, Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434,
8 which is the total profit from the relevant article of manufacture. Thus, just as the patent-holder
9 alone bears the burden under Section 284 of proving the amount of damages from use of the patented
10 invention, the patent-holder alone bears the burden under Section 289 of proving the amount of total
11 profit from the relevant article of manufacture corresponding to the patented design. And when an
12 infringing product has multiple components, Sections 284 and 289 alike require the patent-holder
13 to prove the identity of and the quantum of damages/profit from the relevant component.
14 Fourth, Apples erroneous burden-shifting proposal again flouts the Supreme Courts
15 decision by ignoring step one of the mandated two-step inquiry. Contrary to Apples suggestion
16 (Br. 3, 9), it may not meet its burden under Section 289 merely by showing that the defendant
17 applied the patented design to a product that was sold. To the contrary, the Supreme Courts central
18 holding is that the product a defendant sells is not necessarily the relevant article of manufacture.
19 Accordingly, Apples proposal cannot satisfy the Supreme Courts step one, which requires
20 identification of the product or product component to which [the patented] design or colorable
21 imitation has been applied. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434 (quoting 35 U.S.C. 289, alteration in
22 original).
23 Finally, Apple errs in suggesting (Br. 10-11) that the defendant should bear the burden of
24 identifying the relevant article of manufacture because it supposedly has superior knowledge of
25 the accused product. Such an argument is inapplicable outside the narrow context where there is
26 exclusive knowledge in one party of the relevant information, such that one party alone is capable
27 of proving or disproving a fact in issue. 2 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 337 (7th ed. 2013); see
28 Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 60 (noting that the peculiar knowledge exception is narrow) (quotations
-11- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 omitted). A burden shift based on asymmetrical information makes no sense where (as here) two
2 competitors both make exactly the same type of product and thus possess virtually identical
3 industrial knowledge. Indeed, it would be ludicrous to suggest that Samsung has an informational
4 advantage over Apple in knowing how smartphones are made. Moreover, with modern discovery,
5 design-patent plaintiffs are fully able to learn just as much as defendants about the components of
6 any accused products, and indeed will typically do so in building their infringement case. See
7 Medtronic, 134 S. Ct. at 846.
8 Apples cases (Br. 10-11) all fail to support shifting any burden to defendants where the
9 governing statute plainly dictates otherwise. Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers
10 Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993), involved an express statutory presumption favoring
11 determinations of [a retirement] plan sponsor, which shift[ed] a burden of proof or persuasion to
12 the employer. Id. at 621. In sharp contrast, Congress did not include any such burden-shifting
13 scheme in Section 289. Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 96 (1961), concerned facts that
14 really were peculiarly within the knowledge of [the criminal defendants] adversaryincluding
15 the contents of an investigative report the government could not be ordered to disclose. At issue in
16 Michery v. Ford Motor Co., 650 F. Appx 338 (9th Cir. 2016), were the considerations which
17 influenced the design of [the defendants] product, id. at 341which is not relevant here. Apples
18 other authorities are entirely off point.5

19 The patent plaintiff (here, Apple) bears the burden of proof to demonstrate total
profit on the relevant article of manufacture for purposes of 289.
20
For similar reasons, the Court should reject Apples argument (Br. 9) that a patent plaintiff
21
meets its burden on quantum of profit from the relevant article of manufacture merely by proving
22
23
24
25 5
Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v. United States, 139 U.S. 560 (1891), and Erving Paper Mills v.
Hudson-Sharp Machine Co., 332 F.2d 674 (7th Cir. 1964), both concerned information that was
26 solely within one partys possession. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978),
27 announced a California common-law rule pertaining to the burden to prove facts within the
defendants peculiar knowledge about the design of a defective product. See id. at 431. That rule
28 has no application to the federal statutory cause of action at issue here.
-12- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 the amount of an infringing products revenues, at which point the burden supposedly shifts to
2 defendants to reduce that quantum commensurate with the correct article of manufacture.
3 First, it is settled that [t]he burden of proving damages falls on the patentee, Lucent Techs.,
4 Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and Section 289 contains no language
5 shifting any part of that burden to defendants. This Court thus correctly instructed the prior juries
6 that Apple had the burden of proving the amount of Samsungs profit: Apple can elect to prove
7 either actual damages, known as compensatory damages, or it may elect to prove the defendants
8 profits as its measure of potential recovery. Dkt. 1903 at 71 (No. 53 (emphasis added)).
9 Second, Apple errs in asserting (Br. 11) that the seller of an infringing product is in a
10 better position to prove the total profit on any article of manufacture that is less than the product
11 as sold. As noted, modern discovery gives a plaintiff every opportunity to develop evidence to
12 prove the defendants total profit on the relevant article of manufacture. Apples cited case, In re
13 Beckwith, 203 F. 45 (7th Cir. 1913) (see Br. 11), only proves this was also true a century ago, for
14 the court there held that the plaintiff was entitled to discovery because, ultimately, the burden rests
15 on the complainant to establish both fact and amount of profit attributable to the infringement. Id.
16 at 48. Patent plaintiffs bear that same burden under Section 289.6
17 Moreover, the 1887 Congress that enacted Section 289s predecessor expressly solved any
18 asymmetry of information problem by providing a statutory minimum recovery of $250an

19 remedy chosen expressly in order to meet the case when the exact profit in dollars and cents cannot
20 be proved. H.R. REP. NO. 49-1966, at 3 (1886); see S. Rep. No. 49-206, at 2 (similar). The $250
21 statutory minimumnot a burden-shifting regimewas and remains Congresss solution to
22
23
24
6
Apple complains (Br. 14 n.11) that Samsung produced no competent evidence regarding its
25 profits on any alternative articles of manufacture, but the Court has already found that Apple
obtained access in discovery to pricing information about the component parts of Samsungs
26 phones, Dkt. 3509 at 8, and Apples own damages expert acknowledged that Samsung provided
27 a file that reflects detailed information on its material costs for the Accused Products, Dkt. 2607-5
at 16 (Supplemental Damages Report of Terry Musika). Apple has not explained why it could not
28 use this and other information to arrive at a measure of component-level profits.
-13- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 anticipated problems of proof. The fact Congress has not since increased that floor does not give
2 courts any license to invent a burden-shifting scheme that has no basis in the statutory text.
3 Third, Apples analogy (Br. 11-13) to government enforcement actions in securities-fraud
4 cases likewise fails. As Apple acknowledges (Br. 12 n.8), the courts developed the disgorgement
5 regime applicable in such cases, exercis[ing] their inherent equity power because they labored
6 under an absence of statutory authorization for monetary remedies. Kokesh v. S.E.C., 137 S. Ct.
7 1635, 1640 (2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But while courts may have been
8 free in their exercise of inherent equity power to tailor a disgorgement regime to fill a gap in
9 securities law, there is no such latitude here: Section 289 governs the infringers profits remedy at
10 issue, and it makes no provision for burden shifting. The judge-made burden-shifting regime in
11 SEC-initiated cases expressly applies only in the context of an SEC enforcement suit, where
12 deterrence is the key objective and a governmental agency is the plaintiff. S.E.C. v. First City
13 Financial Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1232 n.24 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Apples securities
14 cases thus are inapposite to the context here of a statutory remedy in a suit between private parties.
15 Nor do common-law restitution principles (Br. 12-13) support Apples proposal The
16 Restatement is clear in providing that [a] claimant who seeks disgorgement of profit has the burden
17 of producing evidence permitting at least a reasonable approximation of the amount of the wrongful
18 gain. RESTATEMENT (3D) OF RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 51(5)(d) (2011) (emphasis
19 added). In a Section 289 case, the wrongful gain is that from applying an infringing design to the
20 relevant article of manufacture. See Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434-36. Thus, under the Restatements
21 rule, a Section 289 plaintiff has the burden of establishing at least a reasonable approximation
22 of the amount of profit earned from the relevant article of manufacture. Proof of revenues on the
23 entire product is insufficient where a product component is the relevant article.
24 Finally, Apple is mistaken in analogizing (Br. 9, 13-14) its proposed shift of the burden of
25 proof on profit from the relevant article of manufacture to any shift of the burden of proof on costs.
26 Unlike the Copyright and Lanham Acts, Section 289 contains no language whatsoever providing
27 for any burden shifting to defendant. And to the extent courts apply any judge-made burden shifting
28 on costs by analogy to provisions of those other statutes, such a shift could occur only after the
-14- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 plaintiff identifies the relevant article of manufacture, and only after the plaintiff proves the
2 defendants revenues from that article.
3 The relevant articles of manufacture for the D677 patent, D087 patent, and
D305 patent are not the entire phone; they are instead, respectively, the phones
4 round-cornered, glass front face; the phones round-cornered, glass front face
plus surrounding rim or bezel; and the phones display screen while displaying
5
the single, patented array of GUI icons.
6
Based on its erroneous proposed article-of-manufacture test and erroneous burden-shifting
7
proposal, Apple wrongly concludes (Br. 14) that Samsungs entire phones are the relevant articles
8
of manufacture for all three design patents here. But this argument is baseless, and the Court need
9
look no further in the record than the patents themselves and the corresponding components of
10
Samsungs phones to see as much. Apple asserted only narrow, partial patent claims covering only
11
the design of a round-cornered, glass front face of a phone (D677 patent); a round-cornered front
12
face and surrounding bezel of a phone (D087 patent); and a single array of icons for a display screen
13
(D305 patent). Apple could never have proved infringement had it not confined its case to these
14
narrow, partial claims. See Burstein, supra, at 9-10 (discussing partial claiming as a technique for
15
increasing the chance to win infringement verdicts). The articles of manufacture to which those
16
narrow patented designs were applied are, accordingly, the corresponding components of each
17
accused phone. Apples assertion that it is entitled, based on any one of these narrow, partial claims,
18
to total profit on Samsungs entire phones thus fails because it would improperly compensate[]
19
[Apple] for non-infringing components of that product, LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 67, and
20
erroneously overreach and encompass components not covered by the patent, id. at 70; see
21
Virnetx, 767 F.3d at 1326 (same), especially given that none of the accused phones subject to the
22
2015 partial judgment was found to infringe all three patents. Dkt. 1931 at 6-7; Dkt. 3290.
23
Ample evidence in the record supports Samsungs asserted articles of
24 manufacture, even under Apples proposed test.
25 While the Court should reject Apples proposed test for all the reasons above, a new trial is
26 required even if the Court adopts Apples test because, contrary to Apples argument (Br. 15-21),
27 the record does not establish as a matter of law that Samsungs entire phones are the relevant articles
28 of manufacture under that test.
-15- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Apples Factor 1 How the products or components are sold. Apple first errs in arguing
2 (Br. 16) that Samsungs entire products must be the relevant articles of manufacture because the
3 only articles Samsung sold were the infringing phones. This argument explicitly seeks to
4 circumvent the Supreme Courts holding that a component may be the relevant article of
5 manufacture whether sold separately or not. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436. Even if this factor were
6 proper (it is not), Apple overlooks evidence that Samsung does sell the components it makes to other
7 manufacturers, including Apple. For example, Samsungs Chief Strategy Officer, Justin Denison,
8 testified that Samsung makes top-of-the-line display screens using super AMOLED display
9 technology, manufactures the glass for the front face of its devices, and manufactures other
10 components like the devices processers. Dkt. 1610 at 868-69, 886; Dkt. 1611 at 969; see Dkt. 1841
11 at 2805-06 (Samsung industrial designer Jinsoo Kim explaining how Samsung manufactures the
12 glass for the front surfaces of its devices). Mr. Denison also testified that Samsung sells its
13 components, and that approximately 25% of the components in Apples own phones, measured by
14 cost, are actually supplied by Samsung. Dkt. 1611 at 969; Dkt. 1839 at 2148-53 (Apples damages
15 expert testifying about components manufactured and sold by Samsung to competitors). The jury
16 was therefore presented with evidence showing that the components to which the designs were
17 applied, and not just the complete phones, are separately sold and accounted for.
18 Apples Factor 2 Visual contribution of the patented designs. Apple likewise errs in
19 suggesting (Br. 16-17) that all three patented designs when combined together made a prominent
20 visual contribution to the phones overall appearance, for the relevant article of manufacture must
21 be identified for each patent, not for Apples patents collectively. The pertinent question is
22 whether, for each of the design patents at issue here, the relevant article of manufacture is the
23 smartphone, or a particular smartphone component. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436 (emphasis added).
24 Apple fails to cite any evidence showing that any individual design made such a contribution to the
25 overall appearance of Samsungs entire phones. Nor could it do so in light of the jurys verdict.
26 Specifically, not a single product subject to the 2015 partial judgment at issue here was
27 found to infringe any combination of all three design patents here. Although the Court did not
28 permit the juries to identify the relevant articles of manufacture, it did instruct the first jury to
-16- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 compare each accused phone to each patent individually. Dkt. 1903 at 62 (No. 45). That jury
2 proceeded accordinglyand did not find that any of the Samsung products subject to the partial
3 judgment infringed all three asserted Apple design patents. Dkt. 1931 at 6-7. To the contrary, the
4 jury found that all but one of the twelve Samsung products relevant here infringed only a single
5 design patent. Id.; see Dkt. 3290. Apple thus has no evidentiary basis for asserting that the purported
6 visual effect of its three designs was somehow distinctive collectively.
7 Consideration of each of Apples patents individually shows that the visual-contribution
8 factor, even if relevant (it is not), if anything supports Samsung. The D305 patent covers only a
9 design for a specific array of icons reflected in a single applications screen buried below the home
10 screen on Samsungs accused phones. See, e.g., Dkt. 1997 at 4097-98. No jury could possibly find
11 that such a design made a significant visual contribution to the overall appearance of Samsungs
12 entire phones. Similarly, the D677 and D087 patents cover only narrow designs for portions of a
13 phones exterior, and no jury could find that the basic form of a round-cornered rectangle gave
14 Samsungs entire phones their overall appearance, much less be required to make such findings.7
15 Apples Factor 3 The physical and conceptual separability of the components. Apple
16 further errs in insisting (Br. 17-18) that complex, high-functioning smartphones are unitary
17 objects lacking components distinct from the phones as a whole. Such a remarkable assertion
18 cannot be supported by evidence that the phones were sold as unified products or that witnesses
19 referred in testimony to the design of phones or products without further specificity. A
20 smartphone is nothing like a dinner plate, and is obviously far more complex and made up of
21 many more components than even a multi-component product like a kitchen oven. See Samsung,
22
23
7
24 The Court should also disregard Apples irrelevant quotes from journalists (Br. 17) comparing
the parties products. Most of these snippets refer to design features that are not elements of the
25 asserted patents at allsuch as a candybar shape, an all black, shiny plastic body, and a
chrome-colored metallic border, id. This Court recognized previously that the cited evidence does
26 not pertain to Apples actual patented designs. Dkt. 2197 at 9; see Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
27 Co., 735 F.3d 1352, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (opining that such isolated, anecdotal statements about
single design elements do not show consumer perceptions about the patented designs). None of
28 this evidence, moreover, purports to show the visual significance of each design individually.
-17- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 137 S. Ct. at 432. If considering this proposed factor shows that Samsungs smartphones are
2 unitary objects, that only proves this factor should not be considered.
3 In any event, the evidence shows that Samsungs products are made up of hundreds of
4 separable components and that they can be broken down physically into those separate components.
5 For example, Apple purchased a Samsung phone and demonstrated to the jury how it could be
6 dismantled piece by piece to study its components. See Samsung Br. 16-17 (citing DX2519). The
7 record also shows that Samsung could design around Apples patents by changing discrete aspects
8 of the phones, such as using a different front face or updating the software to alter the icons, rather
9 than having to redesign entire phones. Id. at 18. And both parties witnesses described individual
10 components of the finished products as discrete aspects of the larger product. Id. at 16-18. Thus,
11 just as the cover of a book is a different article from the books contents and the book as a whole,
12 see Piano II, 234 F. at 82, so the front glass surface of Samsungs phones and the single claimed
13 graphical user interface on their display screens are also distinct from other components and from
14 the phones as a whole.8
15 Apples Factor 4 The defendants intent in designing the product. Finally, Apple
16 mistakenly argues (Br. 19-20) that, because Samsung supposedly copied Apples narrow patented
17 designs, Samsungs entire phones are the relevant articles of manufacture. Even if this were a logical
18 conclusion (it is not), the evidence at trial did not require the jury to accept Apples allegations of
19 copying. To the contrary, the jury could have agreed with Samsung that it independently arrived at
20 its designs, because patent infringement has no mental state requirement. And in any event, this
21 factor does not show that Samsungs entire phones must be the relevant articles of manufacture.
22 Specifically, the evidence showed that Samsung had independently designed numerous
23 iterations of rectangular, round-cornered, flat-faced devices by 2006before the first iPhone was
24 even announced. See DX684; Dkt. 1841 at 2818-20 (testimony regarding DX684). The industrial
25
26 8
Apple misplaces reliance (Br. 18) on its experts statements referring in shorthand to similarity
27 between the patents and the design of Samsung phones, for the testimony could not be clearer that
Apples experts limited their similarity opinions to the specific components of Samsungs phones
28 that corresponded to the claimed designs, ignoring all other components. See Samsung Br. 19-20.
-18- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 design of Samsungs flagship phones in the years that followed continued these general design
2 trends. E.g., PX36.54. Samsungs designers all confirmed that they did not copy the iPhone in
3 arriving at their designs, nor did they follow any supposed recommendations by non-designers to
4 adjust designs in reference to the iPhone. Dkt. 1841 at 2821 (Jinsoo Kim); Dkt. 1840 at 2540-41,
5 2550-51 (JY Wang).
6 Moreover, the so-called crisis of design to which Apple refers had nothing to do with
7 alleged copying of the iPhones exterior appearance. To the contrary, it referred to concerns about
8 the design of the operating system in Samsungs phones, namely the Windows-based system used
9 in the Omnia. See Dkt. 1611 at 997; PX40.2; PX36.67; Dkt. 2842 at 1047.9 Samsung ultimately
10 solved the operating-system issue not by redesigning its phones to look like the iPhone, but by
11 adopting Android. Dkt. 1611 at 997 (Denison). And that, coupled with Samsungs inclusion of
12 cutting-edge technology (like having the fastest processor, the brightest screens, the earliest 3G
13 and 4G high speed network connectivity, and letting consumers choose their wireless network
14 provider), is what led to Samsungs increase in market share. DX572.081-.082; Dkt. 1842 at 3044
15 (Wagner).
16 Thus, even if Samsungs intent were relevant to the identity of the relevant articles of
17 manufacture (it is not), this factor would not support Apples conclusion that Samsungs entire
18 phones must be the articles of manufacture here.

19 Ample evidence in the record supports total profit amounting to a fraction of
the profit on the entire phone for the relevant articles of manufacture.
20
Finally, Apple errs in arguing (Br. 21-23) that the record did not contain evidence of the
21
quantum of profit from the relevant components. As Samsung has shown (Samsung Br. 23), Apples
22
own damages experts admitted that total profit from the product components embodying Apples
23
claimed designs was much lower than entire-product profits, allowing the jury to calculate
24
25
9
26 Consumer feedback showed that users preferred the design of the Omnia and other early
Samsung phones over the iPhone, but that usability of the operating system was an issue. PX36.64,
27 .72. Samsungs executives rejected the idea that Samsung should make something like the
iPhone, and instead directed designers to make Screen Size bigger and fix the operating system
28 problems. PX40.5.
-19- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Samsungs profits at amounts far lower than the $399 million award at issue. But even if Apple
2 were right, it would simply mean that no profits could properly have been awarded because Apple
3 bore the burden of proving Samsungs profits from the relevant articles of manufacture.
4 Contrary to Apples contention (Br. 22-25), Apples untimely invention of a new proposed
5 burden-shifting test five years after trial cannot possibly render the errors at trial harmless and
6 justify maintaining the existing $399 million judgment. Apple clearly waived the harmless- error
7 arguments it makes now, and in any event, the harmless-error analysis is not such a counterfactual
8 hypothetical exercise. Rather, prejudice is presumed, see Clem, 566 F.3d at 1182, and here, nothing
9 in the verdict indicates that the result would have been the same without the error Dang v. Cross,
10 422 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2005) (reversing based on instructional error) (internal quotation marks
11 omitted); see Clem, 566 F.3d at 1183 (same).10 The Court instructed the jury that Apple bore the
12 burden of proving Samsungs profits. See Dkt. 1903 at 71 (Inst. No. 53). If Instruction No. 42.1
13 had been given, the jury therefore could have rejected an award of infringers profits under Section
14 289 entirely, finding that components were the relevant articles and that Apple failed to prove profits
15 from those components.
16 CONCLUSION
17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant a new trial on design-patent damages,
18 unless it enters judgment that Apple is entitled to no infringers profits under Section 289.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
26 Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009), did not involve instructional error and thus does not
require a different test (contra Br. 23). Notably, the Ninth Circuit has continued to presume
27 prejudice following Shinseki, see, e.g., White v. Baca, 676 F. Appx 724, 725 (9th Cir. 2017), and
this Court has rightly recognized that it must apply that standard, Dkt. 3509 at 31.
28
-20- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 DATED: September 28, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART

& SULLIVAN, LLP
2
4 By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis

John B. Quinn
5 Kathleen M. Sullivan
William C. Price
6 Michael T. Zeller
Kevin P.B. Johnson
7
Victoria F. Maroulis
8
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
9 LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
10 AMERICA, LLC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-21- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


17-09-28 Samsung Responsive Brief On Design Patent Damages

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

17-09-28 Samsung Responsive Brief On Design Patent Damages

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

17-09-28 Samsung Responsive Brief On Design Patent Damages

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3524 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 26

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

7 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

6 Apples multifactor test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture is

17 Ample evidence in the record supports total profit amounting to a fraction of

-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

11 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,

14 Campbell v. United States,

20 Erving Paper Mills v. Hudson-Sharp Machine Co.,

23 Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,

4 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

7 Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.,

10 Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

13 Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc.,

16 Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v. United States,

22 Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

3 17 U.S.C. 504(b) .......................................................................................................................... 10

4 35 U.S.C. 284 ............................................................................................................................... 11

5 35 U.S.C. 289 ........................................................................................................................... 3, 11

11 H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 (1886) .................................................................................................. 10, 13

-iv- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

8 phones makes a mockery of the Supreme Courts intervening decision.

10 appearance of a multi-component productwhether a piano, a car or a smartphonewarrants total

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

3 claim to the corresponding portion of the product).

-3- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

21 re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 268 (C.C.P.A. 1980)).

-4- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

17 Finally, Apples how-product-is-sold factor would be harmful as a practical matter, because

-5- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

13 bearing on the identity issue presented at step one.

17 non-ornamental, interior components of a product, periodno matter how distinctive such a

-6- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

3 including hidden, interior componentry, merely because it is visually distinctive.

12 an accused product is a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, or a multicomponent

23 integrated into the phone at the time of sale.

-7- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

2 manufacture, which is a physical thing, from a small component to a larger one.4

7 e.g., Dkt. 2219 at 14 (Evidence of copying is not evidence of infringement or knowledge

10 cites no authority holding that copying is material to infringement or infringers profits.

11 Identification of the relevant article of manufacture is ultimately a factual

-8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

2 to chill innovation and competition).

-9- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

9 whatsoever in enacting Section 289, the ordinary default rule applies.

-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

3 defendant. Id. at 1327; see Samsung Br. 10-11 (collecting authorities).

-11- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

7 Medtronic, 134 S. Ct. at 846.

11 determinations of [a retirement] plan sponsor, which shift[ed] a burden of proof or persuasion to

18 other authorities are entirely off point.5

-12- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

18 asymmetry of information problem by providing a statutory minimum recovery of $250an