17-09-08 Apple Design Patent Damages Brief

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3522 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 32

1 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) WILLIAM F. LEE

[email protected] [email protected]
2 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
NATHAN B. SABRI (CA SBN 252216)
[email protected] HALE AND DORR LLP
3
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 60 State Street
4 425 Market Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109
San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (617) 526-6000
5 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
6 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
7 [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
8 Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
9 Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
10 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN JOSE DIVISION
15

16
17
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
18
Plaintiff, APPLES OPENING BRIEF IN
19 RESPONSE TO THE COURTS
v. JULY 28, 2017 ORDER
20
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean Date: October 12, 2017
21 corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Time: 1:30pm
AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
22 SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
23
company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
APPLES OPENING BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS JULY 28, 2017 ORDER
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
3 II. RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTIONS ................................................................ 2
4 A. Issue 1: The Article Of Manufacture Is The Thing To Which The
5 Defendant Applied The Patented Design For The Purpose Of Sale. ...................... 2
6 B. Issue 2: Identifying The Article Of Manufacture Is A Question Of

Fact To Be Decided By A Jury When Disputed. .................................................... 7
7
C. Issues 3 & 4: After The Plaintiff Makes Out A Prima Facie Case
8 Under 289, The Burden Shifts To The Defendant To Prove An
Article Of Manufacture Less Than The Product As Sold And To
9 Prove Its Total Profit On That Article. ................................................................ 9
10
D. Issue 5: Samsungs Infringing Phones Are The Relevant Articles
11 Of Manufacture For All Three Design Patents. .................................................... 14
12 E. Issue 6: The Record Only Supports A Finding That The Relevant

Articles Of Manufacture For All Three Design Patents Are
13 Samsungs Infringing Phones. .............................................................................. 15
14 1. The evidence shows that the infringing phones were the
articles to which Samsung applied the patented designs for
15 the purpose of sale..................................................................................... 15
16 2. The jury could not have found any smaller article of
manufacture. .............................................................................................. 20
17
F. Issue 7: There Is No Record Evidence Supporting The Total
18
Profit For Any Article Other Than Samsungs Infringing Phones...................... 21
19
III. APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, NO NEW TRIAL IS
20 WARRANTED. ................................................................................................................ 23
21 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLES OPENING BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS JULY 28, 2017 ORDER i
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
Federal Cases
4
In re AI Realty Marketing of New York, Inc.,
5 293 B.R. 586 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003) ......................................................................................14
6 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................23
7
8 In re Beckwith,
203 F. 45 (7th Cir. 1913).....................................................................................................11, 14
9
Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
10 496 F. Supp. 476 (D. Minn. 1980) ............................................................................................14
11 SEC v. Bilzerian,
29 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................................................12
12
Boyce v. Soundview Technology Group, Inc.,
13
464 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................13
14
Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America,
15 975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................8
16 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Brothers,

222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) ....................................................................................................4, 5, 6
17
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Brothers,
18 234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ..............................................................................................................8
19
Campbell v. United States,
20 365 U.S. 85 (1961) ....................................................................................................................10
21 Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,

295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................8
22
Clem v. Lomeli,
23 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2009).............................................................................................24, 25
24
Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension
25 Trust for Southern California,
508 U.S. 602 (1993) ..................................................................................................................10
26
Dang v. Cross,
27 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................25
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK ii
1 Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,

773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................3
2
Erving Paper Mills v. Hudson-Sharp Machine Co.,
3 332 F.2d 674 (7th Cir. 1964).....................................................................................................11
4
SEC v. First City Financial Corp.,
5 890 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................12
6 SEC v. Fujinaga,
No. 16-15623, 2017 WL 2465002 (9th Cir. June 7, 2017) .......................................................13
7
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.,
8 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ............................................................................................3
9 Glen Raven Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
10 189 F.2d 845 (4th Cir. 1951).......................................................................................................6
11 Gorham Co. v. White,

81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1872) ................................................................................................4, 8
12
SEC v. Halek,
13 537 F. Appx 576 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................12
14 Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank,
15 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015) ..................................................................................................................8
16 SEC v. Hughes,
124 F.3d 449 (3d Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................................13
17
Kokesh v. SEC,
18 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017) ..............................................................................................................12
19 L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.,
988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................................6
20
21 Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus,
105 U.S. 94 (1881) ......................................................................................................................6
22
Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management,
23 776 F.2d 276 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................10
24 Liriano v. Hobart Corp.,
170 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1999) ......................................................................................................13
25
Michery v. Ford Motor Co.,
26
650 F. Appx 338 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................10
27
Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
28 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .........................................................................................4, 5, 11
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK iii
1 Parker Sweeper Co. v. E.T. Rugg Co.,

474 F.2d 950 (6th Cir. 1973).......................................................................................................6
2
SEC v. Platforms Wireless International Corp.,
3 617 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................12
4
Primos, Inc. v. Hunters Specialties, Inc.,
5 451 F.3d 841 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................23
6 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.,

137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) ..........................................................................................................3, 8, 9
7
In re Schnell,
8 46 F.2d 203 (C.C.P.A. 1931) ......................................................................................................7
9 Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v. United States,
10 139 U.S. 560 (1891) ..................................................................................................................10
11 Shinseki v. Sanders,
556 U.S. 396 (2009) ............................................................................................................23, 25
12
SEC v. Whittemore,
13 744 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) ..............................................................................................12
14 SEC v. Wyly,
15 56 F. Supp. 3d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .........................................................................................13
16 Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.,

268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920)...........................................................................................................5
17
State Cases
18
Barker v. Lull Engg Co.,
19 573 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1978) ..........................................................................................................11
20 Federal Statutes & Regulations
21
35 U.S.C. 171 .................................................................................................................................7
22
35 U.S.C. 284 .................................................................................................................................8
23
35 U.S.C. 289 ....................................................................................................................... passim
24
37 C.F.R. 1.153 ..............................................................................................................................7
25
Other Authorities
26
2 McCormick on Evidence 337 (7th ed. 2013) ............................................................................10
27
18 Congressional Record 824 (Jan. 20, 1887) ............................................................................6, 12
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK iv
1 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 1503.01 ..........................................................................7
2 Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment 51 (2011) ..................................12, 13

3 Wright & Miller, 21B Federal Practice & Procedure Evidence 5122 (2d ed.
2005) .........................................................................................................................................10
4
5 Briefs
6 Apple Brief,
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 14-1335,
7 2014 WL 3909249 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2014) ...........................................................................23
8 Apple Statement in Support of Continued Panel Review,
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 14-1335,
9 2016 WL 8222614 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2016) ..........................................................................24
10
Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party,
11 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777,
2016 WL 3194218 (S. Ct. June 8, 2016) .......................................................................... passim
12
Petitioners Reply Brief,
13 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777,
2016 WL 6599922 (S. Ct. June 1, 2016) .................................................................................22
14
15 Petitioners Reply Brief,

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777,
16 2016 WL 4524542 (S. Ct. Aug. 29, 2016) ...........................................................................7, 24
17 Respondents Brief,
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777,
18 2016 WL 4073686 (S. Ct. July 29, 2016) ................................................................................24
19 Samsung Statement in Support of Remand,
20 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 14-1335,
2017 WL 514460 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2017) ..............................................................................24
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK v
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 35 U.S.C. 289 provides that a patentee may recover an infringers total profit on the
3 article of manufacture to which the infringer has applied the patented design for the purpose of
4 sale. When a patentee has demonstrated that the infringer applied the patented design to a
5 product and profited from that products sale, it has proven its prima facie case for infringers
6 profits under 289. The infringing defendant may then try to reduce the damages amount by, for
7 instance, showing that certain costs should be deducted from the infringing product revenue or by
8 arguing that the patented design was applied not to the product as a whole, but to an article of
9 manufacture that is only a component of that overall product.
10 Whether an infringer can reduce the 289 damages it owesthrough offsetting costs or a
11 smaller article of manufactureare factual issues that, when disputed, are for the jury, because
12 they are simply sub-questions within the jurys overall damages decision. As is typical of a
13 disgorgement-like remedy, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion on its request to reduce
14 damages, because it has superior access to relevant information and should shoulder the burden of
15 proving (if it so contends) that its ill-gotten gains are less than what it received from the
16 infringing sales. This Court recognized these principles in its instructions regarding Samsungs
17 effort to identify deductible costs; Samsungs efforts to reduce the damages amount based on an
18 asserted smaller article of manufacture should be treated no differently. Thus, as the Solicitor
19 General of the United States explained before the Supreme Court, once the patentholder makes its
20 prima facie case that the defendant misappropriated the patented design in a sold product, the
21 defendant has the burden of identifying evidence showing that the design was in fact applied to a
22 smaller article of manufacture. For the same reasons, the defendant also has the burden of
23 proving the total profit on that smaller article of manufacture. Both issues are for the jury.
24 Where a defendant meaningfully disputes the patentees prima facie case by introducing
25 evidence that the patented design was applied to an article of manufacture smaller than the
26 product as sold, the jury should determineas the statute directsthe thing to which the
27 defendant applied the patented design for the purpose of sale. As the Solicitor General explained,
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 1
1 the article of manufacture is the thing that most fairly may be said to embody the defendants
2 appropriation of the plaintiffs innovation. Br. for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting
3 Neither Party 9, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, 2016 WL 3194218 (June 8, 2016)
4 (U.S. Br.). While no bright-line rule will dictate the result in all cases, several factors may
5 inform the inquiry, including: how the defendant sells its asserted article of manufacture (e.g.,
6 separately or as part of a unitary product); the visual contribution of the patented design to the
7 product as a whole; the degree to which the asserted article is physically or conceptually distinct
8 from the product as a whole; and the defendants aim in appropriating the patented design.
9 These principles make plain that this Court did not err in not giving Samsungs Proposed
10 Jury Instruction 42.1. Apple overwhelmingly proved its prima facie case that Samsung applied
11 Apples patented designs to its entire phones and proved Samsungs revenues on those phones.
12 Although Samsung offered evidence of costs that it believed should offset the proven revenue, no
13 Samsung witness testified that the recoverable profits should be further reduced because Samsung
14 applied Apples patented designs to any article other than Samsungs infringing phones.
15 Having identified no evidence of any alternative article of manufacture, Samsung also failed to
16 identify any evidence of an alternative total profit calculation on such an article. The record is
17 entirely one-sided on these points.
18 Because no foundation in the evidence would have permitted a reasonable jury to find that
19 Samsung carried its burden of identifying any lesser article of manufacture, let alone the total
20 profit on that article, there was no error in declining to give Samsungs Proposed Jury
21 Instruction 42.1 and Samsung has shown no cognizable prejudice in the Courts instructions.
22 Accordingly, no new trial is warranted.
23 II. RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTIONS
24 A. Issue 1: The Article Of Manufacture Is The Thing To Which The

Defendant Applied The Patented Design For The Purpose Of Sale.
25
Section 289 provides: Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license
26
of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of
27
28
1 manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to
2 which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the
3 extent of his total profit[.] The Supreme Court stated that an article of manufacture is simply a
4 thing made by hand or machine and may be a product sold to a consumer as well as a
5 component of that product. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 435 (2016).
6 Accordingly, as 289 makes clear, the article of manufacture is the thing to which the defendant
7 applies the patented design for the purpose of sale. Or, as the Solicitor General put it, the article
8 of manufacture is the thing that most fairly may be said to embody the defendants
9 appropriation of the plaintiffs innovation. U.S. Br. 9.1
10 As the party seeking damages, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving a prima
11 facie case identifying the article of manufacture for which it seeks profits. The plaintiff meets
12 that burden by showing that the defendant applied the patented design to a product that was sold.
13 If the factfinder decides that the product as sold infringed the design patent (as happened here),
14 the product is then necessarily an article of manufacture to which the patented design has been
15 applied for the purpose of sale. In some cases, the defendant will not challenge the point, and the
16 prima facie case will end the inquiry. In other cases, the defendant may seek to reduce the
17 amount of recoverable profits by identifying some component of the infringing product as sold
18 and asserting that the identified component is the article of manufacture on which profits are
19 owed. Resolving such a dispute will turn on the specific evidence in each case, but Apple
20 proposes that the following four factors may be considered:2
21 1. How the defendant sells its infringing product and accounts for its profits
on those sales, including whether the defendant typically sells its asserted
22 article of manufacture as part of a unified product or separately.
23 This factor follows from the statutory language, which states that the defendant sells or
24
25 1
Emphases are added unless otherwise noted.
2
Just as the factors that guide the reasonable royalty analysis set out in Georgia-Pacific
26
Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), must be adapted to the
27 particular circumstances of each case, see Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201,
1230-1232 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the factors listed below should be adapted as each case requires, and
28 the relevance of each factor may vary from case to case.
1 exposes for sale the article of manufacture or applies the patented design to the article of
2 manufacture for the purpose of sale. 35 U.S.C. 289. The factfinder should consider what
3 physical items the defendant sells and how the defendant earns and accounts for its revenues and
4 profits. If the defendant typically sells its asserted article of manufacture as part of a unitary
5 product, the factfinder may reasonably infer that the defendant has applied the patented design to
6 the product as a whole. Relatedly, if the defendant normally tracks unit sales, revenues, and
7 profits on the products as a whole (as opposed to on the asserted article of manufacture), that
8 further indicates that the defendant recognizes profits from applying the patented design to the
9 whole product. For example, where a design patent covers only the upper portion of a shoe, the
10 entire shoe may fairly be considered the article of manufacture if the defendant only sells the
11 infringing shoes as a whole. See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1447
12 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that the defendants stipulated to the amount generated from sales of
13 the infringing shoes where the design patent covered only the upper portion of the shoe).
14 However, if the defendant typically sells its asserted article of manufacture separately,
15 allows consumers to substitute different designs, or separately tracks unit sales, revenues, or
16 profits from individual components, that might suggest that the patented design was applied to an
17 article of manufacture smaller than the product as a whole. For example, in the Piano Cases, the
18 Second Circuit noted that purchasers could customize or select different piano cases for the same
19 piano mechanism, such that the case is sold separate and apart from the music-making
20 apparatus. Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902, 904 (2d Cir. 1915) (Piano I).
21 2. The visual contribution of the patented design to the product as a whole,

including whether the claimed design gives distinctive appearance to the
22 product as a whole or only to the asserted article of manufacture.
23 A patented design gives a peculiar or distinctive appearance to the manufacture, or article
24 to which it may be applied. Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511, 525 (1872). Thus,
25 the factfinder should seek to identify the thing that derives its distinctive appearance from
26 application of the patented design, keeping in mind that the design may be applied to any article
27 of manufacture, 35 U.S.C. 289. As the Solicitor General stated, if the design is a significant
28
1 attribute of the entire product, affecting the appearance of the product as a whole, that fact might
2 suggest that the article should be the product. U.S. Br. 28. Conversely, where the design does
3 not significantly contribute to the products overall appearance, that might suggest that the
4 relevant article of manufacture is a smaller component.
5 For example, if a defendant applies a patented design for the body of a car (e.g., the shape
6 of a Volkswagen Beetle), a factfinder may reasonably infer that the article of manufacture is the
7 entire car, because the bodys distinctive design contributes significantly to the cars overall
8 appearance. See U.S. Br. 26. By contrast, a reasonable factfinder would be unlikely to conclude,
9 for example, that a patented cupholder design made a substantial visual contribution to the entire
10 cars appearance, or that a patented refrigerator latch design entitled the patentee to all profits on
11 the refrigerator. See Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966, 974 (6th Cir. 1920)
12 (where design patent covered refrigerator latch, it [wa]s not seriously contended that all the
13 profits from the refrigerator belonged to [the patentee]).
14 3. The degree to which the asserted article of manufacture is physically and

conceptually distinct from the product as sold.
15
Nearly every product will contain individual components that were, at least at one time,
16
separate from the end product. Thus, whether an identified component is the article of
17
manufacture to which a patented design is applied cannot be answered simply by determining
18
whether that component is ever physically or conceptually distinct from the product as a whole.
19
Rather, the factfinder should consider whether the design is conceptually distinct from the
20
product as a whole (U.S. Br. 28) and the extent to which various components can be physically
21
separated from the product as a whole when it is sold (id. 9).
22
Sometimes the design is inseparable from the article to which it is attached, or of which it
23
is a part. Piano I, 222 F. at 904. A design for the body of a shoe, for instance, may be
24
conceived of holistically as part of the entire shoe such that the shoe body cannot be separated
25
from the shoe, either physically or conceptually. See Nike, 138 F.3d at 1442 (the article[s]
26
bearing the [patented] design were the whole athletic shoes, where the patented design focused
27
28
1 on the shoe upper and did not include the sole). However, there are other instances where the
2 patented design is applied to a component (e.g., the piano case) that is both physically and
3 conceptually distinct from the product as a whole (e.g., the piano). See Piano I, 222 F. at 903-904
4 (finding the case was the relevant article of manufacture, where a consumer may have [a] piano
5 placed in any one of several cases dealt in by the maker).
6 4. The defendants reasons for appropriating the patented design, including

whether the defendant did so in an effort to replicate a product as a whole.
7
Congress understood that design drives sales in a competitive marketplace where many
8
products have similar functions and features. 18 Cong. Rec. 824, 834 (Jan. 20, 1887) ([I]t is the
9
design that sells the article, and so that makes it possible to realize any profit at all.). While
10
inadvertent design patent infringement is theoretically possible, most design patent infringement
11
involves deliberate appropriation.3 Accordingly, the factfinder may consider why the defendant
12
decided to appropriate the patented design. For example, if the defendant intentionally copied the
13
patented design (e.g., the design for the body of a car) to make a product (e.g., a car) that
14
resembles the patentees productand, in fact, profited from infringing sales of that entire
15
productthat would support a finding that the article is the entire product. On the other hand, if
16
the defendant copied the design of only an insignificant component of a product (e.g., a cupholder
17
in a car, a latch on a refrigerator) for reasons other than imitating the patentees entire product,
18
that may indicate that the article is only the copied component rather than the entire product.
19
* * *
20
Samsung and the Solicitor General have pointed to the design patent itself, including the
21
scope of the claimed design, as a relevant factor in determining the article of manufacture. See,
22
e.g., Pet. Reply Br. 15, Samsung, No. 15-777, 2016 WL 4524542 (Aug. 29, 2016); U.S. Br. 27-
23
24
3
E.g., Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U.S. 94, 96 (1881) (accused design was servile copy
25 of patented design); L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117, 1125 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (accused shoes were almost a direct copy of patented design (internal quotation marks
26
omitted)); Parker Sweeper Co. v. E.T. Rugg Co., 474 F.2d 950, 950 (6th Cir. 1973) (defendant
27 appeared deliberately to have copied [plaintiffs] successful product); Glen Raven
Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sanson Hosiery Mills, Inc., 189 F.2d 845, 847 (4th Cir. 1951) (unabashed
28 attempts to copy patented design).
1 28. Any consideration of the patent itself, however, should be carefully limited when inquiring
2 into the article to which the infringer applied the patented design for at least two reasons.
3 First, while a design patent may claim only certain aspects of a product, there is a
4 difference between the design claimed in the patent and the article of manufacture to which the
5 design has been applied. They are not coextensive: the claimed design delineates the distinctive
6 features that make up the innovative design, whereas an article of manufacture is a thing (like a
7 phone) to which that design has been applied. See 35 U.S.C. 289 (distinguishing between an
8 article of manufacture and the patented design applied to it).
9 Second, while the patent must identify an article of manufacture to which the design may
10 be applied, 35 U.S.C. 171; see 37 C.F.R. 1.153; MPEP 1503.01, the article described or
11 illustrated in the patent does not limit the article to which the defendant may apply the patented
12 design. Rather, 289 makes clear that the defendant may apply the patented design to, and
13 profits may be recovered for, any article of manufacture. 35 U.S.C. 289. Accordingly, [i]t
14 is well settled that a design patent may be infringed by articles which are specifically different
15 from that shown in the patent . [T]he inventive concept of a design is not limited to the exact
16 article which happens to be selected for illustration in [a] patent. Application of Rubinfield, 270
17 F.2d 391, 393 (C.C.P.A. 1959); see In re Schnell, 46 F.2d 203, 209-210 (C.C.P.A. 1931); U.S. Br.
18 28 ([T]he factfinder should not treat the patents designation of the article as conclusive.).
19 Thus, while the factfinder might consult the patent to understand the claimed design, the patent
20 does not determine the article to which the infringer has applied the patented design.
21 B. Issue 2: Identifying The Article Of Manufacture Is A Question Of Fact To Be

Decided By A Jury When Disputed.
22
Identifying the article of manufacture to which the defendant has applied the patented
23
design is a question of fact that, if materially disputed, is for the jury. If the defendant comes
24
forward with sufficient evidence that the article of manufacture is something less than the entire
25
infringing product, then resolving the dispute requiresas enumerated in the factors discussed
26
aboveconsidering the relation to the business whole of the part embodying the patent, and that
27
28
1 relation must be considered from all viewpoints, technical, mechanical, popular, and
2 commercial. Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 81 (2d Cir. 1916). These
3 [c]ontext-specific judgments about the relationship of the design to the article as whole are
4 quintessentially factual in nature. U.S. Br. 29.
5 Treating the article of manufacture issue as a jury question accords with the Supreme
6 Courts recognition that it is the first step[] in [a]rriving at a damages award under 289.
7 Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. It is well-established that the jury is responsible for determining
8 damages in design patent cases. See, e.g., Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d
9 1277, 1283-1284 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (infringers profits for design patent infringement); Braun Inc.
10 v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 818 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (same).4
11 Besides, it would be impractical to take a disputed part of the 289 inquiry away from the
12 jury. As occurred here, the jury determines (1) whether an accused product infringes; (2) the
13 amount of the total profit under 289; and (3) the amount of lost profits or a reasonable royalty
14 under 35 U.S.C. 284, if applicable. The plaintiff might even present alternative damages
15 theories under 284 and 289 for the same acts of infringement, depending on the
16 circumstances. It would be bizarre to carve out a small piece of one of these inquiries
17 identifying the article of manufacturewhile committing the rest to the jury.
18 Indeed, Samsung has already conceded that the jury should determine the article of
19 manufacture. Samsung urged on appeal that this Court gave incorrect jury instructions on the
20 issue, not that the Court should have determined the article of manufacture in the first instance.
21
4
Additionally, [t]reating the identification of the relevant article of manufacture as a jury
22
question is consistent with the jurys role in determining design-patent infringement[.] U.S. Br.
23 30. To determine infringement, the jury compares the patented and accused designs, assessing
whether in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives,
24 the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it
to be the other. Gorham, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) at 528; see also Dkt. 1903 at 63 (jury instruction
25 based on Gorham). As with that ordinary observer test, the factors that guide the article of
manufacture inquiry are context-specific and will often include judgments about how ordinary
26
persons conceive of products. It has long been understood across a variety of doctrinal contexts
27 that, when the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an
assessment, the jury is generally the decisionmaker that ought to provide the fact-intensive
28 answer. Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907, 911 (2015).
1 See Samsung CAFC Br. 38-39; Samsung CAFC Reply Br. 16-18; Dkt. 1694 at 151. As this
2 Court noted, Samsung objected to the failure to give Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 on the
3 grounds that the jury should be allowed to determine that the article of manufacture was less than
4 the entirety of each infringing Samsung phone. Dkt. 3509 at 16. Likewise, Samsungs objection
5 to Final Jury Instruction 54 never suggested that the article of manufacture question should be
6 taken away from the juryrather, Samsung offered only a general objection. Id. at 17.
7 C. Issues 3 & 4: After The Plaintiff Makes Out A Prima Facie Case Under
289, The Burden Shifts To The Defendant To Prove An Article Of
8 Manufacture Less Than The Product As Sold And To Prove Its Total Profit
On That Article.5
9
10 As the party seeking damages, a design patent plaintiff bears the initial burden of proving
11 that the defendant applied the patented design to a product that was sold and further proving
12 revenues from the saleas Apple did here.6 At that point, the plaintiff has made out a prima
13 facie case under 289 by identifying both an article of manufacture to which the patented
14 design has been applied and the total profit on that article. The burden then shifts to the
15 defendant, if it so chooses, to prove that the damages should be reduced by, for example,
16 deducting allowable costs. That is precisely the burden-shifting framework this Court employed
17 at trial. See Dkt. 1903 at 72 (2012 Trial) (instructing jury that Apple has the burden of proving
18 the infringing defendants gross revenue by a preponderance of the evidence. Samsung has the
19 burden of proving the deductible expenses.); Dkt. 2784 at 39 (2013 Trial) (same).
20 The defendant may also try to reduce damages by showing that it applied the patented
21 design to an article of manufacture less than the infringing product as sold. As the Solicitor
22 General explained, once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant profited by exploiting a
23 5
As the Supreme Court noted, identifying the article of manufacture and calculating the
24 total profit on that article are separate steps under 289. Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. Apple
addresses both steps together in this section because the reasons for placing the burden on the
25 defendant when it advocates for a smaller article of manufacture are the same for each step.
6
Although Apple had the burden to prove only Samsungs revenues, Apple actually
26
demonstrated Samsungs total profit by presenting evidence of Samsungs revenues on the
27 infringing phones minus the cost of goods sold. E.g., Dkt. 1839 at 2041-2045; Dkt. 2840 at 639;
PX25A1; PX25F. Samsung then sought to reduce the amount of that total profit by asserting
28 that additional costs should be deducted. E.g., Dkt. 2842 at 1014-1015; DX676; DX753.
1 product containing the plaintiffs patented design, the defendant should be required to identify,
2 through the introduction of admissible evidence, the component that the defendant asserts is the
3 article to which the design was applied. U.S. Br. 31. Several reasons support requiring the
4 defendant to shoulder the burden of proving that the article of manufacture is something smaller
5 than the infringing product and of proving the amount of the total profit on that smaller article;
6 indeed, they mirror the reasons for requiring the defendant to prove deductible costs.
7 First, courts often assign the burden of proof on an issue to the party with superior
8 knowledge of or access to the relevant facts. E.g., Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr.
9 Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 626 (1993) (It is indeed entirely sensible to
10 burden the party more likely to have information relevant to the facts about [a disputed issue].
11 Such was the rule at common law.); Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 96 (1961) ([T]he
12 ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of
13 establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary.); Selma, R. & D.R. Co. v.
14 United States, 139 U.S. 560, 568 (1891) ([T]he burden of proof lies on the person who wishes to
15 support his case by a particular fact which lies more peculiarly within his knowledge, or of which
16 he is supposed to be cognizant.); Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 776 F.2d 276, 280 (Fed. Cir.
17 1985) (The party with the best knowledge normally sustains the burden.).7
18 In a design patent case, the defendantas the party who applied the patented design to an
19 infringing productis better positioned to identify any component less than the product as sold to
20 which it believes the patented design has been applied. Indeed, manufacturers are often assigned
21 the burden of persuasion as to facts about product design because the considerations which
22 influenced the design of [a] product are peculiarly within [their] knowledge. Michery v. Ford
23 Motor Co., 650 F. Appx 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
24 U.S. Br. 31 (The defendant, as the manufacturer or seller of the accused product, has superior
25
7
See also Wright & Miller, 21B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. 5122 (2d ed. 2005) (In
26
allocating burdens of proof, courts look to see whether one party has superior access to the
27 evidence needed to prove the fact. If so, then that party must bear the burdens of proof.);
2 McCormick on Evid. 337 (7th ed. 2013) ([W]here the facts with regard to an issue lie
28 peculiarly in the knowledge of a party, that party has the burden of proving the issue.).
1 knowledge of the identity of the products components, as well as of some of the factors relevant
2 to the article determination[.]); Erving Paper Mills v. Hudson-Sharp Mach. Co., 332 F.2d 674,
3 678 (7th Cir. 1964) (manufacturer has burden because it ha[s] peculiar knowledge, unavailable
4 to [the plaintiff] about the product); Barker v. Lull Engg Co., 573 P.2d 443, 455 (Cal. 1978)
5 (where most of the evidentiary matters which may be relevant to the determination of the
6 adequacy of a products design and [the dispute] involve[s] technical matters peculiarly within
7 the knowledge of the manufacturer, then the burden should appropriately shift to the defendant
8 to prove non-defectiveness after the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of causation).
9 Similarly, the seller of an infringing product is also in a better position to prove the total
10 profit on any article of manufacture that is less than the product as sold. Neither the revenues
11 nor profits associated with a component of the infringing product are likely to be known to the
12 plaintiff, especially where the component is sold only as part of a unitary product; the plaintiff
13 may not even know whether separate records are kept. The defendant is better equipped to
14 provide information about the revenues, profits, and costs associated with its asserted article of
15 manufacture, and thus should fairly be assigned the burden of demonstrating the total profit
16 associated with any component it contends is the article of manufacture. See In re Beckwith, 203
17 F. 45, 48-49 (7th Cir. 1913) ([A]scertainment of the profits attributable to the infringement
18 requires such discovery, not alone of the gross sales, but of all items of cost entering into the
19 production and sale, which are presumptively within the knowledge or means of information
20 possessed by the infringing manufacturer.).
21 Second, shifting the burden to the defendant is consistent with 289s disgorgement-like
22 remedy. See Nike, 138 F.3d at 1448 ( 289 requires the disgorgement of the infringers profits
23 to the patent holder, such that the infringers retain no profit from their wrong); see also Samsung
24 Pet. for Cert. 33 (arguing that 289 is to be interpreted in accordance with disgorgement
25 principles); U.S. Br. 10, 31 (describing burden-shifting regime for 289s disgorgement remedy).
26 Disgorgement remedies typically require the defendant to shoulder the burden of
27 persuasion regarding any reduction of recovery below the plaintiffs prima facie showing. In
28
1 securities cases, for instance, a plaintiff seeking disgorgement of profits need only prove a
2 reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation. SEC v. First City Fin.
3 Corp., 890 F.2d 1215, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1989); see, e.g., SEC v. Platforms Wireless Intl Corp.,
4 617 F.3d 1072, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that [t]he amount of disgorgement should
5 include all gains flowing from the illegal activities and therefore need be only a reasonable
6 approximation of profits causally connected to the violation (citations and internal quotation
7 marks omitted)); Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment 51 (2011) (under
8 disgorgement scheme, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of producing evidence permitting at
9 least a reasonable approximation of the amount of the wrongful gain).8
10 Once the plaintiff in a securities action proves a reasonable approximation of total profits
11 gained from the illegal activity, it has proved a prima facie case that, if left unrebutted, meets its
12 ultimate burden of persuasion that its disgorgement figure reasonably approximates the amount
13 of unjust enrichment. First City Fin., 890 F.2d at 1232. The defendant then bears the burden
14 of establishing facts that reduce the plaintiffs sum of disgorgement. SEC v. Bilzerian, 29 F.3d
15 689, 697 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ([a]bsent proof of this sort, the plaintiffs prima facie case stands);
16 see also SEC v. Whittemore, 744 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2010) (after the claimant has made a
17 reasonable approximation of profits, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to rebut the
18 presumption that all profits gained while the defendants were in violation of the law constituted
19 ill-gotten gains), affd, 659 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); SEC v. Halek, 537 F. Appx 576, 581 (5th
20 Cir. 2013) (plaintiff carries the initial burden to prove that the amount of disgorgement is a
21 reasonable approximation of profits connected to the violation the burden then shifts to
22 defendant to prove that the amount is unreasonable). This burden-shifting approach is
23 appropriate because the risk of uncertainty in calculating disgorgement should fall upon the
24
25 8
The disgorgement remedy in securities cases is derived from the federal courts inherent
equity power to grant relief ancillary to an injunction. Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635, 1640
26
(2017). By contrast, 289 is a legal rule to provide recovery for infringement of design
27 patents. 18 Cong. Rec. at 834. Thus, while the burden-shifting approach in securities cases
provides a useful framework for understanding the burden-shifting under 289, the framework is
28 applied by the judge in securities cases and by the jury in design patent cases.
1 wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created that uncertainty. SEC v. Wyly, 56 F. Supp. 3d 260,
2 264-265 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); accord SEC v. Hughes, 124 F.3d 449, 455 (3d Cir. 1997) ([i]mposing
3 the burden upon the defendant of proving the propriety [of the disgorgement amount] is
4 appropriate and reasonable because the wrongdoer is in a superior position to identify relevant
5 facts about its ill-gotten gains).9
6 These burden-shifting principles for disgorgement cases readily apply to 289, which
7 similarly aims to identify (and disgorge) the defendants ill-gotten gains. A design patent plaintiff
8 establishes a complete claim for relief under 289, as Apple did here, by proving: (1) that the
9 defendant sold a product incorporating the patented design; and (2) the defendants revenues on
10 the sales of those infringing products. See 35 U.S.C. 289; Restatement (Third) of Restitution
11 and Unjust Enrichment 51 (2011) ([T]he claimants burden of proof is ordinarily met as
12 soon as the claimant presents a coherent theory of recovery in unjust enrichment.).10 Once the
13 plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the
14 total profit under 289 should be some lesser amount. The defendant may do so by
15 demonstrating deductible costs or by showing that the article of manufacture is something smaller
16 than the entire infringing product and proving the amount of the total profit on that smaller
17 article. If the defendant fails to come forward with evidence identifying the smaller article of
18 manufacture and the total profit associated with it, then the plaintiffs calculation stands.
19 Third, courts (including this Court, see supra p. 9) have already followed this burden-
20 shifting approach by requiring defendants to prove any deductible costs they believe reduce their
21
22 9
As with any burden-shifting regime, if the defendant fails to meet its burden, the
23 plaintiffs case stands. See Liriano v. Hobart Corp., 170 F.3d 264, 272 (2d Cir. 1999) ([S]ince
the prima facie case was not rebutted, it suffices.). Accordingly, where securities defendants
24 fail[] to rebut the SECs approximation of profits, the approximation stands as the measure of
disgorgement. See, e.g., SEC v. Fujinaga, 2017 WL 2465002, at *2 (9th Cir. June 7, 2017).
25 10
Similar rules exist in contract law. In an action for breach, [a]ll a plaintiff must establish
is (1) that the defendant caused the breach and (2) that damages resulted from that beach. Boyce
26
v. Soundview Tech. Group, Inc., 464 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2006). The plaintiff need only show
27 a stable foundation for a reasonable estimate of damages to which he is entitled[.] Id. (citation
omitted). After that burden is met, the breaching party (read: wrongdoer) must shoulder the
28 burden of the uncertainty regarding the amount of damages. Id.
1 total profit under 289. See, e.g., In re AI Realty Mktg. of N.Y., Inc., 293 B.R. 586, 618
2 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Once a patent owner establishes the amount of infringing sales, the
3 burden shifts to the infringer to demonstrate the nature and amount of the costs that should be
4 considered in calculating its total profits, as well as their relationship to the infringing
5 product.), affd in relevant part sub nom. Sunbeam Prod., Inc. v. Wing Shing Prod. (BVI) Ltd.,
6 311 B.R. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476, 497 (D.
7 Minn. 1980) (observing that the purpose of 289 is to prevent unjust enrichment and thus [t]he
8 burden of establishing the nature and amount of [deductions from the sum of disgorgement] is on
9 the defendants). The burden of lessening the damages recoverable under 289 by identifying an
10 article of manufacture smaller than the entire product as sold and by calculating the total
11 profit on that smaller article of manufacture should be no different.11
12 D. Issue 5: Samsungs Infringing Phones Are The Relevant Articles Of

Manufacture For All Three Design Patents.
13
The relevant articles of manufacture for the D677, D087, and D305 patents are
14
Samsungs infringing phones. Apple proved its prima facie case by showing that each phone is:
15
(1) an article of manufacture (i.e., a thing made by hand or machine); (2) that Samsung sold;
16
and (3) to which Samsung applied Apples patented designs (demonstrated by the jurys
17
infringement verdict). That has been Apples position from the outset. Dkt. 1384-27 at 4 (Apple
18
interrogatory response seeking Samsungs profits on its infringing phones). Indeed, Samsung
19
concedes (Dkt. 3491 at 2) that Apple made clear in its trial brief and Rule 16 pretrial statement
20
that Apple was seeking Samsungs profits on the entire phones, not any smaller components
21
thereof. And as the Court has acknowledged, at no point during discovery did Samsung identify
22
23
11
24 At a minimum, the defendant must provide evidence permitting the factfinder to reach a
lower disgorgement figure. See, e.g., Beckwith, 203 F. at 48-49 (infringer must produce
25 discovery as to profits because all items of cost entering into the production and sale are
presumptively within the knowledge or means of information possessed by the infringing
26
manufacturer). Although Samsung produced evidence of its claimed deductible costs, Samsung
27 produced no competent evidence regarding its profits on any alternative articles of manufacture;
that by itself should preclude Samsung from asserting that the 289 award should be some lower
28 profits figure based on an alternative article of manufacture. See infra pp. 21-22.
1 any alternative article of manufacture. Dkt. 3509 at 8. The case thus proceeded to trial on the
2 only theory it could have: that Apple sought and was entitled to recover Samsungs total profit
3 on the phones to which Samsung applied Apples patented designs. As discussed below, the
4 record fully supports that finding and is devoid of evidence supporting an alternative
5 conclusion.12
6 E. Issue 6: The Record Only Supports A Finding That The Relevant Articles Of
Manufacture For All Three Design Patents Are Samsungs Infringing Phones.
7
1. The evidence shows that the infringing phones were the articles to
8 which Samsung applied the patented designs for the purpose of sale.
9
The record is replete with evidence that Samsungs infringing phones, and not any
10
components thereof, are the relevant articles of manufacture. Apples design experts Peter
11
Bressler and Susan Kare testified that Samsung applied the patented designs to the infringing
12
phones. E.g., Dkt. 1611 at 1049 ([T]he design of this phone would be considered substantially
13
the same as the design of the 087 and 677 patents by an ordinary observer.); id. at 1057
14
(referring to the design or appearance of these [infringing] phones); id. at 1055 (referring to
15
the design of the Galaxy S 4G); id. at 1150 ([T]he ordinary observer should be getting an
16
overall impression of what the design of the phone is[.]); Dkt. 1612 at 1376 (This is another
17
Samsung phone called the Captivate where I found similarly that the overall visual impression
18
was substantially similar to the D305[.]); id. at 1377-1379 (same for other infringing phones).
19
Samsung presented no contradictory testimony and no expert testimony on the point. And the
20
jurys infringement findings conclusively establish that Samsung applied Apples patented
21
designs to Samsungs phones. Dkt. 1931 at 6-7 (verdict form identifying each infringing phone).
22
While Apple made out its prima facie case that the articles of manufacture are the
23
infringing phones (and calculated the total profit on those phones), Samsung never identified or
24
came forward with evidence of any smaller article of manufacture (let alone the total profit on a
25
smaller article) and thus cannot satisfy its burden of proving any article of manufacture other than
26
12
27 It is still unclear precisely what Samsung contends the article of manufacture is.
Samsung did not identify any components as the relevant articles during discovery or for the jury.
28 On appeal and remand, Samsungs asserted articles changed repeatedly. See Dkt. 3503 at 4 n.3.
1 the infringing phones. Accordingly, the record only supports the conclusion that the relevant
2 articles of manufacture for each design patent are the infringing phones. Reviewing the record in
3 light of the relevant factors (see supra pp. 3-6) only confirms that.
4 First, the only articles Samsung sold were the infringing phones, which were sold as
5 unitary products. Indeed, when STAs Vice-President of Finance and Operations was asked what
6 his company did, he said it sells handsets. Dkt. 2842 at 953; see also Dkt. 1842 at 3009-3010
7 (similar); Dkt. 1610 at 792 (agreeing STA sells mobile devices); id. at 794 (similar). All
8 financial records admitted at trial similarly show that Samsung sold phones and not any smaller
9 components, and that Samsung accounted for its revenues and profits from the sales of phones
10 and not from sales of any smaller components. See DX676 (Samsung financials); Dkt. 1842 at
11 3005 (DX676 generated by extract[ing] the data model by model); Dkt. 2842 at 968 (DX676
12 shows revenue, sales, and costs for products).
13 Samsung adduced no evidence that it separately sold any component that it may now
14 contend is the relevant article of manufacture.13 There is no evidence that Samsung ever
15 separately sold phone casings, bezels, front faces, or graphical user interfaces anywhere, to
16 anyone, at any time. In fact, the record contains no evidence that any component of Samsungs
17 phones could be purchased separately by consumers (e.g., as a replacement part); nor is there any
18 evidence that consumers could select or replace any individual phone components by, for
19 example, mixing and matching casings, bezels, front faces, or graphical user interfaces in a
20 manner that might suggest that those components could be separate articles of manufacture.
21 Second, the patented designs made a prominent visual contribution to the phones overall
22 appearance. The patented designs, which claim features related to the shape, rounded corners,
23 end-to-end glass front face, bezel, and grid of colorful icons, were prominent aspects of the
24 phones overall design and contributed to the ultimate look and feel of the infringing phones.
25 The jury could observe this from the phones themselves, which were in evidence, and as shown in
26
13
27 Evidence that Samsung sold processors to Apple and others is irrelevant. E.g., Dkt. 2843
at 1141-1142. Samsung does not and could not contend that those internal hardware components
28 alone are the article[s] of manufacture to which Samsung applied the patented designs.
1 Apples Closing Slide 9:
10
The record also shows that members of the public, including consumers and the press,
11
focused on features of all three patented designs as indicators of the striking similarity between
12
the overall appearance of Samsungs phones and the design of the iPhone, not similarity between
13
only some portion of Samsungs phones and a portion of the design of the iPhone. PX6; PX174.
14
For example, a Wired article headlined Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design compared
15
those phones and concluded that [t]he Vibrants industrial design is shockingly similar to the
16
iPhone 3G, identifying [t]he rounded curves at the corners, the candybar shape, the glossy,
17
black finish[,] the chrome-colored metallic border and the look of the square icons as notable
18
features in common. PX174. A PCWorld article about a Samsung Galaxy S remarked that [t]he
19
design is actually very iPhone 3GS-like with an all black, shiny plastic body and minimal buttons
20
on the phones face. PX6.1. Another article stated: Samsungs Galaxy S Vibrant is one sleek
21
looking phone. In fact when I first unboxed it at the office many walked by and asked if it was an
22
iPhone. PX6.3. These articles and others demonstrate that the use of Apples patented designs
23
influenced the appearance of Samsungs phones in their entirety. See, e.g., PX6.4 ([The
24
Mesmerizes] sleek and streamlined design feels very reminiscent of the iPhone 3GS.; If the
25
Samsung Galaxy S II looks familiar its because it resembles Apples popular iPhone 4.).
26
Third, the evidence shows that Samsungs infringing phones are unitary objects and that
27
the various components Samsung has belatedly suggested as articles of manufacture are neither
28
1 physically nor conceptually distinct from the phones as a whole. The infringing phones
2 themselves, which the jury had during deliberations, showed that the phones were sold as unified
3 products, not intended to be separated into components by consumers. Samsungs own witnesses
4 made clear that Samsung conceives of design at the entire-phone level, not at any component
5 level. One Samsung executive testified that he used the term industrial design to mean the
6 outer physical appearance of the device and indicated that he spoke to the actual designers who
7 were responsible for the design of those products that were at issue. Dkt. 1610 at 842, 855; see
8 Dkt. 1611 at 950 (comparing designs of phones as a whole); id. at 951 (referring to the physical
9 design of the products). Apples two design experts also regularly referred to the design of
10 Samsung phones as matching or infringing the patented designs. E.g., supra p. 15; Dkt. 1611 at
11 1008 (Bressler: [T]here are a number of Samsung phones that are substantially the same as
12 the designs in those patents.); Dkt. 1612 at 1377 (Kare: This is the Continuum. This is another
13 one of the group of phones that I thought was substantially similar to the D305.); id. at 1377-
14 1379 (same for eight other phones). And the press reports cited above reflect that third parties
15 were struck by the similarity of the design of the infringing phones to Apples iPhone. PX6;
16 PX174 (The Vibrants industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G[.]). Thus, to
17 Samsung employees, experts, and lay observers, the infringing designs of the phones are
18 synonymous with the devices themselves.
19 And as the jury heard, Apple took the same view. When Apple first approached Samsung
20 to request that it stop copying, it was the design of the Galaxy S II product as a whole (and its
21 close similarity to the iPhone) that Apple found offensive (PX52.17):
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9 Upon seeing a Samsung Galaxy S phone, Apple executive Phil Schiller testified that his first
10 thought was, wow, theyve completely copied the i[P]hone. Dkt. 2842 at 850; see Dkt. 1547 at
11 510 (Schiller: it was plain to see that Apples designs had been ripped off by Samsung).
12 Fourth, the evidence shows that Samsung copied Apples patented designs in an effort to
13 replicate the competing iPhone and to sell more phones, not to sell only components of phones.
14 Internal Samsung documents noted that the iPhone had set the standard for [s]creen-centric
15 design, that the iPhones strong, screen-centric design ha[d] come to equal whats on trend and
16 cool for many consumers, see PX36.31, and that its [e]asy and intuitive [user interface] and
17 [b]eautiful design were factors that could make iPhone a success, see PX34.16 (capitalization
18 altered). Understanding that [t]he look and feel of a product matters most, and faced with
19 feedback to make something like the iPhone, Samsung did precisely that. PX40.2, .3; see also
20 PX40.5 (Samsung executives recognizing that Samsung faced a crisis of design); PX44.122,
21 .127 (comparing the iPhone and Samsungs GT-i9000 side-by-side and including [d]irections for
22 improvement to make Samsungs graphical user interface and icons more like Apples).
23 Samsungs strategy worked. A depiction of Samsungs market share provided the jury
24 with a rather dramatic demonstration that Samsung was losing market share during the period
25 prior to 2010 and that [a]fter they introduced the first accused phone, Samsungs market share
26 took an abrupt upward swing and continued to advance dramatically[.] PDX34B.9; Dkt.
27 1839 at 2044-2045. In short, by applying Apples patented designs to its phones in order to
28
1 replicate its competitors product, Samsung profited from increased sales of those phones.
2 2. The jury could not have found any smaller article of manufacture.
3 In prior briefing, Samsung pointed to three categories of evidence as supposedly showing

4 that the jury could have found the relevant articles of manufacture to be something less than the
5 entire phones. See Dkt. 3509 at 29-30 (summarizing cited evidence). As the Court noted,
6 however, Samsung never raised the issue of the proper article of manufacture during
7 discovery, and [a]t trial, Samsung did not offer a damages theory based on an article of
8 manufacture that is less than the entirety of Samsungs infringing phones. Dkt. 3509 at 8, 30.
9 Samsung therefore failed to satisfy its burden to identify and prove that the relevant articles of
10 manufacture are anything smaller than the infringing phones, and Apples prima facie case
11 demonstrating that the infringing phones are the relevant articles of manufacture should stand.
12 But even if considered, the scattered pieces of evidence identified by Samsung are insufficient to
13 support a finding of any article of manufacture less than the infringing phones.
14 First, the design patents themselves do not suggest that the articles of manufacture for
15 289 purposes are only components of the infringing phones. As discussed above, the scope of
16 the claimed design does not define the scope of the thingthe articleto which the design is
17 applied. And a design patent need only describe an example of an article of manufacture; it does
18 not limit the articles of manufacture to which the defendant may apply the infringing design for
19 the purpose of salewhich is the relevant inquiry under 289. See supra p. 7.14
20 Second, Samsung points to testimony and evidence, such as a tear-down report,
21 purporting to show that Samsungs phones could be separated into component parts. All that
22 shows is that the phones were made from multiple components, which is true of virtually all
23 products. And while it may be another attempt by Samsung to argue apportionment, it says
24 nothing about the relevant article of manufacture under 289. The cited evidence in no way
25 suggests that Samsung sells only various components of the infringing phones; on the contrary, as
26
27
14
The D677 and D087 patents describe an entire phone as the exemplary article of
28 manufacture to which the patented designs are applied. See JX1041; JX1043.
1 discussed above (pp. 15-19), all of the evidence showed that Samsung sells and consumers use
2 the infringing phones in their entirety. Further, much of the evidence cited by Samsung in this
3 category is actually about Apples iPhone, which has nothing to do with identifying the article of
4 manufacture to which Samsung applied the patented designs for profit.
5 Third, Samsung referred to consumer survey evidence discussing its phones outer
6 shape. Even that evidence (which is actually a summary of news articles) shows that consumers
7 viewed Apples patented designs as important to the overall visual appearance of Samsungs
8 phones, not just components thereof. E.g., PX6 (citing patented design features as drivers of the
9 overall similarity between Samsung phones and Apples iPhone). Indeed, as discussed above (pp.
10 15-18), experts and lay observers overwhelmingly viewed the infringing designs as synonymous
11 with Samsungs phones themselves.
12 * * *
13 The evidence compels the conclusion that Samsung intentionally applied Apples patented
14 designs to its infringing phones for the purpose of sale. More importantly, the evidence could not
15 support a finding that the relevant articles of manufacture were anything elseindeed, Samsung
16 never even identified for the jury what that alternative article might be. For that reason, and as
17 explained further below (pp. 23-25), the Courts refusal to give Samsungs Proposed Jury
18 Instruction 42.1 was not erroneous and, in any event, caused Samsung no prejudice.
19 F. Issue 7: There Is No Record Evidence Supporting The Total Profit For

Any Article Other Than Samsungs Infringing Phones.
20
The record plainly supports a calculation of Samsungs profits from the infringing phones;
21
indeed, that is the only award of profits the record supports, as neither side offered any other
22
measure of 289 damages. See PX25A1 at 2-6 & PX25F at 2-6 (Apple experts summary of
23
profits on phones); DX781 at 1-6 (Samsung experts summary of profits on phones); Dkt. 1839 at
24
2040-2041, 2052-2053; Dkt. 1842 at 3021-3022, 3031; Dkt. 2840 at 623-625, 633-638; Dkt. 2841
25
at 1017-1018, 1024. In fact, the parties experts agree[d] completely on what total revenues are
26
for the infringing phones (Dkt. 2841 at 1014); the only dispute was over deductible costs.
27
28
1 By contrast, there is no record evidence of Samsungs profits on any other article of
2 manufacture. Samsung conceded before the Supreme Court that the record contains no proof of
3 total profit from the smartphone components it claims are the relevant articles of manufacture.
4 Pet. Br. 54, Samsung, No. 15-777, 2016 WL 6599922 (June 1, 2016) (capitalization altered). This
5 Court likewise recognized that Samsung did not offer a damages theory based on an article of
6 manufacture that is less than the entirety of Samsungs infringing phones. Dkt. 3509 at 30. All
7 the Samsung financial data in the record reports revenues, costs, and profits for entire phones.
8 DX676; DX753; JX1500; PX28; PX180; Dkt. 1842 at 3005-3007. And no witness, expert or
9 otherwise, testified that total profit could or should be calculated for any article other than the
10 products as sold, let alone informed the jury how to carry out those calculations.15
11 In sum, the evidence supports a determination of Samsungs total profit from the
12 infringing phones, but not of its profit from any other putative article of manufacture.16 Thus,
13 regardless of the correct test for determining the relevant article of manufacture, and even if there
14 were evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the relevant articles of manufacture
15 were something other than the infringing phones, the Court was still right not to give Samsungs
16 Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1, because it had no foundation in the evidence. See Dkt. 3509 at 30
17 (noting that, if Samsung had the burden to prove profits on a smaller article of manufacture, a
18 lack of evidence of profits may have allowed the Court to exclude Proposed Jury Instruction
19 42.1). Moreover, any error in rejecting Samsungs proposed instruction was not prejudicial;
20 Samsungs failure to give the jury any basis to calculate profits on a smaller article of
21
15
Samsung initially refused to produce any component-specific financial data and, after
22
being ordered by the Court to do so, produced only limited cost data for some components. See
23 Dkt. 673 at 15; Dkt. 880 at 10-15. Samsung never presented that evidence to the jury. Even if it
had, the component-level cost data would not have allowed the jury to calculate profits on any
24 alternative articles of manufacture, since Samsung did not identify any alternative article of
manufacture and adduced no evidence of revenues associated with those components.
25 16
If the Court concludes that a new trial is required and that Apple had the burden to show
Samsungs total profit on something other than the infringing phoneseven though Samsung
26
never gave notice that it would pursue such a theory or articulated what that something might
27 bethen the Court should reopen discovery on that issue. It would be manifestly unfair to punish
Apple for not developing evidence on an issue that Samsung never raised until after discovery
28 closed.
1 manufacture makes it overwhelmingly likely that the jury would have reached the same result
2 even had it received Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1. See infra pp. 24-25.
3 III. APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, NO NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED.
4 The above principles make plain that no new trial is required. Declining to give
5 Samsungs Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 was not error, and did not prejudice Samsung in any
6 event. Apple made its prima facie case overwhelmingly, putting forth ample evidence of
7 Samsung applying the patented designs to its phones and of Samsungs total revenues (and profit)
8 from those phones. Samsung never identified any alternative article of manufacture, and the
9 record cannot support a finding either of an alternative article or of Samsungs profit on such an
10 alternative. Because Samsung failed to meet its burden to rebut Apples prima facie case, the
11 Court did not err in excluding Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1. See Dkt. 3509 at 30.
12 Even if the Courts exclusion of that instruction was erroneous, however, a new trial is not
13 warranted unless that alleged error prejudiced Samsung, and it clearly did not. As a threshold
14 matter, Apple did not waiveand could not have waivedits argument that Samsung was not
15 prejudiced by the alleged instructional error. See Dkt. 3509 at 31. Showing prejudice is an
16 element of Samsungs demand for a new trial, which has been remanded in full to this Court with
17 no suggestion by the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court that Apple waived the issue. And the
18 Supreme Court has made clear that, in civil cases, the party that seeks to have a judgment set
19 aside because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted.
20 Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
21 Primos, Inc. v. Hunters Specialties, Inc., 451 F.3d 841, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A party seeking to
22 alter a judgment based on erroneous jury instructions must establish that those instructions were
23 legally erroneous, and that the errors had prejudicial effect. (internal quotation marks omitted)).
24 In other words, regardless of what Apple argued on appeal, Samsungs new trial request depends
25 on Samsung showing prejudice, as the Federal Circuit recognized. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung
26 Elecs. Co., 786 F.3d 983, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Samsung has failed to show prejudicial error in
27 the jury instructions as a whole that would warrant a new trial.). Samsungs burden to show
28
1 prejudice has not changed simply because the matter has been remanded to this Court.
2 In any event, Apple has raised the issue at every stage. On Samsungs initial appeal,
3 Apple argued that there was no error, let alone prejudicial error in the jury instructions
4 warranting a new trial. Apple Br. 88, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 14-1335, 2014 WL
5 3909249 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2014); see id. at 26 (Jury instructions are reviewed de novo, but only
6 prejudicial error warrants a new trial.). To the Supreme Court, Apple argued that Proposed Jury
7 Instruction 42.1 was not supported by the evidence because the jury could reasonably
8 conclude only that the articles of manufacture were the entire phones. Resp. Br. 44, Samsung,
9 No. 15-777, 2016 WL 4073686 (July 29, 2016). Samsung, in reply, did not claim waiver;
10 instead, it engaged on the merits. Pet. Reply Br. 20-22, id., 2016 WL 4524542 (Aug. 29, 2016).
11 On remand to the Federal Circuit, Apple again argued that there was no evidence from which the
12 jury could have calculated infringers profits based on anything less than the entire infringing
13 phones. Apple Statement in Sup. of Cont. Panel Review 15, No. 14-1335, 2016 WL 8222614
14 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2016). Although Samsung then argued (for the first time) that Apple waived
15 the issue of prejudice, Samsung Statement in Sup. of Remand 12, id., 2017 WL 514460 (Jan. 12,
16 2017), the Federal Circuits order nowhere suggested that prejudice was off-limits on remand to
17 this Court. If anything, by engaging with the merits of Apples evidentiary argument without
18 claiming waiver in its Supreme Court brief, Samsung has waived any belated claim of waiver.
19 Finally, the merits of the prejudice analysis clearly favor Apple. There was no evidence
20 from which the jury could have determined that something other than the phones was the article
21 of manufacture and no evidence of profit on such an alternative. Moreover, even were the Court
22 to conclude that there was evidence such that a jury could have found alternative articles of
23 manufacture and calculated the profits therefrom, the failure to give Proposed Jury Instruction
24 42.1 would still not be prejudicial. The mere possibility that the excluded instruction could have
25 affected the verdict is not enough to warrant a new trial. Instructional error is not prejudicial, and
26 thus does not warrant a new trial, as long as it is more probable than not that the jury would
27 have reached the same verdict had it been properly instructed. Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177,
28
1 1182 (9th Cir. 2009); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2005).17 Given the utter lack of
2 evidence supporting any determination of alternative articles of manufacture or Samsungs profits
3 therefrom, it is far more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict
4 even if Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 had been given. Thus, even if the Courts rejection of
5 Samsungs Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 was error, it did not prejudice Samsung.
6 Accordingly, this Court may and should determine that Samsung has not proven that the
7 omission of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1if error at allwas prejudicial error.
8 IV. CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, a new trial is unwarranted, and the Court should confirm its
10 judgment of $398,940,864 for eleven Samsung products found to infringe Apples design patents.
11
12
Dated: September 8, 2017 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
13 DORR LLP
14
15 By: /s/ Mark D. Selwyn

MARK D. SELWYN
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
APPLE INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
To the extent Clem suggests that Apple bore the burden to show a lack of prejudice (see
26
Dkt. 3509 at 31), that proposition is directly contradicted by the Supreme Courts statement in
27 Shinseki that the party seeking to set aside the judgment bears the burden of showing prejudice.
In any event, Apple did show harmlessness, as there was no evidence of Samsungs total profit
28 on any article of manufacture smaller than the infringing phones.
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been
3 served on September 8, 2017 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
4 electronic service via the Courts CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5.4.
6 /s/ Mark D. Selwyn

Mark D. Selwyn
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17-09-08 Apple Design Patent Damages Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17-09-08 Apple Design Patent Damages Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

17-09-08 Apple Design Patent Damages Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3522 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 32

1 ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815) WILLIAM F. LEE

6 B. Issue 2: Identifying The Article Of Manufacture Is A Question Of

12 E. Issue 6: The Record Only Supports A Finding That The Relevant

21 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25

16 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Brothers,

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

1 Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,

11 Gorham Co. v. White,

1 Parker Sweeper Co. v. E.T. Rugg Co.,

6 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.,

16 Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.,

1 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 1503.01 ..........................................................................7

2 Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment 51 (2011) ..................................12, 13

15 Petitioners Reply Brief,

9 manufacture that is only a component of that overall product.

17 entirely one-sided on these points.

22 Accordingly, no new trial is warranted.

23 II. RESPONSE TO THE COURTS QUESTIONS

24 A. Issue 1: The Article Of Manufacture Is The Thing To Which The

9 appropriation of the plaintiffs innovation. U.S. Br. 9.1

20 proposes that the following four factors may be considered:2

21 2. The visual contribution of the patented design to the product as a whole,

4 relevant article of manufacture is a smaller component.

13 profits from the refrigerator belonged to [the patentee]).

14 3. The degree to which the asserted article of manufacture is physically and

5 placed in any one of several cases dealt in by the maker).

6 4. The defendants reasons for appropriating the patented design, including

8 article of manufacture and the patented design applied to it).

21 B. Issue 2: Identifying The Article Of Manufacture Is A Question Of Fact To Be

4 quintessentially factual in nature. U.S. Br. 29.

17 identifying the article of manufacturewhile committing the rest to the jury.

20 possessed by the infringing manufacturer.).

26 Disgorgement remedies typically require the defendant to shoulder the burden of

9 least a reasonable approximation of the amount of the wrongful gain).8

22 defendant to prove that the amount is unreasonable). This burden-shifting approach is

5 facts about its ill-gotten gains).9

11 profit on that smaller article of manufacture should be no different.11

12 D. Issue 5: Samsungs Infringing Phones Are The Relevant Articles Of

12 shows revenue, sales, and costs for products).

1 Apples Closing Slide 9:

18 synonymous with the devices themselves.

21 close similarity to the iPhone) that Apple found offensive (PX52.17):

3 In prior briefing, Samsung pointed to three categories of evidence as supposedly showing

4 manufacture to which Samsung applied the patented designs for profit.

11 with Samsungs phones themselves.

19 F. Issue 7: There Is No Record Evidence Supporting The Total Profit For

1 By contrast, there is no record evidence of Samsungs profits on any other article of

3 III. APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, NO NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED.

2 evidence supporting any determination of alternative articles of manufacture or Samsungs profits

7 omission of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1if error at allwas prejudicial error.

15 By: /s/ Mark D. Selwyn

6 /s/ Mark D. Selwyn

You might also like