Nos. 2014-1335 & 2015-1029
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
APPLE INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CIV. NO. 11-1846) (THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH, J.)
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
DELL INC., EBAY INC., FACEBOOK INC., GOOGLE INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., LIMELIGHT NETWORKS INC., NEWEGG INC., AND SAS INSTITUTE INC. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
K
ANNON
K.
S
HANMUGAM
D
AVID
M.
K
RINSKY
A
LLISON
B.
J
ONES
C
HRISTOPHER
A.
S
UAREZ
W
ILLIAMS
&
C
ONNOLLY
LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5000
Case: 14-1335 Document: 196 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2015
(i)
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4, undersigned counsel for amici curiae certifies the following: 1. The full names of the amici curiae represented by me in this case are Dell Inc., eBay Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Limelight Networks Inc., Newegg Inc., and SAS Institute Inc. 2. The names of the real parties in interest represented by me are the same. 3. No parent corporation or publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of the stock of any of the amici curiae represented by me. 4. Amici curiae did not participate in proceedings in the lower tribunals. The following attorneys have appeared or are expected to appear in this Court on behalf of the amici curiae: Kannon K. Shanmugam, David M. Krinsky, Allison B. Jones, and Christopher A. Suarez, all of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005. /s/Kannon K. Shanmugam K
ANNON
K.
S
HANMUGAM
J
ULY
1,
2015
Case: 14-1335 Document: 196 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2015
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Interest of amici curiae ............................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Argument.................................................................................................................... 2
A.
Modern technologies are highly complex and consist of numerous technological components and software subsystems ...................................... 2
B.
Section 289 envisions awarding total profits only on designs of relatively simple products ................................................................................ 5
C.
In light of the purpose of Section 289, this Court should adopt a narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘article of manufacture’ .......................... 9
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 10
Case: 14-1335 Document: 196 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2015