No. 15 777 I
N
T
HE
Supreme ourt of the United States
S
AMSUNG
E
LECTRONICS
C
O
.,
L
TD
.,
S
AMSUNG
E
LEC-TRONICS
A
MERICA
,
I
NC
.,
S
AMSUNG
T
ELECOMMUNICA-TIONS
A
MERICA
LLC,
Petitioners
,
v.
A
PPLE
I
NC
.,
Respondent
.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
H
AROLD
J.
M
C
E
LHINNY
R
ACHEL
K
REVANS
N
ATHAN
B.
S
ABRI
C
HRISTOPHER
L.
R
OBINSON
M
ORRISON
&
F
OERSTER
LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 W
ILLIAM
F.
L
EE
Counsel of Record
M
ARK
C.
F
LEMING
L
AUREN
B.
F
LETCHER
S
TEVEN
J.
H
ORN
W
ILMER
C
UTLER
P
ICKERING
H
ALE AND
D
ORR LLP
60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 william.lee@wilmerhale.com S
ETH
P.
W
AXMAN
T
HOMAS
G.
S
PRANKLING
W
ILMER
C
UTLER
P
ICKERING
H
ALE AND
D
ORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006
(i)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the court of appeals correctly ruled that the district court did not commit reversible error in instructing the jury regarding the scope of Apple’s design patent claims. 2. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 289, which provides that a party that infringes a design patent may be held “liable … to the extent of his total profit,” permitted the jury to award damages equal to Samsung’s total profit from its devices that infringed Apple’s design patents.
(iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................... v INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1 STATEMENT ..................................................................... 3 A. The Design Patent System .................................. 3 B. Apple’s Iconic iPhone Designs And Samsung’s Infringement ...................................... 5 C. Proceedings Below .............................................. 12 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION .......... 13 I. T
HE
F
EDERAL
C
IRCUIT
’
S
R
ULING
O
N
D
E-SIGN
P
ATENT
I
NFRINGEMENT
D
OES
N
OT
M
ERIT
T
HIS
C
OURT
’
S
R
EVIEW
................................. 13 A. Samsung’s Design Patent Infringe-ment Arguments Do Not Warrant Cer-tiorari .................................................................... 14 B. This Case Is A Poor Vehicle To Ad-dress Design Patent Infringement In Any Event ............................................................ 23 II. T
HE
F
EDERAL
C
IRCUIT
’
S
R
ULING
O
N
D
E-SIGN
P
ATENT
D
AMAGES
D
OES
N
OT
M
ERIT
T
HIS
C
OURT
’
S
R
EVIEW
.............................................. 25 A. The Federal Circuit’s Ruling Is Fully Consistent With § 289’s Text, Legisla-tive History, And Longstanding Judi-cial Interpretation ............................................... 25