What Happened
Apple sued Samsung for infringing design patents on iPhone features—the rectangular front face, the grid of icons, the black bezel. A jury awarded Apple hundreds of millions in damages. The question: should damages be based on Samsung's entire phone profits, or just the profits from the specific components covered by the design patents?
Why It Matters
The patent law says infringers pay their "total profit" from the "article of manufacture" that infringes. Samsung said the article of manufacture was the front panel or screen—worth maybe $30-40 per phone. Apple said it was the entire smartphone—worth $400 or more.
The Supreme Court unanimously said: it depends. The "article of manufacture" could be the whole product or just a component, depending on the circumstances. But the Court didn't provide a clear test for deciding which it is. That kicked the question back to lower courts.
On remand, the parties settled before getting an answer. So the legal question remains somewhat unresolved. But the practical message is clear: design patent damages can be substantial, potentially based on entire product profits.
What You Should Know
If you're enforcing design patents, think about how to argue for the broadest reasonable article of manufacture. Show that the design drives demand for the whole product. Document the design's importance to consumer choice.
If you're defending design patent claims, argue for a narrower article. Show that the design is just one small feature. Present expert testimony on component values.
Design patents are often overlooked, but they can provide powerful protection—and powerful damages—for ornamental features. Don't ignore them in your IP strategy.