Author- Aryan Radhakrishnan
Apple is unquestionably one of the worldgummi sandalen baby stanley laser fatmax nike kawhi leonard jersey amici viaggio amazon nike stabilise foot pinturas en lienzo faciles bus simulator 18 ps4 download pienso para perros pequeños esterilizados adidas one piece nike shox nz mens white nike lunar oneshot white iphone reagiert nicht mehr und lässt sich nicht ausschalten abbigliamento uomo montagna shadowhunters serie dvd lloyd ajas schwarz ‘s most innovative technology corporations. The entire technology industry is jeopardized, however, by Apple’s aggressive pursuit and enforcement of its design patents. Apple has adopted a “win at all costs” approach, which may result in a court victory but is ultimately counterproductive.
Design patents, unlike conventional patents, protectpapuci cu toc mic argintii merceditas mujer leopardo wolford panty neon 40 mule dakota salto bloco Portugal hm home stol b550 asus rog μπαταρια iphone εγγύηση 302 κυκλουσ adidas women s soccer tiro 17 training pants zimní čepice replay violet shampoo before and after cardigan color menta Chile air max 97 sale custom hockey jerseys custom bike jerseys nike presto boys grade school the aesthetic qualities of products. The preponderance of a design patent is comprised of illustrations of the claimed design. Numerous items, including sandals, vases, rugs, and wallpaper, are purchased for their essentially aesthetic qualities. Not included on this list are telephones.
A few weeks ago, I attended an Electronic Frontier Foundation-hosted event in San Francisco that focused on an ongoing legal dispute concerning design patents. No one would pay hundreds of dollars for a hollow phone shell, independent of its aesthetic appeal, as I argued during that discussion. Certainly, cosmetics play a role, but ultimately, functionality is what makes a phone desirable. The functionality and features of Apple’s mobile devices have increased over the past decade.
If you listened to Apple’s arguments in its design patent litigation against Samsung, you might conclude that the phone’s exterior is its only important feature. During the initial trial, Apple successfully argued that Samsung should be required to pay the full proceeds for multiple phone models that infringed on three of Apple’s design patents. Each of these design patents covered only a small portion of the phone’s aspect and form.
Apple’s strategy is to patent all visible product components. These patents cover ornamental aspects of a product rather than functional ones. The emblematic Coca-Cola bottle, as well as portions of Nike trainers and the Statue of Liberty, are protected by design patents. Apple has so many design patents on minor phone features that it can identify minute details in Samsung’s designs that violate its design patents.
A jury determined in 2012 that Samsung infringed on three of Apple’s design patents: the front panel shape of the iPhone, the chamfer around the front of the phone, and the arrangement of icons on the screen of an iOS device. To account for Samsung’s total profits from infringing phones, this amount was reduced to $399 million. Apple was taken aback by the discovery.
Why did this happen? Apple and the lower courts erroneously interpreted the term “manufactured article” in the relevant statute to mean the ultimate consumer product. As a consequence, Apple was awarded $399 million for a few purely aesthetic characteristics. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no requirement that the infringer’s profits (which must be remitted to the patent owner) be proportional to the quantity of infringing products sold.
Now, Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California must establish a new standard for determining remedies for design patent infringement. Taking into account the implications of the current digital economy, this is a once-in-a-generation chance for innovators and designers to gain knowledge.
Ultimately, Judge Koh will be tasked with deciding on two essential matters: How is it determined which manufactured product corresponds to a patent-protected design? What revenues are associated with the production of this item? The purpose of patent infringement law is not to disseminate winning lottery tickets, but to compensate patent owners for their losses. A remedy standard affixed to the relevant manufactured item will align design patent remedies more closely with this objective.
In reality, industry professionals and economic analysis are necessary to determine the optimal solution. The contribution of a patent to sales can be factored into the precise calculation of profit. Less essential designs manifestly produce less profit.
Apple claims it is entitled to the total revenue generated by Samsung’s sale of multiple phone variants. If Apple prevails, the entire smartphone industry and other industries that rely on design patent protections may experience long-term repercussions. In particular, technology companies would risk losing all profits on the devices they produce, which could discourage the development of new products.
Prior to determining what constitutes a “manufactured article” and the associated profits, a court must establish a reasonable and logical standard. An equitable standard would both stimulate and not impede innovation. This would benefit the entirety of the technology industry.
Conclusion
Protecting intellectual property (IP) is a crucial element of corporate strategy, regardless of whether firms use patent portfolios to promote innovation or suppress competition. To prevent competitors from duplicating their valuable designs and inventions, businesses rely on patent and trademark infringement litigation. Apple has argued in court since 2011 that Samsung violated its patents by replicating smartphone and device features. The U.S. District Court in San Jose awarded Apple $539 million in damages for Samsung’s infringement of three design patents and two utility patents.
Apple has adopted the entire technology patent system, beginning with Steve Jobs’ decision in 2006 to secure the iPhone prior to its initial release. According to the company’s former general counsel, Nancy Heinen, “[Steve Jobs’] philosophy was that if anyone at Apple could conceive of it, we should submit a patent application for it, even if we never implement it.” Apple’s extensive patent portfolio reveals certain trends in research and development, as well as the company’s intention to use intellectual property to prevent competitors from duplicating existing technologies or implementing Apple’s “original” ideas first.
