United States: Patent Cases Pending Before The Supreme Court (October Term)

Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple, Inc., No. 15-777

On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court granted Samsung's petition for a writ of certiorari as to the following question:

Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer's profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?

The Supreme Court's first design patent case in 120 years arises out of the now well-known "rounded rectangle" design-patent litigation between Apple and Samsung. Below, a jury in the Northern District of California had found that Samsung infringed three of Apple's design patents and awarded Apple $399 million in damages.1 The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury's damages award as to infringement of the design patents.2

By contrast to utility patents, which protect "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,"3 design patents protect "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture."4

Samsung takes issue with the lower decisions that require Samsung to pay its entire profits on eleven smartphones for infringing three features of Apple's design patents.5 Samsung argues that its smartphones embody hundreds of thousands of patented features—not owned by Apple—and thus an entire profits damages model is inappropriate.6

The damages statute at issue is 35 U.S.C. § 289, which states:

Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties. Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.

Apple argued, in its brief in opposition to Samsung's petition, that the text of Section 289 is clear, and that the Federal Circuit's application of the total-profits rule is well supported by the statute's history and purpose.7

In its merits brief, Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit's total-profits rule conflicts with the text, history, and purpose of the statute.8

Samsung's textual argument is that Section 289 "limits recoverable total profit to that attributable to the 'article of manufacture' to which an infringing design is 'applied.' Such an article need not be the entire product as sold; many discrete 'articles of manufacture' may be combined into such a product."9 Samsung also notes that Section 289 limits recoverable total profit to that "made from the infringement."10 In other words, that limitation precludes an award of profit not attributable to infringement of the patented design.

Samsung's historical argument is that Congress enacted the statute to ensure that patentees recover more than nominal damages for products where the design was the principal feature—articles such as decorative wallpaper or carpet.11 Samsung argues that this rationale makes no sense for complex products like smartphones that embody hundreds of thousands of patents.12

Samsung's statutory purpose argument is that the Federal Circuit's automatic total profits rule would have disastrous consequences to innovation, competition, and small business.13

If the Supreme Court agrees with Apple, design patent infringement litigation should become a significant focus because of the amount of damages and the ease of proof of those damages. If the Supreme Court agrees with Samsung, the recent increase in design patent infringement litigation will likely be but a flash in the pan.

SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927

On May 2, 2016, the Supreme Court granted SCA Hygiene's petition for a writ of certiorari on the following question: "Whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act's six-year statutory limitations period, 35 U.S.C. § 286."

Section 286 of the Patent Act provides as follows: "Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action."14 The Federal Circuit has held that, in addition to Section 286, the equitable doctrine of laches is also a cognizable defense to patent infringement, further potentially shortening the six-year damages limitation period.15

Petitioner SCA argues in its petition for certiorari and in its opening merits brief that the plain text of Section 286 does not authorize such a shortening of the six-year period for infringement damages.16 In doing so, SCA relies on recent Supreme Court precedent from the Court's copyright jurisprudence—Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014)—to argue that laches, a doctrine historically developed by courts of equity, is not available as a defense to a claim for legal relief which is governed by a statute of limitations.17 In Petrella, the Court held that laches could not be used to shorten the three-year limitations period under the Copyright Act because this would, in effect, substitute the judgment of a district court for that of Congress.18 Laches, the Court explained, historically applied to "claims of an equitable cast for which the Legislature has provided no fixed time limitation."19 SCA argues that Petrella is controlling, and that the Federal Circuit's basis for finding a damages-barring laches defense within the Patent Act20 is inadequate.21

By contrast, respondent First Quality argues (in its opposition to SCA Hygiene Products' petition for certiorari22) that the Federal Circuit has for decades held that 35 U.S.C. § 282 includes a laches defense, and that the laches defense in Section 282 bars patentee from both legal and equitable relief.23 In addition, First Quality argues that, even before the 1952 Patent Act, courts routinely applied the doctrine of laches to bar both legal and equitable relief to patent infringement claims, and that Congress incorporated this judicial understanding into the statute.24

If the Supreme Court agrees with SCA, a patentee's unreasonable delay in bringing suit will no longer be a basis for barring or limiting damages for patent infringement within the six-year period prescribed in § 286. Either way, it seems clear that the same delay can affect injunctive relief and, in appropriate cases, may contribute to an equitable estoppel defense, which, if successful, would preclude all relief.

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court granted Life Technologies' petition for a writ of certiorari to answer the following question: "Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales."25

35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) provides:

Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

Life Technologies assembles genetic testing kits that generate DNA profiles. The kits contain a number of components, including: (1) a primer mix; (2) Taq polymerase; (3) a PCR reaction mix including nucleotides; (4) a buffer solution; and (5) control DNA. Together, these components are capable of amplifying the DNA being studied, a process necessary to obtain a detectable amount of DNA for analysis.

Life Technologies manufactures one component of its kits in the U.S., the Taq polymerase, which it ships overseas to its facility in the United Kingdom for assembly with the other kit components and worldwide sale. It is undisputed that Taq polymerase is not especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention at issue.

Promega sued its field-limited licensee Life Technologies in 2010, alleging that Life Technologies had infringed a DNA replication patent by selling its kits into unlicensed fields. Promega sought damages for worldwide sales.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Promega, found that Life Technologies' infringement was willful, and awarded damages for all worldwide sales. The district court then granted judgment as a matter of law to Life Technologies, holding that Promega had failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a jury verdict under Section 271(f)(1). The district court provided two main reasons for its decision: (1) Promega did not present any evidence that Life Technologies induced another party to combine any components outside the U.S. in an infringing manner (i.e., Life Technologies did all the combining itself); and (2) Life Technologies manufactures only a single component in the U.S., which is insufficient to meet Section 271(f)'s requirement that "all or a substantial portion" of the components be supplied from the U.S.

A split Federal Circuit reversed.26 The majority held that a party could induce itself within the meaning of Section 271(f)(1), and further, that a party may be liable under 271(f)(1) for supplying a single component for combination outside the U.S.22 With respect to the latter point, the majority reasoned that "substantial" in the statute means "important" or "essential," and not merely significant by volume or number.27

The Supreme Court granted certiorari only to address the second of the Federal Circuit's holdings. On that issue, Life Technologies argued in its petition that "a substantial portion" in Section 271(f)(1) refers to the quantity, not the subjective importance or relative significance, of the components supplied.28 Thus, according to Life Technologies, to meet Section 271(f)(1)'s "substantial portion" requirement, the portion must be a "large" or "considerable" quantity, not just a single component that is qualitatively "important."29 Life Technologies bases its argument, in part, on the difference between Congress' use of the plural "components" in Section 271(f)(1) and Congress' use of the singular "component" in Section 271(f)(2).30 Section 271(f)(2) provides a basis for infringement liability for the supply of a single component so long as it is "especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce" (which stricture prevents the application of Section 271(f)(2) to Life Technologies).31

Promega, in its opposition to Life Technologies' petition, argued that the Supreme Court should not adopt a bright-line rule that a single component can never be the basis for liability under Section 271(f)(1).32 According to Promega, "[s]ubstantiality is a fact question that requires a case-specific analysis of what is being supplied from the United States and its relationship to the patented invention across multiple dimensions, including not only quantity but also relative importance."33 A fact-specific inquiry properly gives courts flexibility and, in this particular case, the polymerase that Life Technologies supplied from the U.S. is a major component of the infringing kits.34

Petitioners' opening brief on the merits is due September 1, 2016.


1 E.g., Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 17, Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) ("Samsung Petition"). The jury also awarded $382 million in damages attributable to trade dress dilution and $149 million in damages attributable to utility patent infringement. Id. Those issues and damages awards are not the subject of this case.

2 Samsung Petition at 18.

3 35 U.S.C. § 101.

4 35 U.S.C. § 171.

5 Brief for Petitioners at 1, Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) ("Samsung Brief").


7 Brief in Opposition at 25, Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) ("Apple Opposition to Samsung Petition").

8 Samsung Brief at 1.

9 Id. at 24–25.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 26. 

14 35 U.S.C. § 286.

15 E.g., A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc).

16 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at, e.g., 14, SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, (No. 15-927) ("SCA Hygiene Prods. Petition"); Brief for Petitioners at 5, SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, (No. 15-927) ("SCA Hygiene Prods. Brief").

17 SCA Hygiene Prods. Brief at 14.

18 Petrella, 134 S.Ct. at 1967–68.

19 Id. at 1973.

20 The relevant text is as follows: "The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded: (1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability." 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).

21 SCA Hygiene Prods. Brief at 4, 31.

22 As of this writing, First Quality Baby Products has not yet submitted its merits briefing. Many of its arguments, including, for example, its argument that Congress codified a laches defense in § 282, will likely be substantially similar if not the same in its merits briefing.

23 Brief in Opposition at 1–2, SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, (No. 15-927).

24 Id. at 15.

25 The full list of petitioners is Life Technologies Corp., Invitrogen IP Holdings, Inc., and Applied Biosystems, LLC. 

26 Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

27 Id. at 1351–53.

28 Id. at 1353.

29 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 3–4, 22–23, Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp. (No. 14-1538) ("Life Tech Petition"); see also Supplemental Brief of Petitioners at 2, Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp. (No. 14-1538) ("Life Tech Supp. Brief").

30 Life Tech Petition at 23.

31 Id. at 4. 

32 Id.

33 Brief in Opposition at 1–2, Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp. (No. 14-1538).

34 Id. at 26.

35 Id. at 2. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.