Mind + Muscle

technical minds + legal muscle


dig deep

Determining the "Article of Manufacture" Under 35 U.S.C. 289

  • 08.01.17
  • Perry Saidman, Elizabeth Ferrill, Damon Neagle and Tracy Durkin


Perry Saidman, Saidman Design Law Group; Elizabeth Ferrill, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Damon Neagle, Design IP; and Tracy Durkin, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.


The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the design patent case of Samsung v. Apple in December, 2016. The case involved interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 289 that says that an infringer is liable to the design patent owner to the extent of his total profit for sales of any article of manufacture to which the patented design has been applied. The Supreme Court decided that an "article of manufacture" of Section 289 may be an end product as sold, or a component of the end product. In its opinion, the Court left open the question of how to determine the relevant "article of manufacture". This article, a collaborative effort among a small group of design patent specialists, proposes a test for determining the relevant "article of manufacture" in any given case, and also proposes considerations for determining the total profit once the relevant article of manufacture has been identified.

To read the full article, please click here.

Related People

Related Services

Sort By Media Type

Sort By Media Type
  • AlertAlert
  • BriefsBriefs
  • Comments to USPTOComments to USPTO
  • Design Patent Case DigestDesign Patent Case Digest
  • MultimediaMultimedia
  • News & ArticlesNews & Articles
  • Press ReleasePress Release
  • VideoVideo
  • WebinarWebinar

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. will not be considered confidential or privileged, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Sterne Kessler.  If you are not already a client of Sterne Kessler, do not include any confidential information in this message.