美國聯邦最高法院受理三星上訴的第二點

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES (http://www.supremecourt.gov/, March 21, 2016)

Case Page: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple (SCOTUSblog)

Samsung's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (SCOTUSblog)

CAFC 2015年的判決文 (Fed. Cir., May 18, 2015)

之前Fairsky Patent Memo的相關文章


美國聯邦最高法院今天受理了三星針對去年美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決的上訴。三星上訴兩個問題，聯邦最高法院受理第二個：

當年三星上訴的兩個問題如下：

1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope? (這個沒有受理)

2. 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? (這個受理了)

去年五月這個案子的聯邦巡迴上訴法院判決中，其實討論了很多爭點。我們之前介紹這個案子的時候，選的爭點就是現在聯邦最高法院受理的這個。

聯邦巡迴上訴法院認為，就產品的零件的設計專利，權利人請求損害賠償時，侵權人的所得利益可以基於整個產品的全部利潤計算，原因是美國專利法289條用了 "total profit" 這個字。如果侵權人的所得利益，可以僅依可歸因於零件部分來計算，那麼必須修法，改掉這個法條中的文字。

我猜想，聯邦最高法院應該會走法律解釋學的途徑，解釋美國專利法289條裡面的 "total profit" 究竟是甚麼意思。也就是說，到底是 total profit of what?  有可能解釋成 total profit attributable to the component 嗎? 還是必須解釋成 total profit of the article of manufacture？

 35 U.S. Code § 289 - Additional remedy for infringement of design patent

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.

* * * 

(這是289條的第一段，原文沒有換行，我為了方便閱讀起見把它換行了。)

若對這個案子有興趣，可以去SCOTUSblog的Case Page訂閱這個案子的進度喔。