3Qs: What the Apple-Samsung ruling means for design patents

3Qs: What the Apple-Samsung ruling means for design patents
Susan Bar­bieri Mont­gomery, executive professor of law and business, examines the impact of a recent verdict in favor of Apple in a case involving product infringement. Photo by David Leifer.

(Phys.org)—A jury in San Jose, Calif., recently found that Sam­sung Elec­tronics infringed on Apple's patents, awarding the iPod man­u­fac­turer more than $1 bil­lion in dam­ages. We asked Susan Bar­bieri Mont­gomery, exec­u­tive pro­fessor of law and busi­ness at North­eastern Uni­ver­sity, to expound on a lesser-​​known form of intel­lec­tual prop­erty (IP): design-​​patent pro­tec­tion. Here, she dis­cusses Apple's design patent on the phys­ical design of the iPad (U.S. Patent No. D618,677) and whether the role of this patent will inspire a surge in appli­ca­tions for U.S. design-​​patent protection.

What is the difference between a utility patent and a design patent? What is the scope of design-patent protection?

Utility patents are what most people think of as "patents," cov­ering new and useful devices, processes and mate­rials. Design patents, on the other hand, cover the new, orig­inal, orna­mental design of an article of man­u­fac­ture. For a par­tic­ular device, one or more utility patents may cover the useful, func­tional fea­tures and the method of using the device, while a design patent covers the way it looks. While utility patents often have numerous, lengthy, pre­cisely worded claims, each design patent has a single claim, which is shown in one or more drawings.

In this par­tic­ular case, Apple accused Sam­sung of infringing a variety of IP assets: three utility patents and four design patents, as well as reg­is­tered and unreg­is­tered trade dress. In reaching its ver­dict, the jury was instructed to sep­a­rately deter­mine whether and which of Apple's IP assets was infringed by each of the numerous smart­phones and tablet com­puters iden­ti­fied in Apple's complaint.

For the design patents, the jury was told it must find infringe­ment if "the overall appear­ance of an accused Sam­sung design is sub­stan­tially the same as the overall appear­ance of the claimed Apple design patent." The jury's finding that the thin, rec­tan­gular, rounded-​​corners design of var­ious Sam­sung Galaxy devices infringed the '677 design patent is a stun­ning example of the poten­tial power and scope of design-​​.

How common are design patents? Are they becoming more popular in traditionally technical industries such as that of electronic devices?

Since it "only" covers orna­mental design, a design patent has long been viewed by some as the poor stepsi­b­ling of the more-​​championed utility patent. Invest­ment in design patents, how­ever, has increased sig­nif­i­cantly over the past 30 years, growing steadily from an annual rate of only 3,942 design patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trade­mark Office in 1980 to 21,356 in 2011. The rate of growth has varied by industry, decreasing in some, remaining fairly stable in cer­tain sec­tors (such as auto­mo­tive), and enjoying spikes of interest in footwear and other con­sumer goods sec­tors. Since the late 1990s, appli­ca­tions sub­mitted by com­puting, mobile and other electronic-​​device com­pa­nies have fueled much of the growth. Elec­tronic device com­pa­nies now dom­i­nate the upper ranks of com­pa­nies obtaining the most design patents over the years 1987 – 2011, as reported by the U.S. Patent and Trade­mark Office. Apple is 21st on that list, with a period total of 722 design patents—while Sam­sung tops the list, with 3,008, having accel­er­ated its annual acqui­si­tion rate from a mere four in 1998 to 328 in 2011.

Do actions speak louder than words? Com­pare Samsung's amassing of this unprece­dented design-​​patent armory to its press release slam­ming last week's ver­dict as an "unfor­tu­nate" example of design-​​patent law "manip­u­lated to give one com­pany a monopoly over rec­tan­gles with rounded corners."

Will the decision in this case, particularly in regard to Apple's use of a design patent, cause companies to consider including design patents in their IP strategy?

The cov­erage of last month's more than $1 bil­lion award (which may increase as a results of a finding that Samsung's infringe­ment was willful), cou­pled with the clamor over Apple having a "monopoly over rec­tan­gles with rounded cor­ners," has put design-​​patent pro­tec­tion in the spot­light. Com­pa­nies that pre­vi­ously over­looked or dis­counted design-​​patent pro­tec­tion as "only" pro­tecting how some­thing looks, are likely to recon­sider and place new value on the role of design-​​patent pro­tec­tion in their IP asset port­fo­lios and strate­gies. In addi­tion to the idol­iza­tion of its design ethos and acumen in the market-​​transforming wake of the , the suc­cess of Apple's com­pre­hen­sive IP strategy demon­strated by the ver­dict against Sam­sung—including the inte­gral role of design patents—is inspi­ra­tion for others to adopt sim­ilar approaches to pro­tect and posi­tion their products.

Citation: 3Qs: What the Apple-Samsung ruling means for design patents (2012, September 7) retrieved 4 October 2023 from https://phys.org/news/2012-09-3qs-apple-samsung-patents.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Taiwan's HTC files patent suit against Apple


Feedback to editors