1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,120
Speaker 1: Now assigned for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal

2
00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:05,600
Speaker 1: issues in the news, and Today Bloomberg La Hoos Doing

3
00:00:05,640 --> 00:00:09,080
Speaker 1: Grosso and Greg Sture discuss the Supreme Court decision on

4
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:13,039
Speaker 1: the ongoing feud between Apple and Samsung over design patents.

5
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:17,080
Speaker 1: They speak with Matt Larson, a litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence,

6
00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:20,920
Speaker 1: and Michael Reich, a professor at Villanova University Law School.

7
00:00:21,640 --> 00:00:25,520
Speaker 1: Michael explain how the Court came to its decision despite

8
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:30,080
Speaker 1: the traditional interpretation of the language of the statute. Sure,

9
00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 1: the Court did a relatively straightforward statutory interpretation. It's said,

10
00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:38,960
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you can get a design patent

11
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 1: for an article of manufacture. And we've long recognized for

12
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 1: at least fifty years or more that an article of

13
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:52,040
Speaker 1: manufactured to get a design patent can be something less

14
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:56,800
Speaker 1: than a whole product. Uh So, if we're going to

15
00:00:56,800 --> 00:01:00,080
Speaker 1: be consistent, then an article of manufacturer when we're talking

16
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:03,200
Speaker 1: about damages, must have the same meaning. And if it

17
00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 1: has the same meaning, that means that article manufacture can

18
00:01:07,080 --> 00:01:11,080
Speaker 1: be less than the entire product. It's as simple as that.

19
00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,120
Speaker 1: It's a relatively short opinion. Well, Matt, did the court

20
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 1: now say that that the pieces of that were infringed,

21
00:01:17,880 --> 00:01:20,720
Speaker 1: the parts of the phone that we're infringed are separate

22
00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:23,000
Speaker 1: from other parts, or what does the federal circuit have

23
00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:25,640
Speaker 1: to look at here? You know that that's a great question.

24
00:01:25,720 --> 00:01:28,319
Speaker 1: The Federal circuits certainly has a lot to work with

25
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:30,959
Speaker 1: the court didn't say a whole lot, which you know,

26
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 1: frankly sometimes in patent cases is for the better. Um.

27
00:01:35,040 --> 00:01:38,080
Speaker 1: You know, this case is an area. Design patents generally

28
00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:40,840
Speaker 1: differ very much between you know, when you look at

29
00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: something like jewelry, where where a design patent might cover

30
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:46,920
Speaker 1: an entire article, as opposed to a to a smartphone,

31
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:48,760
Speaker 1: where the design patent may just be on the shape

32
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:50,680
Speaker 1: of the screen or a button or something like that.

33
00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 1: It can be difficult to to bring both of those together. So,

34
00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:59,040
Speaker 1: you know, assuming that the parties don't settle before additional litigation,

35
00:01:59,080 --> 00:02:00,600
Speaker 1: I think the Federal Circuit is going to have to

36
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 1: parse through how do you identify what the article of

37
00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:07,880
Speaker 1: manufacturer is? Design patents don't include a whole lot of

38
00:02:07,880 --> 00:02:11,280
Speaker 1: written description. It's mostly just a just a picture that

39
00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 1: you look at, um and it says you know, a

40
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:17,560
Speaker 1: design according to to what's depicted and so assuming the

41
00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:20,080
Speaker 1: case moves forward, there's gonna be a lot of room

42
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:22,600
Speaker 1: for parties to argue. How do you go go through

43
00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:26,120
Speaker 1: and determine what that what that component is, what the

44
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:29,160
Speaker 1: separate article is as opposed to the whole device, you

45
00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: know as an article of manufacturer, something that's that's put

46
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:34,920
Speaker 1: together separately and then all piece together. Is it what

47
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 1: you can see based on the based on the picture.

48
00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:39,160
Speaker 1: There are a lot of inquiries that that can be

49
00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:42,160
Speaker 1: raised on this next time around. That's mad Larsen, a

50
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:45,600
Speaker 1: litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, and Michael Readship, professor at

51
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:49,359
Speaker 1: Villanova University Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Law host Joam Grosso.

52
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm

53
00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. Herero on Bloomberg Radio and that's this

54
00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 1: morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. This is day Break