Speaker 1: Now assigned for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal
Speaker 1: issues in the news, and Today Bloomberg La Hoos Doing
Speaker 1: Grosso and Greg Sture discuss the Supreme Court decision on
Speaker 1: the ongoing feud between Apple and Samsung over design patents.
Speaker 1: They speak with Matt Larson, a litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: and Michael Reich, a professor at Villanova University Law School.
Speaker 1: Michael explain how the Court came to its decision despite
Speaker 1: the traditional interpretation of the language of the statute. Sure,
Speaker 1: the Court did a relatively straightforward statutory interpretation. It's said,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you can get a design patent
Speaker 1: for an article of manufacture. And we've long recognized for
Speaker 1: at least fifty years or more that an article of
Speaker 1: manufactured to get a design patent can be something less
Speaker 1: than a whole product. Uh So, if we're going to
Speaker 1: be consistent, then an article of manufacturer when we're talking
Speaker 1: about damages, must have the same meaning. And if it
Speaker 1: has the same meaning, that means that article manufacture can
Speaker 1: be less than the entire product. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 1: It's a relatively short opinion. Well, Matt, did the court
Speaker 1: now say that that the pieces of that were infringed,
Speaker 1: the parts of the phone that we're infringed are separate
Speaker 1: from other parts, or what does the federal circuit have
Speaker 1: to look at here? You know that that's a great question.
Speaker 1: The Federal circuits certainly has a lot to work with
Speaker 1: the court didn't say a whole lot, which you know,
Speaker 1: frankly sometimes in patent cases is for the better. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, this case is an area. Design patents generally
Speaker 1: differ very much between you know, when you look at
Speaker 1: something like jewelry, where where a design patent might cover
Speaker 1: an entire article, as opposed to a to a smartphone,
Speaker 1: where the design patent may just be on the shape
Speaker 1: of the screen or a button or something like that.
Speaker 1: It can be difficult to to bring both of those together. So,
Speaker 1: you know, assuming that the parties don't settle before additional litigation,
Speaker 1: I think the Federal Circuit is going to have to
Speaker 1: parse through how do you identify what the article of
Speaker 1: manufacturer is? Design patents don't include a whole lot of
Speaker 1: written description. It's mostly just a just a picture that
Speaker 1: you look at, um and it says you know, a
Speaker 1: design according to to what's depicted and so assuming the
Speaker 1: case moves forward, there's gonna be a lot of room
Speaker 1: for parties to argue. How do you go go through
Speaker 1: and determine what that what that component is, what the
Speaker 1: separate article is as opposed to the whole device, you
Speaker 1: know as an article of manufacturer, something that's that's put
Speaker 1: together separately and then all piece together. Is it what
Speaker 1: you can see based on the based on the picture.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of inquiries that that can be
Speaker 1: raised on this next time around. That's mad Larsen, a
Speaker 1: litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, and Michael Readship, professor at
Speaker 1: Villanova University Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Law host Joam Grosso.
Speaker 1: You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. Herero on Bloomberg Radio and that's this
Speaker 1: morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. This is day Break