WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Apple-Samsung Case Decided (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.120
<v Speaker 1>Now assigned for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:05.600
<v Speaker 1>issues in the news, and Today Bloomberg La Hoos Doing

0:00:05.640 --> 0:00:09.080
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and Greg Sture discuss the Supreme Court decision on

0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:13.039
<v Speaker 1>the ongoing feud between Apple and Samsung over design patents.

0:00:13.280 --> 0:00:17.080
<v Speaker 1>They speak with Matt Larson, a litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence,

0:00:17.120 --> 0:00:20.920
<v Speaker 1>and Michael Reich, a professor at Villanova University Law School.

0:00:21.640 --> 0:00:25.520
<v Speaker 1>Michael explain how the Court came to its decision despite

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>the traditional interpretation of the language of the statute. Sure,

0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:36.080
<v Speaker 1>the Court did a relatively straightforward statutory interpretation. It's said,

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>on the one hand, you can get a design patent

0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>for an article of manufacture. And we've long recognized for

0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>at least fifty years or more that an article of

0:00:48.440 --> 0:00:52.040
<v Speaker 1>manufactured to get a design patent can be something less

0:00:52.040 --> 0:00:56.800
<v Speaker 1>than a whole product. Uh So, if we're going to

0:00:56.800 --> 0:01:00.080
<v Speaker 1>be consistent, then an article of manufacturer when we're talking

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>about damages, must have the same meaning. And if it

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:07.000
<v Speaker 1>has the same meaning, that means that article manufacture can

0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:11.080
<v Speaker 1>be less than the entire product. It's as simple as that.

0:01:11.120 --> 0:01:14.120
<v Speaker 1>It's a relatively short opinion. Well, Matt, did the court

0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:17.720
<v Speaker 1>now say that that the pieces of that were infringed,

0:01:17.880 --> 0:01:20.720
<v Speaker 1>the parts of the phone that we're infringed are separate

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:23.000
<v Speaker 1>from other parts, or what does the federal circuit have

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:25.640
<v Speaker 1>to look at here? You know that that's a great question.

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.319
<v Speaker 1>The Federal circuits certainly has a lot to work with

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:30.959
<v Speaker 1>the court didn't say a whole lot, which you know,

0:01:31.040 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 1>frankly sometimes in patent cases is for the better. Um.

0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 1>You know, this case is an area. Design patents generally

0:01:38.600 --> 0:01:40.840
<v Speaker 1>differ very much between you know, when you look at

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>something like jewelry, where where a design patent might cover

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 1>an entire article, as opposed to a to a smartphone,

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>where the design patent may just be on the shape

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>of the screen or a button or something like that.

0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:54.240
<v Speaker 1>It can be difficult to to bring both of those together. So,

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:59.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, assuming that the parties don't settle before additional litigation,

0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:00.600
<v Speaker 1>I think the Federal Circuit is going to have to

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>parse through how do you identify what the article of

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>manufacturer is? Design patents don't include a whole lot of

0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>written description. It's mostly just a just a picture that

0:02:11.320 --> 0:02:13.640
<v Speaker 1>you look at, um and it says you know, a

0:02:13.680 --> 0:02:17.560
<v Speaker 1>design according to to what's depicted and so assuming the

0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:20.080
<v Speaker 1>case moves forward, there's gonna be a lot of room

0:02:20.120 --> 0:02:22.600
<v Speaker 1>for parties to argue. How do you go go through

0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:26.120
<v Speaker 1>and determine what that what that component is, what the

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.160
<v Speaker 1>separate article is as opposed to the whole device, you

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 1>know as an article of manufacturer, something that's that's put

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:34.920
<v Speaker 1>together separately and then all piece together. Is it what

0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:37.320
<v Speaker 1>you can see based on the based on the picture.

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:39.160
<v Speaker 1>There are a lot of inquiries that that can be

0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>raised on this next time around. That's mad Larsen, a

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 1>litigation analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, and Michael Readship, professor at

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:49.359
<v Speaker 1>Villanova University Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Law host Joam Grosso.

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:51.880
<v Speaker 1>You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm

0:02:51.880 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Time. Herero on Bloomberg Radio and that's this

0:02:54.800 --> 0:02:57.680
<v Speaker 1>morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. This is day Break