Most Important: Take this lightly, because we only need to pass, work as hard as you can, we will

do well. I believe in this team; we are a fun group.

FLOW OF THE PRESENTATION:
1) SEJAL:
- Intellectual property definition & basic background
- IP types
- Bodies and laws (when they started and who made changes if any) that handle IP
- Then define Industrial design which is our topic
- Then we delve into the US case first
- Introduce the companies
- Introduce the terms around which the case is around (refer to the list)
- Talk about the issue
2) DHRUV:
- handles the courts decisions
- the tests
- the conclusion and impact of it
- Gives a transition to UK case
3) Jerin/Kukku
4) Jerin/Kukku
- Concludes the case
- Overall impact of the two cases globally, economically and legally

SEJAL:

What is IP?
Intellectual property has been defined as property that is created by human intellect or cre- ativity and
that has commercial application. It is intellectual in the sense that it encompasses intangible subject
matter-ideas, schemes, business and product imagery, and relationships with the public (goodwill) arising
from various forms of human innovation. It is property in the sense that the rights associated with
intellectual property are based on the owner's legal right to exclude others from using the subject
matter, that ownership of the rights can usually be trans- ferred or assigned, and that the right to
use them can be commercialized.
Intellectual property includes such diverse subject matter as

 confidential information: protection for trade secrets and lesser proprietary information that
provides a competitive edge, such as information relating to composition or design of products,
methods of manufacture, market research, business strategies, and customer profiles;
 patents: protection for new, non-obvious, and useful inventions, including improvements to
existing inventions;
 trademarks: rights in words, designs, and other indicia that distinguish the source of goods and
services from other goods or services;
 copyright: rights in original works including books, magazines, plays, films, photo- graphs,
drawings, sculptures, and architectural designs, as well as computer programs and databases;
 industrial designs: rights in ornamental or aesthetic features of a manufactured article; and
 personality rights: rights that prominent individuals such as entertainers and sport fig- ures have
in their personas, including their names, nicknames, and other distinguishing features
The International Intellectual Property Framework: -
This section explores some of the main treaties and conventions governing intellectual property
protections internationally.
World Trade Organization:- (WTO)is an international organization of 164member states, including
Canada, that governs the global rules of trade among nations. While the earlier General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade dealt only with trade in goods, the WTO deals with trade-related aspects of intellectual
property as well as trade in both goods and services.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS):-
Along with the multilateral agreement establishing the WTO, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was established on January 1, 1995.
The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards for intellectual property regulation and was a historic first
agreement to introduce intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system.
Its objective was to narrow the gaps in how all types of intellectual property rights are protected,
including
• copyright and related rights;
• trademarks;
• geographical indications;
• industrial designs;
• patents; and
• undisclosed information, including trade secrets.

While agreement was achieved on mandatory, compliant intellectual property laws, controversially, those
laws ensure that intellectual property laws of developing countries will be the same or similar to those of
North America and Europe, and they leave little opportunity for developing countries to tailor their
intellectual property regimes to meet regional or individual needs unless they wish to withdraw from the
WTO.

The TRIPS Agreement is administered by the WTO and is binding on all WTO member nations,
including Canada

The basic principles of the TRIPS Agreement include a commitment to national treatment (treating
both one’s own nationals and foreigners equally) and most-favoured-nation treatment (equal
treatment for nationals of all WTO trading partners). The agreement also covers other matters,
including standards of protection, how member countries should enforce those rights nationally, and how
to settle intellectual property disputes between WTO members. The agreement also established a council
for trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (the TRIPS Council) to monitor and manage
administrative issues surrounding the agreement, ensure member compliance, and provide assistance to
members in matters of dispute settlement. The subsequent integration of the TRIPS Agreement with the
Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO was an important step, indicative of the importance of
intellectual property in the world trading system.

World Intellectual Property Organization

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established in 1967 by the
WIPOConvention. There are currently 192 member states, including Canada, which has been a member
since 1970. It is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) with a mandate to maintain and
increase respect for intellectual property throughout the world. WIPO and the WTO have a mutually
supportive relationship set out in the Agreement Between the World Intellectual Property Organization
and the World Trade Organization.
WIPO currently administers 26 treaties, including two of the most important intellectual property treaties:
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (the Paris Con-vention) for the protection of
patents and trademarks, and the Berne Convention for the Protec-tion of Literary and Artistic Works9 (the
Berne Convention) for the protection of copyright.
All WIPO-administered treaties fall into three groups:
1. treaties that establish international protection
2. treaties that facilitate international protection, and
3. treaties that establish classification systems and procedures for improving them.
Canada is a party to some, but not all, of the treaties administered by WIPO.

Industrial designs protection applies to non-functional design features of shape, configuration, pattern,
or ornament, and any combination of those features that have solely visual appeal. “Shape” and
“configuration” cover three-dimensional designs (such as a chair or coffee cup) while “pattern” and
“ornament” cover two-dimensional designs (such as an engraving or embossing)
CASE 1: Apple vs Samsung, USA, (Apple wins)
Today the case which we are presenting is of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., which involves
three of the design patents within Apple’s iPhone. Beginning in 2011, Apple and Samsung have been in a
seemingly never-ending litigious battle over these design patents with the case commencing in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California in 2012, climbing up to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and returning to the district court.
Background of Both Parties:
Apple Inc.:
Apple, a tech giant, is renowned for its innovative products, including the iPhone and iPad.
Few years ago, smartphones were still a relatively new concept. That all changed in 2007 when Apple,
Inc. (“Apple”) released its first iPhone and launched smartphones into the mainstream, thanks to the
device’s attractive design and intuitive user interface. 3 To protect its intellectual property, Apple filed
design patent applications just six days before iPhones were first sold in June 2007
They asserted that Samsung’s smartphones and tablets infringed several of their patents.
Apple also claimed that Samsung’s devices copied their trade dress embodied in the iPhone and iPad.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:
Samsung, another major player in the tech industry, produces a wide range of electronic devices.
They counterclaimed that Apple’s iPhone and iPad infringed several of their patents.

The terms which we will see through out the case :-

A patent for an invention is an intellectual property right granted to the patentee by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)- is the federal agency for granting U.S. patents and registering
trademarks. This right is granted to “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof ” Once this right has
been granted, the patentee can “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the
invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States.” The purpose of
the patent system is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
There are three types of patents: utility patents, plant patents, and design patents. Design patents are
centered entirely on the visual, which contrasts with copyright,16 trademark,17 trade secret,18 utility
patent,19 or other various protections that have been enacted for specific types of innovation.
A design patent is granted to “[w]hoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of
manufacture.” Section 171 of the Patent Act- The Patent Act refers to legislation that governs the granting
and enforcement of patents in a particular jurisdiction, has been interpreted as requiring that a claimed
design must be (1) “new [and] original,”24 (2) “ornamental,” and (3) “for an article of manufacture.”
A design patent issued prior to May 13, 2015 has a term of fourteen years from grant.28 Those design
patents issued after May 13, 2015 are for a term of fifteen years from the date of patent grant.

The Article of Manufacture

The design patent “article of manufacture” requirement has existed in design patent law from the very
beginning. Although the phrase “article of manufacture” is not statutorily defined, it has been explained
through case law. The Supreme Court defined “article of manufacture” as “the production of articles for
use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or
combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.”Almost any tangible object or article satisfies this
requirement.

i. The Article of Manufacture Requirement

In addition to the fixation requirement, the subject of the design patent must qualify as an article of
manufacture.
In the early days of design patent law, there was little doubt as to what constituted an article of
manufacture because manufactured goods at the time consisted almost exclusively of hand-made, tangible
items.Courts have analyzed this requirement and set forth a few general principles. First, it is “well settled
that the term ‘an article of manufacture’ does not include every article of manufacture . . . [A]rticles which
are more or less hidden from view when in use are not the proper subject-matter for design patents.”Also,
design patent protection is unavailable for articles of manufacture, which “owing to their nature, could be
a matter of concern to no one.” A design patent applicant may only claim a design for a portion of an
article of manufacture.Last, a design may be applicable to more than one article of manufacture The
primary meaning of the word “manufacture” is something made by hand, as distinguished from a natural
growth; but, as machinery has largely supplanted this primitive method, the word is now ordinarily used
to denote an article upon the material of which labor has been expended to make the finished product.
As technology has advanced and as innovation moves further away from traditional, human-made,
tangible objects, the definition of what constitutes an article of manufacture becomes more challenging.
Enforcement
Infringement A patent is infringed when someone, without authority, “makes, uses, offers to sell or
sells” a product containing a design that is substantially similar to the patented design.50 Specifically, a
design patent is infringed when any person without authority “(1) applies the patented design, or any of
sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation
has been applied ”51 In 1871, the Supreme Court interpreted the standard of infringement in Gorham Co.
v. White stating, [I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually
gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer,
inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the
other.“An owner of a valid design patent can bring an action when he or she believes that the patent has
been infringed.”53
Remedies
If a patent owner proves infringement in a design patent case, he or she has a choice of remedies.54
Damages for design patents can be obtained under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or § 289.55 Under § 284, which
applies to both utility and design patents, the patent owner can collect “damages adequate to compensate
for infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty” for the use of the invention or design.56
The damages are analyzed under “but for” causation.

Design patent owners also have an alternative remedy that is unavailable for utility patents.58 Under §
289, the damages are more of a property rule, whereby the defendant’s total profits without apportionment
to the article of manufacture to which the design is applied is awarded. Section 289 states,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. Nothing in this section shall prevent, lessen, or impeach
any other remedy which an owner of an infringed patent has under the provisions of this title, but he shall
not twice recover the profit made from the infringement.

This disgorgement of total profits takes on attributes of a property rule when the alleged infringing
product is a complex, multi-component product and the ornamental design is only a small feature
incorporated in the entire product.61 In 1887, Congress added § 289 to U.S. patent law in response to
Supreme Court decisions that severely limited recovery in a design patent case.62 Before the Design
Patent Act of 1887, a design patent owner could only recover the proportionate amount of profits that
were proven to be attributable to the patented feature.63 It is § 289 and its implications on multi-
component articles of manufacture that is at issue in the Samsung v. Apple case.

Trade Dress Law: Trade dress refers to the distinctive visual appearance of a product or its packaging
that identifies and distinguishes it in the marketplace. Apple alleged that Samsung's smartphones and
tablets infringed upon its trade dress by adopting similar design elements, such as the appearance of icons
and overall product design. Trade dress protection is established under the Lanham Act, specifically
Sections 32 and 43(a) of the United States Code.

Issue:
Had Samsung violated Apple’s intellectual property rights, including industrial-design rights?
DHRUV:

Beginning in 2011, Apple has faced Samsung in a series of legal battles that spanned a few countries and
four continents. Within the United States alone, these conflicts have transpired in three main jurisdictions:
the Federal Courts, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), and the USPTO. Specifically in the
Federal Court system, this case has had an extensive journey—traveling all the way up to the Supreme
Court of the United States and back down to the District Court.
A. District Court
On April 15, 2011, Apple sued Samsung asserting, among other claims, that Samsung’s smartphones
infringed upon several of Apple’s design patents embodied in its 2007 iPhone. On June 16, 2011, Apple
amended its original complaint to include the three design patents in question.67 Apple accused Samsung
of infringing three of its design patents including.These design patents protect:
(1) the minimalistic face of an iPhone, the front speaker slot, and edge-to-edge glass of the front display
(2) the minimalistic face, home button, and rounded corners
(3) the layout of Apple’s graphical user interface, including a grid of sixteen home screen icons on a black
screen with a band of “permanent” apps at the bottom.
In the context of the Apple vs. Samsung case, the mention of "Invoking § 289" refers to a specific section
of the United States patent law, which provides a remedy for design patent infringement. Section 289
allows the patent holder (in this case, Apple) to seek an award of the infringer's "total profits" from the
sale of products found to infringe upon the design patent.
When Apple sought an award of Samsung's "total profits" under § 289, it meant that Apple requested to
be compensated for all profits that Samsung earned from selling the infringing phones, rather than just the
profits directly attributable to the design elements that infringed upon Apple's patents.
Samsung raised two objections to this measure of relief:
Attribution of Profits: Samsung argued that, according to "basic causation principles," they should only be
liable for profits that are directly attributable to the infringing design elements, rather than all profits from
the sale of the phones. In other words, Samsung contended that it should only be responsible for profits
related to the specific design features that infringed upon Apple's patents, not for profits derived from
other attributes or functionalities of the phones.
Scope of Disgorgement: Samsung also argued that any "profits disgorgement" (returning profits gained
through infringement) should be limited to the specific "article of manufacture" to which the patented
design is applied. In simpler terms, Samsung asserted that the disgorgement of profits should only apply
to the component or part of the product that actually infringes upon the design patent, rather than the
entire product as a whole.
These objections raised by Samsung aimed to narrow the scope of the relief sought by Apple under § 289,
potentially limiting the amount of damages that Samsung would have to pay for the design patent
infringement. The resolution of these objections would have significant implications for the calculation of
damages and the overall outcome of the case
United States District Court for the Northern District of California rejected Samsung's proposed jury
instructions on profit apportionment in design patent cases, stating no apportionment for profits in such
cases (2012).
August 24, 2012: First jury found Samsung products infringed Apple's design patents, awarding Apple all
profits from infringing phone sales.
District court later awarded Apple nearly $1 billion in damages for design patent infringement.
2013: Judge found damages calculation for Samsung incorrect, leading to partial retrial.
Retrial in 2013 awarded Apple additional $290 million, bringing Samsung's total owed to $929 million.
Samsung filed appeal challenging the judgment.

Court of Appeals Decision (March 18, 2015):

 Affirmed jury's finding of design patent infringement and award of Samsung's total profit on
infringing phones.
 Rejected Samsung's argument for limiting award to profits directly attributable to infringement
holding that “the clear statutory language [of section 289] prevents us from adopting a ‘causation’
rule as Samsung urges
 Dismissed Samsung's argument on defining "article of manufacture," concluding entire
smartphone is relevant for § 289 damages.
 Samsung petitioned for writ of certiorari, granted on March 21, 2016.
Supreme Court Proceedings (October 11, 2016):

 Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding definition of "article of manufacture" in § 289.
 All parties agreed that Apple should be entitled to all profits resulting from the "article of
manufacture," regardless of what that article might be.
 Oral arguments affirmed two key points agreed upon by all parties:
 The Court of Appeals was mistaken in adopting a broad rule stating that the "article of
manufacture" is simply the object sold to consumers.
 Determining the "article of manufacture" is ultimately a question of fact, not a blanket rule,
leaving room for interpretation and case-specific analysis.
 This agreement raised the challenge of defining the "article" to which the design patent is applied
if it is something less than the final product sold to consumers.
 Thus, the issue of determining the "article of manufacture" remains open-ended, requiring further
examination and consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
 Parties agreed Apple entitled to all profits from identified "article of manufacture."
 Court declined to define "article of manufacture," but rejected $400 million verdict won by
Apple.
 Remanded case to Federal Circuit to define legal standard for "article of manufacture."
Federal Circuit's Response (February 7, 2017):

 Federal Circuit reopened patent fight between Apple and Samsung.

 Remanded case to district court for reconsideration, possibly including a new damages trial.
  Stated damages award under § 289 involves two steps: identifying "article of manufacture" and
calculating infringer's total profit on that article.
 District court instructed to consider parties' arguments and trial record for determination of
damages trial necessity.

Test for the First Step of the § 289 Damages Inquiry

A. The Problem:
The prolonged legal battle between Samsung and Apple has circled back to the district court, with the
Supreme Court's ruling allowing for a broader interpretation of the term "article of manufacture" for
design patent damages.

B. The Proposed Test:

The Department of Justice introduced a comprehensive test aimed at assisting fact-finders in identifying
the "article of manufacture" for design patent damages.
This test considers various factors, including the scope of the patent, the prominence of the design within
the product, and the conceptual distinctiveness of the design.
Moreover, it emphasizes a case-specific analysis, allowing for flexibility in determining the relevant
article based on the unique circumstances of each case.
Defendants are tasked with identifying the relevant article, shifting the burden away from plaintiffs.

C. Benefits of the Test:

The proposed test offers a clear and structured framework for determining the "article of manufacture,"
providing much-needed guidance for judges, lawyers, and clients involved in design patent litigation.
By promoting a case-by-case analysis, the test ensures alignment with the underlying purpose of § 289,
which is to provide a fair remedy for design patent infringement while preventing overcompensation for
non-infringing components.
Additionally, it reduces the risk of ambiguity and arbitrary decision-making, enhancing the overall
fairness and predictability of design patent damages assessments.

Conclusion

 Apple and Samsung, two tech giants, have engaged in a fierce battle over their intellectual
property rights, particularly design patents, in the smartphone industry.
 This legal feud, culminating in the Samsung v. Apple case, has shed light on the significance of
design patents in protecting commercial products, including complex devices like smartphones.
 Despite the prominence of design patents, the case highlighted a puzzling issue regarding
remedies for design patent infringement, specifically regarding the interpretation of the term
"article of manufacture" in 35 U.S.C. § 289.
 The Supreme Court's ruling in the case addressed only a narrow question, leaving unresolved the
issue of how to determine the "article of manufacture."
  Justice Kennedy expressed the difficulty in instructing juries on this matter, underscoring the lack
of clarity in the legal framework.
 While the Supreme Court didn't provide a test for determining the "article of manufacture," the
United States proposed factors for courts to consider, aiming to offer clear guidance for future
cases.
 Adoption of these factors would benefit patent attorneys, clients, jurors, and judges, providing
much-needed clarity in design patent litigation.
 The resolution of the "article of manufacture" controversy remains uncertain, pending further
judicial interpretation and adoption of a test for determining this crucial aspect of design patent
remedies
IMPACT: (if asked)

Impact on Apple and Samsung:

The jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages, finding that Samsung had willfully infringed on
Apple’s patents1. This financial impact was significant for Samsung.
The lawsuit and subsequent trials cost both companies millions of dollars in legal fees2.
Apple’s stock price rose to an all-time high, more than $675 per share, in after-hours trading following
the verdict1.
Samsung, which was found to have violated Apple’s design patents, was initially on the hook for the
profits generated by each of the 11 patents determined to have been infringed3.
Impact on the Tech Industry:
The case set a precedent for how design patents are handled in the tech industry4.
It led to increased scrutiny of product designs and likely influenced tech companies to ensure their
products did not infringe on existing patents4.
The case highlighted the potential for patent law to be used to stifle competition and innovation, as
Samsung argued that the verdict would lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher
prices4.
CASE 2: Apple vs Samsung, UK (Samsung wins)
Issue
The issue was whether Samsung’s Galaxy tablets infringed upon Apple’s registered design of its
iPad. The central issue in the Apple v Samsung case was whether Samsung had violated Apple's
intellectual property rights, including industrial-design rights, by allegedly copying the look and
feel of its iPad products.
Rule
The rule applied was the test for infringement of a registered design under the UK law. The test is
whether the accused design produces on the informed user a different overall impression than the
registered design.
The legal framework applied in this case involved intellectual property law, specifically focusing
on industrial design rights. Industrial design rights protect the visual appearance of a product,
including its shape, configuration, pattern, and ornamentation. To establish infringement, the
court needed to determine whether Samsung's products created a similar overall impression to
Apple's designs, thus violating Apple's industrial design rights.
Analysis
Apple argued that Samsung had copied the visual aspects of its iPad products.
The court analyzed the designs of both Apple’s iPad and Samsung’s Galaxy tablets. It noted that
the view from the front is an important part of the overall impression created by a tablet. The
court found that there were noticeable differences in the physical design of the two products,
including the thinness of the Galaxy tablets and the detailing on the back, which were different
from Apple’s design.
Conclusion
The court concluded that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets did not infringe upon Apple’s registered
design. The overall impression produced by the Galaxy tablets on the informed user was different
from that produced by the iPad. As a result, Apple was ordered to publish a statement
acknowledging that Samsung did not infringe on their design.

The UK High Court of Justice of England and Wales court upheld Samsung’s position in the
Samsung vs. Apple case for several reasons:
 Design Differences: The court carefully examined the design elements of Samsung’s
Galaxy Tab and Apple’s iPad. It found significant differences in design, including
variations in shape, proportions, and overall aesthetics. These differences were crucial in
determining that Samsung’s tablets did not infringe Apple’s registered design.
  Functional Aspects: The court considered functional aspects of the devices. While both
tablets served similar purposes (i.e., as portable computing devices), the court recognized
that design choices could be influenced by functionality. Samsung’s design decisions
were not mere copies but were influenced by practical considerations.
Apple’s original suit accuses Samsung of infringing on seven technical patents related to user
interaction, specifically pinching, zooming, scrolling, and selecting.
 Prior Art and Obviousness: The court evaluated prior art—existing designs and patents
—in the tablet industry. It concluded that certain design features were common and not
unique to Apple’s iPad. The court also considered whether the design was obvious to a
skilled designer, and Samsung successfully argued that its design choices were not
obvious.
- Features Relied On: Specific features relied upon included:
o A rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab with rounded corners.
o A flat transparent surface without ornamentation covering the front face.
o A thin, constant-width rim surrounding the transparent surface.
o A rectangular display screen centered beneath the transparent surface.
o A flat rear surface curving upwards at the sides.
o A thin profile emphasizing simplicity.
o Overall, a design without features specifying orientation.

 Registered Design Scope: The court analyzed the scope of Apple’s registered design. It
found that Apple’s design registration was narrower than claimed, focusing on specific
features. Since Samsung’s Galaxy Tab did not closely match those specific features, it fell
outside the scope of Apple’s design protection.
 Consumer Perception: The court considered how an average consumer would perceive
the designs. While Apple emphasized similarities, the court recognized that consumers
would notice differences when examining the devices side by side.
 Balancing Innovation and Competition: Intellectual property law aims to strike a
balance between protecting innovation and promoting healthy competition. The court
recognized that overly broad design protection could stifle competition and harm
consumers.
The aftermath of the Samsung vs. Apple legal battles had significant implications for patent law
and intellectual property (IP) rights globally.
- Increased Awareness and Vigilance:
o The high-profile nature of the lawsuits drew global attention to the importance of
protecting intellectual property.
o Businesses became more vigilant about safeguarding their innovations and
designs.
- Clarification of Damages:
o The US Supreme Court ruling in Apple v. Samsung clarified the calculation of
damages for design patent infringement.
o The decision emphasized that damages should be based on the specific infringing
components, not the entire product.
o This ruling impacted future patent cases and provided guidance on assessing
damages.
- Balancing Innovation and Competition:
o The legal battles underscored the delicate balance between protecting innovation
and promoting healthy competition.
o Courts grappled with ensuring fair competition while respecting IP rights.
- Global Patent Reforms:
o While no specific treaties resulted directly from these cases, they influenced
discussions on patent reforms.
o Policymakers and legal experts engaged in debates about harmonizing patent laws
across jurisdictions.
- Business Strategies and Licensing:
o Companies reevaluated their IP strategies, considering licensing agreements and
cross-licensing deals.
o Some opted for cooperative approaches rather than prolonged legal battles.
- Consumer Impact:
o The lawsuits affected consumer choices and product availability.
o Some argued that patent disputes could limit innovation and lead to fewer product
options.
- International Cooperation:
o The cases prompted discussions among countries about harmonizing IP laws.
o International bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
continued to address IP challenges.

Innovation Investment: Companies reevaluated their R&D investments and patent portfolios.
Some redirected resources toward patent acquisition and protection.
 Market Dynamics: The legal battle influenced market dynamics, affecting product launches,
design choices, and competitive strategies. Companies had to navigate the delicate balance
between innovation and avoiding infringement.
Global Trade Relations: The case highlighted the complexities of cross-border litigation. It
underscored the need for harmonized patent laws and cooperation among nations to address
intellectual property disputes.

differences in intellectual property rights between the United Kingdom (UK) and the United
States (USA) that influenced the contrasting decisions in the Samsung vs. Apple case:
1. Design Patents vs. Registered Designs:
o UK: In the UK, the legal framework recognizes registered designs. These protect the visual
appearance of a product, including its shape, ornamentation, and surface decoration. The focus is
on the overall visual impression.
o USA: In the USA, design patents play a similar role. Design patents protect the ornamental
design of an article of manufacture. Unlike utility patents, which cover functionality, design
patents focus solely on appearance.
2. Informed User Standard:
o UK: The UK court applied the concept of an informed user when evaluating design similarities.
An informed user is someone familiar with the product category and its design variations.
o USA: The US court also considered the perspective of an ordinary observer, but the standard is
less specific than the informed user. The ordinary observer is an average consumer who perceives
design differences.
3. Scope of Protection:
o UK: Registered designs protect the entire visual appearance of a product. If an informed user
would find two designs similar, infringement may be established.
o USA: Design patents protect specific ornamental features as claimed in the patent. If the
accused design closely matches the patented features, infringement occurs.
o Overall Approach:
UK: The UK court emphasized the overall visual impression and the informed user’s
perspective.
USA: The US court focused on specific ornamental features claimed in the design patent.