Apple Archives - The National Law Forum

Apple Smartwatch Antitrust Case Survives, Showing ‘Freedom of Design’ is Not Absolute

Judge Cites ‘Associated’ Anticompetitive Conduct Claims

It’s a case that challenges the limits of the “freedom of design” usually enjoyed by companies accused of product design changes alleged to harm competition. Ordinarily, a design change is not the kind of conduct that runs afoul of the antitrust laws, but on March 21, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White from the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss an antitrust case brought against it by AliveCor Inc. The suit alleges that Apple unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the market for heart rate analysis apps by updating WatchOS, the Apple Watch operating system on which AliveCor’s heart rate analysis app runs. (AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-cv-03958-JSW, N.D. Calif.).

Heart rate analysis apps analyze the user’s heart rate in real time using a sensor close to the user’s wrist and determine whether the user’s heart rate is normal or irregular. The app runs constantly while the device is worn and alerts the user when a situation arises requiring an ECG recording and medical analysis. AliveCor also sells an electrocardiogram-capable wrist band for the Apple Watch and related WatchOS software that analyzes reading from the band. AliveCor claims that its products—the ECG-wristband hardware and software and its heart rate analysis app—“helped change the perception of the Apple Watch from an accessory to a personal health monitoring tool.”

AliveCor calls its heart rate monitoring app “SmartRhythm.” According to AliveCor, when sales of SmartRhythm took off Apple was inspired to announce an update to WatchOS with its own heart monitoring app designed to exclude AliveCor from the U.S. market for WatchOS heart rate analysis apps.

SmartRhythm works by using data from the Apple Watch’s heart rate algorithm. According to the complaint, Apple’s update to WatchOS altered the heart rate algorithm in a way that prevents third-party developers from being able to detect heart rate fluctuations and irregularities. As a result of these changes, SmartRhythm could not provide accurate heart rate analysis, and AliveCor removed it from the market.

Consequently, Apple is a monopolist in the WatchOS heart rate analysis app market, which AliveCor claims Apple is maintaining with exclusionary design changes to WatchOS, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and Section 17200 of California Business and Professions Code.

The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss AliveCor’s monopolization claim in what it characterized as the “[single brand] aftermarket for WatchOS apps.” Applying the factors enumerated by the court in Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008), the court found that the WatchOS app aftermarket was wholly derivative from the primary smartwatch market, the alleged restraint applied only to the aftermarket, Apple’s aftermarket power was not obtained through contract terms reached in the primary market, and that competition in the smartwatch market does not discipline anticompetitive practices in the WatchOS app aftermarket. Accordingly, the court ruled that AliveCor’s market definition met the Newcal standards for a “single product” relevant market.

Apple argued that a company that improves a product to the benefit of consumers does not violate antitrust laws “absent some associated anticompetitive conduct,” citing the leading “freedom of design” case of Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP, 592 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). The court quoted the holding of Allied: “If a monopolist’s design change is an improvement, it is necessarily tolerated by the antitrust laws, unless the monopolist abuses or leverages its monopoly power in some other way when introducing the product.”

Apple argued that its update to WatchOS was purely a design change that benefitted users, with no associated anticompetitive conduct. It observed that AliveCor hadn’t established that consumers use Apple’s app instead of some third-party app, or that Apple rejected any third-party apps, or that no other third-party heart apps are available to Apple Watch users. But the court rejected those arguments, noting that Apple failed to provide any legal authority that would require such allegations.

Apple ignored AliveCor’s allegations that Apple abused or leveraged its monopoly power “in some other way” by changing its heart rate algorithm to make it effectively impossible for third parties to inform a user when to take an ECG. AliveCor contended that Apple’s updated heart rate algorithm, which was pushed out to all earlier Apple Watch models, did not improve user experience. Its purpose was to prevent third parties from identifying irregular heart rates and offering competing apps based on that data. “These allegations present the type of ‘associated conduct’ that makes product design changes cognizable under antitrust law. Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly establish that Apple’s conduct was anticompetitive,” Judge White held. A case management conference set for May 20.

Commentary

It is truly difficult to see how some separate, “associated” conduct by Apple other than its design change to WatchOS violates Section 2. It seems more straightforward to consider the design change itself to be a cognizable anticompetitive act. It may be time to drop the fiction maintained in Allied v. Tyco that design changes are “never” antitrust violations unless accompanied by some “other” conduct. Here, Apple has created the market itself in the form of an OS platform used by millions of consumers who depend on it to access all manner of competing complementary products. Under those circumstances, it should be uncontroversial to hold a platform operator liable under the antitrust laws for design changes that exclude competitors or foreclose participants from the market, without indulging in the fiction of “associated” conduct.

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

For more antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

State Treasurers Call on SEC to Investigate Apple’s Nondisclosure Agreements

In a January 30, 2022 letter to SEC Chair Gensler, eight State treasurers requested that the SEC investigate Apple’s nondisclosure agreements and whether Apple misled the SEC about their use of nondisclosure provisions in employment and post-employment agreements. According to the January 30th letter, “multiple news reports have stated that whistleblower documents demonstrate Apple uses the very concealment clauses it repeatedly claimed it does not use . . .” The January 30th letter also points out the importance of permitting employees to report unlawful conduct and the need for shareholders to have accurate information about workplace culture.

The SEC can investigate whether Apple’s alleged use of concealment clauses in agreement and policies violates the SEC’s anti-gag rule, which prohibits any “person” from taking “any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .” Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17.

The purpose of the anti-gag rule is to facilitate the disclosure of information to the SEC relating to possible securities law violations. As explained in the release adopting the SEC’s whistleblower rules, “an attempt to enforce a confidentiality agreement against an individual to prevent his or her communications with Commission staff about a possible securities law violation could inhibit those communications . . . and would undermine the effectiveness of the countervailing incentives that Congress established to encourage individuals to disclose possible violations to the Commission.” Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release no. 34-64545 (May 25, 2011).

The SEC has taken enforcement actions for violations of Rule 21F-17, most of which are focused on employer agreements and policies that have the effect of impeding whistleblowing to the SEC. These enforcement actions have strengthened the SEC’s whistleblower program by encouraging whistleblowers to report fraud and encouraging employers to revise their NDAs and policies to clarify that such agreements and policies do not bar lawful whistleblowing.

Apple’s market capitalization of approximately $2.8 trillion renders it the world’s most valuable company. If Apple is using concealment clauses and unlawful NDAs to silence whistleblowers, then Apple shareholders may not have an accurate and complete picture of the company’s financial condition and risks, including Apple’s ESG-related risks and risks stemming from its potential violations of anti-trust laws. Accordingly, it will be critical for the SEC to take enforcement action if it finds that Apple has violated the SEC’s anti-gag rule.

By some estimates, fraud and other white-collar crime costs the US economy $300 billion to $800 billion per year. To combat fraud, regulators and law enforcement need the assistance and cooperation of whistleblowers to detect and effectively prosecute fraud. But there are many substantial risks that deter whistleblowers from coming forward, including the risk of being sued for breaching a confidentiality agreement. The continued success of whistleblower reward programs will hinge in part on regulators taking a firm stand against agreements and policies that impede whistleblowing.

For more information on unlawful restrictions on whistleblowing, see the article De Facto Gag Clauses: The Legality of Employment Agreements That Undermine Dodd-Frank’s Whistleblower Provisions.

This article was written by Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law. For more articles relating to NDAs, please click here.

Apple, Inc. Probed by European Commission for Possible Antitrust Violations

In late June, the European Commission (EC) opened several formal cases investigating Apple’s mobile payment technology (Apple Pay) and various third-party and user agreements to determine whether the tech giant’s practices and policies infringe on competition rights and abuse market power. Specifically, the Commission will investigate the company’s terms and conditions integrating the payment feature into merchant applications and websites, and the imposition of its proprietary in-app purchase system and accompanying restrictions. The latter prevents third-party developers from informing their users of cheaper alternative purchases available outside the app. The investigations follow complaints made by Spotify, a music streaming service competitor, and an e-book/audiobook distributor competitor, according to the EC’s press release.

In a statement, EC Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said that the Commission needs to allay fears that Apple’s “gatekeeper role” in the distribution of apps and content to users does not distort market competition. The impetus, she said, was to ensure that “Apple’s measures do not deny consumers the benefits of new payment technologies, including better choice, quality, innovation and competitive prices.”

Apple is one of the latest tech targets to experience regulatory scrutiny. Facebook, Amazon, and Google are facing antitrust inquiries by EU member states, the European Commission, and the United States’ Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

© MoginRubin LLP

ARTICLE BY the Competition Policy and Advocacy practice at MoginRubin.

For more on mobile payment portals, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law section.

Thieves Breach Twitter Security to Commandeer Famous Accounts

The Twitter accounts of major companies and individuals were briefly taken over as part of a bitcoin scam. Former and current heads of states, global corporations, and presidential candidates had their twitter accounts compromised. The tweet from many of the twitter account said similar things, for example Kanye West’s feed stated that he is “giving back to my fans”; the message from Bezos’, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden’s account said that they had “decided to give back to my community”; while Elon Musk’s account said “feeling greatful” and provided a link to a Bitcoin wallet to send money to. The tweets would indicate that they would send double the money back to a limited number of contributors.

Twitter, through its Twitter Support account notified users that an internal investigation was conducted into the matter. The investigation revealed that several employees who had access to internal systems had their accounts compromised in a “coordinated social engineering attack.” Twitter’s internal system was then exploited to tweet from high-profile accounts. The attack was at least moderately successful considering the Bitcoin wallets promoted in the tweets received over 300 transactions and Bitcoin worth over $100,000.

These tweets began at about 4 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) on Wednesday, July 16. The first wave of attacks hit the Twitter accounts of prominent cryptocurrency leaders and companies, but expanded quickly after that. Along with Vice President Biden, President Obama, Kanye West, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and Elon Musk, large company accounts were also targeted including Uber and Apple. Twitter’s initial response was to take down the offending tweets, but those were quickly replaced by new ones – – an indication that the hackers maintained access to the individual accounts.

The persistence of the attacks led to Twitter disabling some the platform services including the ability of blue-checked (verified) twitter users to tweet. The services were restored around four and a half hours after the suspicious tweets began. However, that shutdown period was not insignificant. Several National Weather Service Twitter accounts were shut down as a line of severe weather and possible tornadoes moved across the Midwest. The National Weather Service felt severely hampered in its ability to communicate with people about the impending storm.

In a tweet, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey said that the company feels “terrible this happened” and that they are “diagnosing and will share everything we can when we have a more complete understanding of exactly what happened.” The nature of this attack is yet to be determined. The legal implications will hinge on the findings of the investigation, including whether there were sensitive direct messages accessed by the attackers. Considering the compromised accounts includes current and former heads of state (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama, and Vice President Biden), there are also questions of national security involved.

The United States does not have a comprehensive federal data breach notification scheme. These obligations are provided by the fifty states and sector-specific laws. More than 40 of the state breach notification laws contain a harm threshold pursuant to which notification is not required unless harm to affected individuals has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. The EU’s GDPR also includes a similar assessment. As more information is disclosed, we will get a better understanding of Twitter and the attacked users’ incident response processes.

ARTICLE BY Dominic Dhil Panakal at Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.

For more on data breaches, see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law section.

Apple Imposes Privacy Policy Requirement for All Apps Operating on its Platform

As Apple recently reminded developers, starting on October 3, 2018 it will require all apps being submitted for distribution through its app store, or for testing by its TestFlight service, to have a publicly posted privacy policy. This requirement was incorporated into Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines and will apply to all new apps, as well as all updated versions of existing apps. Previously only those apps that collected user information had to have a privacy policy.

Apple’s previous requirements were consistent with a 2012 Joint Statement of Principles agreement that Apple and other app store platforms made with the California Attorney General. In that statement, the platforms agreed to require apps that collect information to conspicuously post a privacy policy telling consumers how their personal data was being collected, used, and shared. To encourage transparency of apps’ privacy practices, the platforms also agreed to allow app developers to link to their privacy policy directly from the store. Finally, the platforms agreed to create ways for consumers to notify them if an app was not living up to its policies, and to respond to such complaints.

The new Guidelines build on the principles established in 2012 and expand the privacy policy requirement to all apps, even utility apps that do not collect user information and apps still in the testing phase. Per the Guidelines, the policy will need to be included in the App Store Connect metadata field and as a link in the app itself. Without the policy, the app will not be reviewed and will not be made available on Apple’s platform.

Under the new Guidelines, an app’s privacy policy must still have a description of what data the app collects, how that data is collected, and how it is used. The policy must also notify users how long the app developer will keep the information it collects and how it will be deleted. The Guidelines also require the policy to inform users how they can revoke their consent (if applicable) for data collection and how to make a request to have their data be deleted. Finally, the policy will have to confirm that the app will follow Apple’s guidelines about sharing information with third parties, and that any third party that the information is sent to will be held to Apple’s data security guidelines. If the app’s privacy policy sets higher standards for data protection than Apple’s guidelines, the third party will have to also meet that benchmark.

Putting it Into Practice: This announcement is a reminder for companies to look at how they are sharing privacy practices with consumers across a variety of platforms, including mobile apps.

This post was written by Shanna M. Pearce and Pavel Sternberg of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

U.S Supreme Court Revisits Design Patent Damages

On December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ____ (2016), unanimously ruled that in multicomponent products, the “article of manufacture” subject to an award of damages under 35 U.S.C. §289 is not required to be the end product sold to consumers but may only be a component of the product.

In 2007, when Apple launched the iPhone, it had secured several design patents in connection with the launch. When Samsung released a series of smartphones resembling the iPhone, Apple sued Samsung, alleging that the various Samsung smartphones infringed Apple’s design patents. A jury found that several Samsung smartphones did infringe those patents. Apple was awarded $399 million in damages for Samsung’s design patent infringement, the entire profit Samsung made from its sales of the infringing smartphones. The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award, rejecting Samsung’s argument that damages should be limited because the relevant articles of manufacture were the front face or screen rather than the entire smartphone.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit. In its unanimous opinion, the Court reasoned that for purposes of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award (based on 35 U.S.C. §289) need not be the end/finished product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. The Court determined that “The Federal Circuit’s narrower reading of the ‘article of manufacture,'” limiting it to the end product, “cannot be squared with the text of §289.” How to arrive at §289 damages? According to the Supreme Court, “Arriving at a damages award under §289 thus involves two steps. First, identify the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the infringed design has been applied. Second, calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture.”

This decision could have potential impact on future design patent infringement cases, especially when calculating infringement damages. It remains to be seen, what kind of guidance the Federal Circuit will provide in addressing the scope of the “article of manufacture” for multicomponent products.

ARTICLE BY Sudip K. Mitra of Vedder Price

The Smart Phone Patent Saga Continues: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

In a case involving suits, countersuits and multiple appeals by the two giants of the mobile phone space, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding of infringement, voiding the accompanying award to Apple of more than $119 million. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case Nos. 015-1171, -1195, -1994 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 26, 2016) (Dyk, J).

In this case’s third appeal, the Federal Circuit was asked to deal with “the core infringement and invalidity issues with respect to the asserted patents.” At issue were five patents asserted by Apple against Samsung (four of which a jury found to be infringed) and two patents asserted by Samsung against Apple (one of which the same jury found to be infringed).

After the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict ($120 million to Apple and $160,000 to Samsung), both sides appealed.

The Apple Patents

With regard to the Apple “click structure” patent, the Federal Circuit found that no reasonable jury could have concluded that the accused Samsung devices included the claimed “analyzer server,” and reversed the judgment of infringement. Before trial, neither party sought construction of “analyzer server,” agreeing that it should be given its ordinary meaning. On the last scheduled day of the trial, the Federal Circuit construed this term (in the Motorola case) as “a server routine separate from a client that receives data having structures from the client.” The district court adopted this construction and permitted the parties to recall their expert witnesses to provide testimony under this construction. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that Apple failed to present sufficient testimony that the accused software library programs in the Samsung phones ran separately from the programs they served (i.e., the Browser and Messenger applications), as required by the Federal Circuit’s construction. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement.

Apple also asserted its “slide to unlock” patent, whereby a user can slide a moving image across the screen with a finger in order to unlock the phone, and its “auto correct” patent, whereby a phone automatically corrects typing errors. At the district court, Samsung sought JMOL that both of these patents were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit agreed.

For the “slide to unlock” patent, Apple did not dispute that the prior art combination disclosed all of the claimed features. Rather, Apple argued that the jury could have reasonably found that one of the references taught away from using the “slider toggle” feature, and that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine these references, since the slide toggle reference describes a wall-mounted touch-screen device, not a mobile phone. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that “[t]he fact that [the prior art reference] notes that users did not prefer the particular design of the slider toggle is not evidence of teaching away.” The Federal Circuit reasoned that a motivation to use the teachings of a particular prior art reference need not be supported by a finding that the feature is the “preferred, or the most desirable” option.

The Federal Circuit also concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the reference is not analogous art since it concerned user interfaces for touch-screen devices, noting that the asserted patent and the reference both disclose essentially the same structure: a touch-screen device with software that allows the user to slide his or her finger across the screen to change interface states.

The Federal Circuit also dismissed Apple’s secondary considerations argument, noting that although Apple identified the unsolved problem as the lack of an “intuitive” method of unlocking a touch-screen portable device, it provided no evidence showing that the asserted need was recognized in the industry. With respect to industry praise, the Court noted that evidence of approval by Apple fans—who may or may not have been skilled in the art—is not legally sufficient.

With respect to copying, the Federal Circuit noted the only evidence of copying went to an unlock mechanism using a fixed starting and ending point for the slide—a feature disclosed in the prior art. Finally, with respect to commercial success, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Apple’s evidence was not sufficient to show a “nexus” between the patented feature and the commercial success of the iPhone. Accordingly, the evidence of secondary considerations was insufficient as a matter of law to overcome the prima facie obviousness case.

Apple also asserted its “universal search” patent that permits a user to search for results from both the phone and the internet based on a single search term. On appeal, the issue was whether the search feature on the Samsung phones “locates” information on the internet. The district court found that Samsung devices do not search the internet, but rather blend data previously retrieved from a Google server and a local database. Apple argued that the plain meaning of the claim covered search information previously downloaded from the internet, a construction the district court denied. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial.

The Samsung Patents

Samsung asserted a patent directed to capturing, compressing and transmitting videos. In its claim construction order, the district court construed “means for transmission”—a means-plus-function claim limitation—to require software in addition to hardware. Samsung argued that the district court erred in its construction because the specification did not “require any software for transmission, and including such software [in addition to hardware] as necessary structure was error.” The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the term “transmission” implies communication from one unit to another, and the specification explains that software is necessary to enable such communication. The Federal Circuit noted that software is necessary because hardware alone does nothing without software instructions telling it what to do, and affirmed the district court’s construction of the term and the judgment of non-infringement.

As for Samsung’s patent directed to a camera system for compressing, decompressing and organizing digital files, the jury found that Apple had infringed, and the district court denied Apple’s post-trial motion for JMOL of non-infringement. Apple argued that no reasonable jury could have found that the Apple products met the “compressor” and “decompressor” limitations of the claim because these limitations require components that compress or decompress both still images and videos, and its products use separate and distinct components to compress and decompress still images and videos. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that Samsung presented testimony that identified a single Apple design chip with circuitry that performs compressing/decompressing methods for both images and videos.

Practice Note: Assuming this decision resolves the utility patent fight, the only remaining battle shifts to the Supreme Court of the United States, which has now agreed to hear Samsung’s appeal on the issue of damages in connection with design patent infringement. See CertAlert in this issue of IP Update.

Article By

Nitin Gambhir

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Agrees to Review the Appropriate Measure of Design Patent Damages

On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Samsung Electronics Co.’s appeal regarding what it must pay Apple Inc. for infringing the design of Apple’s iPhone. This will mark the first time in over a century that the Supreme Court will hear a case involving design patents.

In 2012, a jury found that Samsung infringed Apple utility and design patents and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. On appeal, damages were nearly cut in half to $548 million, which Samsung later agreed to pay to settle the dispute, all the while reserving its right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Samsung has challenged the Federal Circuit’s decision that the company must pay its entire profits from smartphones that infringed Apple’s design patents, which amounted to $399 million. In making the damages determination, the Federal Circuit relied on Section 289 of the Patent Act, which dates to the 19th century and provides in relevant part: “[w]hoever 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.” 35. U.S.C. § 289 (emphasis added).

A number of tech companies, including Google and Facebook, submitted a brief in support of Samsung’s petition. In the brief, those companies argued that Section 289 is outdated and when enacted, failed to contemplate “products with significant functional features at all.” Thus, Section 289 is obsolete and should not govern awards involving the complex products available today.

When the Court hears the case later this term, the specific question it will address is, “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?”

Article by Kevin P. Moran & Joseph P. Serge of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Smartphone Wars – Supreme Court Awakens: Samsung Files Petition for Certiorari in New Hope to Harmonize Design Patent Law

On Monday, in the latest episode of the smartphone wars, Samsung filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Smartphone Wars

Samsung is appealing a Federal Circuit decision that upheld a $399 million judgment against Samsung for infringing three of Apple’s design patents. Samsung argues that the decision, if left unchecked by the Supreme Court, could dramatically increase the value of design patents. While the Supreme Court is the ultimate power in patent jurisprudence, it was a long time ago that it last considered a design patent case; more than 120 years ago according to Samsung. Samsung’s petition presents two fundamental questions concerning design patents:

1. Where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, should a district court be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope?

2. Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?

With respect to the first question – whether a district court should be required to limit the protection of a design patent to only ornamental features – Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision conflicts with both Section 171 of the Patent Act and with the Supreme Court’s precedent requiring judicial construction of patent claims.

According to Samsung, the Federal Circuit refusal “to cabin design patents to their protected ornamental scope” conflicts with Section 171 and allows infringement to be “found based on the use of nonornamental attributes.” Thus, argues Samsung, the Federal Circuit broadened the protectable scope of design patents, which are limited to “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” under section 171. Samsung argues the Federal Circuit’s ruling also creates tension with other areas of intellectual property law that routinely enforce limitations to protectable scope, such as copyright doctrine of “filtration” and trademark law’s doctrine of functionality.

Samsung also maintains that the ruling is contrary to Supreme Court precedents in the analogous context of utility patents, which recognize that district courts have a duty to construe patent claims and eliminate unprotected features. In Samsung’s view, similar to a Markman hearing, a district court should instruct a jury to identify non-ornamental features of a design patent and exclude them from the infringement analysis.

Turning to the second question – whether damages should be limited to the profits attributable to the infringing component – Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision conflicts with Section 289 of the Patent Act and the basic principles of causation and equity.

Samsung urges that “the Federal Circuit’s holding as a matter of law that an infringer of a design patent is liable for all of the profits it made from its entire product, no matter how little the design contributed to the product’s value or sales” be corrected. Samsung argues that the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the article of manufacture is the entire smartphone, and not specific subcomponents, is wrong based on a natural reading and purpose of Section 289 of the Patent Act, contemporary extrinsic evidence regarding the definition of “articles of manufacture,” and non-controlling case law (see note below).

According to Samsung, the Federal Circuit’s “interpretation of Section 289 also flies in the face of well-settled tort principles of causation” and “ignores that disgorgement of the defendant’s profits is a classic equitable remedy for which the accepted measure of recovery generally is ‘the net profit attributable to the underlying wrong.’” “The cardinal principle of damages in Anglo-American law is that of compensation for the injury caused to plaintiff by defendant’s breach of duty,” This is the backdrop in which Section 289 was adopted. “Where disgorgement is available in patent cases, it has [] been ‘given in accordance with the principles governing equity jurisdiction, not to inflict punishment but to prevent an unjust enrichment by allowing injured complainants to claim ‘that which … is theirs, and nothing beyond this.’”

Samsung claims that certiorari should be granted because the Federal Circuit’s decision dramatically increases the value of design patents relative to other forms of intellectual property. Without correction, design patents will have whatever scope juries choose to give them, and a design-patent holder will be entitled to the infringer’s profits on the entire product even if the patented design applies only to a part of the product, and contributes to only a minor faction of the overall value. The Federal Circuit’s decision allows design patent owners to obtain the infringer’s total profits – a remedy not available under utility-patent law. Samsung contends that such leverage “poses a real danger for companies everywhere,” that it will lead to an “explosion of design patent assertions and lawsuits.”

Will the Supreme Court agree with Samsung that the Federal Circuit has caused a great disturbance in design patent jurisprudence? Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902, 904 (2d Cir. 1915), (allowed an award of infringer’s profits from the patented design of a piano case but not from the sale of the entire piano, holding that “recovery should be confined to the subject of the patent.”); Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920), (Affirmed the denial of all profits from the sale of refrigerators where the infringed patent related only to the design of the refrigerator’s door latch, explaining that it was not even “seriously contended” that the patentee could recover all profits from sales of refrigerators containing that latch.)

Article By, Patrick T. Driscoll, James Wodarski, Michael T. Renaud & Michael C. Newman of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

To Apple, Love Taylor: Apple Responds with Royalties

“To Apple, Love Taylor” has been the tweet heard ‘round the music world. With more than 61 million followers, Taylor Swift has become the “loudest” voice for emerging and independent artists in the music-streaming realm. As copyright lawsuits from record companies continue to crop up across the industry, music-streaming service providers have become far more sensitive to the demands of artists and the trend for higher royalty payments. Case in point: when Taylor “streams” for royalties, Apple responds.

Taylor’s tweet to Apple explained, “with all due respect,” why she was planning to withhold her mega best-selling album 1989 from Apple’s new music-streaming service, Apple Music. Apparently, Apple’s plan to withhold royalty payments from musicians during the service’s initial, free three-month trial period did not sit well with Swift. Speaking primarily on behalf of emerging and independent artists, Swift deemed three months “a long time to go unpaid.” Taylor’s stance followed a long line of objections from songwriters, artists, and labels over allegedly unfair payment by music-streaming services. Recently, the Turtles and other performers brought suit against Sirius XM to collect royalty payments that had not been paid for songs produced before 1972. Previously, big streamers like Sirius XM and Pandora were not paying royalties for songs launched before 1972 because they were not protected by federal copyright law. In the wake of the Turtles suit, Apple was swift to respond to Swift’s plea. Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice-president of internet software and services, tweeted “we hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists” and called Taylor to deliver the news personally. Apple had reconsidered its plan and will now be paying artists royalties at the outset of its Apple Music launch.

Clearly, Taylor’s attempt at flattery, saying that the initial decision to withhold royalty payments was surprising in light of Apple’s reputation as a “historically progressive and generous company,” got her everywhere. Taylor claimed that her complaints were not the rantings of a “spoiled, petulant child,” but rather “echoed sentiments of every artist, writer, and producer in [her] social circles who [we]re afraid to speak up publicly because [they] admire and respect Apple so much.” As she pointed out, Apple’s plan to offer royalty-free streaming during its initial start-up period could have had disastrous effects on artists planning to release new albums during that time. While the cost of these royalties may not be relatively significant to Apple, the goodwill and favor fostered among artists, labels, and consumers is invaluable. Apple’s move indicates that artists are finally succeeding in shifting royalty payments more toward their favor via lawsuits, negotiations, and now very public Twitter exchanges. The power of public opinion is not only strong but, these days, instantaneously widespread, and Apple was smart to respond.

It seems that Sirius heard Apple too. Just days after Eddy Cue’s public response to Taylor Swift, Sirius settled its lawsuit with the Turtles to the tune, no pun intended, of $210 million for its broadcast of songs produced before 1972. Under the settlement, Sirius will continue to play the older songs until 2017, at which time it will strike new licensing deals with affected artists. With this settlement in place and with the established prospect for older performers to collect royalties in the future, the Turtles and Sirius are once again “Happy Together.”

This public discourse over streamed music, copyrights, and royalty payments illustrates the fast-paced evolution of the industry since the introduction of digital music files in the Napster heyday. Streaming services have been forced to anticipate and address the demands of artists, particularly that of the growing request for greater royalties. While a voice as “loud” as that of Taylor Swift may warrant an immediate, calculated response, it is likely we will see more music royalties and other digital copyright litigation in the years to come.

ARTICLE BY

Annie Dike

IMS ExpertServices

Tag: Apple