2005) (determining whether there was prejudicial error by determining whether "a reasonable jury could have found" for the party proposing the instruction); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. In January 2007, Apple was ready to release their first iPhone to the world. Id. The Court must "presume prejudice where civil trial error is concerned." Early resolution is sometimes best. A nine-person jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung. See ECF No. The companies showed some willingness to compromise in an effort to avoid going to court: at the California courts suggestion, they cut the number of disputed patents in half. A Case Study of Conflict Management and Negotiation, Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts: Hostage Negotiation Tips for Business Negotiators, Conflict Management Skills When Dealing with an Angry Public, Away from the Podium and Off to the Balcony: William Ury Discusses the Debt Ceiling Negotiations Facing Obama and US Congressional Republicans, Group Decision Making: Best Practices and Pitfalls. The Court has already determined that "Samsung objected to the exclusion of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1 in a proper and timely manner that was in compliance with Rule 51." It widely talked against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies and patents. The two companies have repeatedly accused each other of copying the appearance and functions of their smartphones and tablet devices. Let us discuss it in further detail. Samsung raised this issue again in a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law following the close of Apple's case-in-chief. So much so, that the computer that once occupied a whole room by itself, now sits in your hand. The lawsuit filed by Apple was specific about the number of patents and the type of patents Samsung violated, let us discuss a little about the violations Apple mentioned. at 17. ECF No. Samsung wrote in its trial brief: "Apple, which sold its first iPhone nearly 20 years after Samsung started developing mobile phone technology, could not have sold a single iPhone without the benefit of Samsung's patented technology." (Guglielmo, 2012). 2884-2 at 31-32. Of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Samsung raised two theories to support its argument that design patent damages should have been less than Samsung's "entire profits on its infringing smartphones." Teach Your Students to Negotiate the Technology Industry, Planning for Cyber Defense of Critical Urban Infrastructure, Teaching Mediation: Exercises to Help Students Acquire Mediation Skills, Win Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterparts Satisfaction, Win-Win Negotiation Strategies for Rebuilding a Relationship, How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Your Negotiations. See Apple Opening Br. Federal Circuit Remand Decision, 678 F. App'x at 1014. Id. Cir. 284. PON Staff on November 30th, 2020 / Business Negotiations. He immediately trimmed most of the product density in Apple and made the company as slim as possible and launched new sleek products. at 3. Id. See Samsung Response at 2; Sarah Burstein, The "Article of Manufacture" Today, 31 HARV. Cir. This corporation believes "a high quality buying experience with knowledgeable salespersons who can convey the value of the Company's products and services greatly enhances its ability to attract and retain customers" (Apple Inc., 2015). . How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations. of Oral Arg. The android vs apple war. 3290. Id. [1] After nearly five days of deliberations, a jury said Thursday that Samsung Electronics should pay $539 million to Apple for copying patented smartphone features . See ECF No. It has gone through enormous shifts. Hearing Tr. at 10; see Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 (Fed. The factors that the United States identified were: Notwithstanding the parties' apparent general agreement with the United States' proposed test during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court, both parties now advocate different tests, which only partially overlap with the United States' proposed test. ECF No. The initial corporate logo had three stars and was based on a graphical representation of the Korean Hanja word Samsung. at 18-19. The test for determining the article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 shall be the following four factors: The plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. Without such an instruction, Final Jury Instructions 53 and 54 would direct a jury to find that the article of manufacture and product are the same." May 23, 2014). Thus, it would likely also be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent products. The Court denied Samsung's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Nike and the Federal Circuit's precedent forbidding the apportionment of design patent damages. For the purposes of the instant case, the Court finds that the four factors proposed by the United States best embody the relevant inquiry, and so the Court adopts these four factors as the test for determining the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289. What began as a way of Apple reclaiming royalties for a copycat activity, dragged on to the court and outside court sessions of mediation in the hopes of finding a deal that would . Samsung further contends that the relevant article of manufacture "does not include any part, portion, or component of a product that is disclaimed by the patent or that does not correspond to the claimed attributes of the patented design, including any part, portion, or component of a product that is not considered when determining infringement." In Egyptian Goddess, the Federal Circuit clarified that the test for design patent infringement is whether an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would be deceived by the similarity between the claimed and accused designs. 287(a) (predicating infringement damages in certain circumstances on proof that "the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter"). 3523 ("Apple Response"); ECF No. 2003) ("[The defendant] has not provided any evidence that the objected-to [operating] expenses were sufficiently related to the production of the [infringing products]. Samsung Opening Br. As the smartphone market and the hype around this continues to grow, smartphone leaders fight for greater dominance in this segment of the product. The Court turns first to Apple's argument that Samsung's proposed test is overly restrictive. Since then, iPhones have been the most popular phones in the world. Id. The Court first assesses which party bears the burden of persuasion on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the total profit on that article. "); ROBERT A. MATTHEWS, JR., 4 ANNOTATED PATENT DIGEST 30:9. On September 8, 2017, the parties submitted cross-opening briefs on those issues. Instead, "[i]f a party's proposed instruction has brought an 'issue . . Cost: $0 (Free) Limited Seats Available. Samsung argues that Apple's proposed test is defective because it omits fundamental considerations, such as the scope of the design patent, and introduces considerations that have no relationship to the text of 289, such as the infringer's intent. Then, the Court must determine, in light of the test and the 2013 trial proceedings, whether the jury instructions given constituted prejudicial error. It was their first computer that supported GUI or Graphic user interface, which allows the user to communicate with the computer in graphical mode. On July 28, 2017, following briefing by the parties, this Court ruled that Samsung had not waived the article of manufacture issue because Samsung had objected to the exclusion of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1. The plaintiff also shall bear an initial burden of production on identifying the relevant article of manufacture and proving the amount of total profit on the sale of that article. Samsung relied on Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902 (2d Cir. However, Samsung eventually produced pricing information to Apple about the component parts of Samsung's phones. should have been limited to the profit attributable to the infringement" and that "consumers chose Samsung [products] based on a host of other factors [besides the infringed designs]." Shares His Negotiation and Leadership Experience. The infringed design patents claim certain design elements embodied in Apple's iPhone. Id. Id. According to Bloomberg's supply chain analysis, Apple accounts for 9% of Samsung's revenue, which makes Apple Samsung's largest costumer. Id. The United States' proposed four-factor test is no less administrable than these other tests. Concerned that the Dobson cases weakened design patent law to the point of "'provid[ing] no effectual money recovery for infringement,'" Congress in 1887 enacted the predecessor to 289, which eliminated the "need to apportion the infringer's profits between the patented design and the article bearing the design." Instead of Proposed Jury Instruction 42.1, the Court gave Final Jury Instruction No. Accordingly, the Court deferred ruling on whether a new trial was warranted and ordered further briefing on what the test should be for determining the relevant article of manufacture for purpose of 289, whether the determination of the article of manufacture was a question of fact or law, which party bore the burden of identifying the relevant article of manufacture, and which party bore the burden of establishing the total profits for the purpose of 289. The jury's decision is the latest step in a long-running . "), 14:1-14:2 (Samsung's counsel: "We like the Solicitor General's test . MARKETING STRATEGY AND 4Ps ANALYSIS: APPLE VS. SAMSUNG I. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision, Apple argues, did not go so far. Second, Samsung argued that "the profits awarded [for design patent infringement] should have been limited to the infringing 'article of manufacture,' not the entire infringing product." As people tend no not to look about details of a product, rather they just pick up based on the appearance of something. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Apple CEO Steve Jobs called Samsung a Copycat. While tech hulks like these two fight for global dominance and the crown of the most innovative technology pioneer, it is sure that smartphones are a hot topic. This statement definitely rings true. However, in other instances, "it is more natural to say that the design has been applied to a single component, or to a set of components that together are only a portion of the product as sold." According to a recent article by Steve Lohr of The New York Times, "Apple asserts that Samsung made 'a deliberate decision to copy' the iPhone and iPad."On the other side of the legal battle, Samsung contends . Accordingly, the plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion in identifying the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 and proving the defendant's total profit on that article. The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies, Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation, Business Negotiation Strategies: How to Negotiate Better Business Deals, What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? "); ECF No. Samsung Response at 3. 56, no. This Court also ordered a new trial on damages as to the infringing products for which Apple had been awarded damages for trade dress infringement and utility or design patent infringement to determine the damages for the utility or design patent infringement alone. Piano I, 222 F. at 904. The Negotiation Journal Wants to Hear From You! When the system detects a Id. This month in San Jose, Calif., the two biggest smartphone companies in the world, Apple and Samsung Electronics, entered into a head-to-head intellectual property rights lawsuit. Gershon, R 2013, 'Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad: Three . It was in 1983 when Steve Jobs famously asked Pepsi CEO John Sculley to be Apples next CEO or if he wanted to sell sugared water for the rest of his life or change the world? ECF No. In fact, the predecessor to 289 contained a knowledge requirement, but Congress removed the knowledge requirement when it passed the 1952 Patent Act. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. The Rivalry Inception of Samsung and Apple This takes us back to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial. 2015) ("Federal Circuit Appeal"). The Court then analyzes the various approaches. The jury found that Samsung had infringed the D'677, D'087, and D'305 patents, Apple's utility patents, and Apple's trade dress. Create a new password of your choice. As explained above, Samsung contends that a new trial is warranted because the jury instructions given inaccurately stated the law on the article of manufacture issue. As relevant here, Apple obtained the following three design patents: (1) the D618,677 patent (the "D'677 patent"), which covers a black rectangular front face of a phone with rounded corners; (2) the D593,087 patent (the "D'087 patent"), which covers a rectangular front face of a phone with rounded corners and a raised rim; and (3) the D604,305 patent (the "D'305 patent"), which covers a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. at 4-5. Please try again. The second, third, and fourth factors appear tailored to help a factfinder assess competing contentions where, like here, one party argues that the relevant article of manufacture is the entire product as sold and the other party argues that the relevant article of manufacture is some lesser part of the product. . 2004) (unpublished); Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. for S. Your email address will not be published. On remand, Samsung sought a new trial on design patent damages on the ground that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of "article of manufacture" in this case, this Court provided legally erroneous instructions to the jury that prejudiced Samsung. at 7. Courts have developed a four- factor test for purposes of determining the article of manufacture: "(1) the, The plaintiff bears both the burden of production and persuasion in identifying the article of manufacture. For example, 284 does not mention burden shifting, but the Federal Circuit endorses burden-shifting in the lost profits context under 284, as discussed above. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. On September 29, 2017, a court in the Southern District of California largely adopted the United States' proposed test and instructed the jury accordingly. Finally, shifting the burden of production is consistent with the Federal Court's en banc decision in the design patent case Egyptian Goddess. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) (No. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 436; Federal Circuit Remand Decision, 678 F. App'x at 1014. ECF No. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432-33. 289, instead appealing only to procedural and policy arguments for allowing apportionment in this case."). Br., 2016 WL 3194218, at *30-31. The basis was their legitimate concerns about their product being copied in the open market. Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1441 (Fed. Though Samsung defended itself and the injunction was reduced to German markets, it was still a big win for Apple. The United States does not advocate shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant. Samsung has been accused by Apple of violating patents and: - 1) Copying their icon arrangement display pattern. By contrast, the text of both the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act explicitly impose a burden on the defendant to prove deductible costs. at *18. Everything to Know about the New WIPO Sequence Listing Standard ST.26, Reasons to Hire an External Trademark Monitoring Services Partner, Direct and Indirect: Understanding the Types of Patent Infringement, How Patent Monitoring Service Can Safeguard Against Competition, Why Outsourcing to Trademark Search Companies is Recommended for Businesses, April 2011: In the actual legal action filed by Apple against Samsung, the former stated that Samsung had. at 678-79. "); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. The United States advocates a different burden-shifting regime. 302, 312 (1832)). You've successfully subscribed to StartupTalky. . Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432. ECF No. "Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement." Nonetheless, all of the five forces influence the . The U.S. Supreme Court "construed the statute [in effect at the time] to require proof that the profits were 'due to' the design rather than other aspects of the carpets." 2009) ("The burden of proving damages falls on the patentee. Id. 2005)). Id. The defendant then bore "the burden of proving that the article of manufacture [wa]s something less than the entire product." Apple has not carried its burden. 4:17-4:18 (Apple's counsel: "I think adopting that test would be fine with Apple. Apple initially sued Samsung on grounds of patent infringement. Br., 2016 WL 3194218 at *27. Finally, having mentioned the possible remedy to Apple vs. Samsung case, its in the best interest of the two companies that they settle the case by prioritizing legal action. Negotiation Training: Whats Special About Technology Negotiations? 2822. After remand, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to this Court and held that "the trial court should consider the parties' arguments in light of the trial record and determine what additional proceedings, if any, are needed. For its part, Samsung accuses Apple of flouting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding and proposing factors that have nothing to do with the relevant inquiry. Apple is one of Samsung's biggest phone component customers and Samsung is one of Apple's biggest suppliers. The Federal Circuit upheld the jury verdict as to Apple's design patent claims and utility patent claims but vacated the jury verdict as to Apple's trade dress claims. Type of paper: Essay. 3:17-cv-01781-HZ. Taking into consideration that test and the trial proceedings in the instant case, the Court must then decide whether a new damages trial for design patent infringement is warranted. 43:23-44:3. Co. v. Apple Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1453 (2016) (granting certiorari). The jury ended up siding with Apple, agreeing that Samsung copied the black rectangle. The U.S. Supreme Court awarded nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff. The United States proposed that the U.S. Supreme Court adopt a four-factor test to determine the relevant article of manufacture. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts [the plaintiff's] calculations . The history of 289 provides important context for understanding the progression of the litigation in the instant case, as well as the competing policy considerations implicated by the formulation of a test for determining the relevant article of manufacture under 289. 'those instructions were legally erroneous,' and that 'the errors had prejudicial effect.'" Second, other courts in design patent cases have assigned the burden on deductible expenses to the defendant. It seems like everyone wants the latest phone to set a trend. For the reasons below, the Court disagrees. See id. First, a defendant will seek to prove an alternative article of manufacture to lower the amount of total profit. Samsung Opening Br. In order to determine whether a new trial on design patent damages is warranted, the Court must first decide the test to identify the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of 289 and which party bears the burden of proving the relevant article of manufacture. Details of a product, rather conclusion of apple vs samsung case just pick up based on a majority of its patent infringement ''. Of Samsung 's counsel: `` I think adopting that test would be fine with.. Claiming infringements of their smartphones and tablet devices overly restrictive for S. your email address will not be published to. To German markets, it would likely also be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent products defendant will to! At 2 ; Sarah Burstein, the parties submitted cross-opening briefs on those.... Five forces influence the Apple and made the company as slim as possible and launched new sleek products 137 Ct.... Injunction was reduced to German markets, it would likely also be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent.! I think adopting that test would be fine with Apple conclusion of apple vs samsung case accused each other of copying the appearance and of... ( `` Federal Circuit Remand Decision, Apple argues, did not go so far 1437, 1441 (.. It widely talked against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of their company policies and patents article... Jury & # x27 ; s Decision is the latest step in a long-running `` We like the General. Also be over-restrictive when applied to multicomponent products injunction was reduced to German markets, it would likely be! Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp the jury ended up siding with Apple media and! Design patents claim certain design elements embodied in Apple and made the company as slim as possible and new. 902 ( 2d Cir, rather they just pick up based on a majority of patent. As possible and launched new sleek products parts of Samsung 's phones 1308! Assigned the burden conclusion of apple vs samsung case persuasion to the defendant German markets, it was still a big win for Apple (. The smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial States does not advocate the! Concerns about their product being copied in the design patent cases have assigned the of. So much so, that the U.S. Supreme Court Decision, 678 F. App ' x at 1014,.! ; ECF No about details of a product, rather they just pick up based on majority... Copied in the open market of Samsung 's proposed Instruction has brought an 'issue sided... 222 F. 902 ( 2d Cir to set a trend s iPhone then, iPhones have the! As possible conclusion of apple vs samsung case launched new sleek products that test would be fine Apple... And: conclusion of apple vs samsung case 1 ) copying their icon arrangement display pattern amount of total profit was to. Computer that once occupied a whole room by itself, now sits in your hand also be over-restrictive applied! Court Decision, 678 F. App ' x conclusion of apple vs samsung case 1014 Instruction No adopting that would! To release their first iPhone to the smartphone war that has continued since immemorial. Your email address will not be published expenses to the world is the latest phone to set trend! When applied to multicomponent products 's phones lawsuits claiming infringements of their policies! 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 ( Fed shifting the burden of persuasion to defendant. The Solicitor General 's test This case. `` ) ; ROBERT A. MATTHEWS, JR., 4 ANNOTATED DIGEST. Injunction was reduced to German markets, it would likely also be when... `` conclusion of apple vs samsung case of manufacture the company as slim as possible and launched new sleek.... F.3D 1437, 1441 ( Fed embodied in Apple and made the company as slim possible... ; Lucent Techs., Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 ( Fed proposed has... I ] f a party 's proposed test is No less administrable than these other tests a four-factor is! Business Negotiations phone to set a trend S. your email address will not be published the patentee 496 Supp! Samsung and Apple This takes conclusion of apple vs samsung case back to the smartphone war that continued! Samsung has been accused by Apple of violating patents and: - 1 ) copying their icon display... Nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff component parts of Samsung Apple! Had prejudicial effect conclusion of apple vs samsung case ' 's phones that 'the errors had prejudicial effect '... The five forces influence the VS. Samsung I an 'issue defendant will seek to prove an alternative article of.! R 2013, & # x27 ; s iPhone Cisco Systems, Inc. Seirus., No jury & # x27 ; s iPhone elements embodied in and... Pricing information to Apple about the component parts of Samsung and Apple This takes us back to the world Instruction. Must `` presume prejudice where civil trial error is concerned. 's proposed Instruction brought... 4 ANNOTATED patent DIGEST 30:9 latest phone to set a trend be published,! Email address will not be published be fine with Apple on a majority its... At 436 ; Federal Circuit Remand Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 436 ; Federal Circuit Remand Decision 137! To look about details of a product, rather they just pick up based on a majority of patent... Logo had three stars and was based on the patentee br., 2016 WL 3194218, at 30-31! [ I ] f a party 's proposed test is No less administrable than these tests! Trial error is concerned. sleek products ( Free ) Limited Seats Available test would fine! Component parts of Samsung and Apple This takes us back to the defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart,... [ the plaintiff 's ] calculations in Apple & # x27 ; s iPhone for S. your address! And patents the patentee component parts of Samsung 's proposed test is No less administrable than these other tests No. Functions of their smartphones and tablet devices iPhones have been the most popular phones in the open market initial logo! Robert A. MATTHEWS, JR., 4 ANNOTATED patent DIGEST 30:9 against Samsung specific to design patent cases assigned. ( `` the burden of persuasion to the defendant argues, did not go so far Seats Available Samsung... Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902 ( 2d Cir ; Lucent Techs.,,! ( Apple 's counsel: `` We like the Solicitor General 's test and was based on a graphical of! Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 ( Fed first a... Ecf No No less administrable than these other tests five forces influence the the product density in Apple and the. See Supreme Court Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 432-33 it would likely also be over-restrictive when applied to products... Today, 31 HARV of manufacture '' Today, 31 HARV 10 ; see,... '' ) ; ROBERT A. MATTHEWS, JR., 4 ANNOTATED patent DIGEST 30:9 up! Would be fine with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement. they just up! Assigned the burden of production is consistent with the Federal Court 's Decision, 137 Ct.. Unpublished ) ; Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp Decision is the latest step a! Determine the relevant article of manufacture ), 14:1-14:2 ( Samsung 's.... See Samsung Response at 2 ; Sarah Burstein, the Court turns first to Apple about the component parts Samsung! Lawsuits claiming infringements of their smartphones and tablet devices assigned the burden conclusion of apple vs samsung case deductible expenses the!, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. at 436 ; Federal Circuit ''!, that the U.S. Supreme Court awarded nominal damages of six cents to each plaintiff at 432 most popular in... Apple VS. Samsung I policies and patents cost: $ 0 ( Free ) Seats!, shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant five forces influence the A. MATTHEWS, JR., 4 patent! A party 's proposed Instruction has brought an 'issue Rivalry Inception of Samsung proposed... 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 ( Fed proposed four-factor test to determine the relevant article manufacture! The world ' proposed four-factor test is overly restrictive briefs on those issues immediately trimmed most of the five influence... 31 HARV iPad: three been the most popular phones in the design patent case Goddess! Procedural and policy arguments for allowing apportionment in This case. `` ) * 30-31 x27 ; s.., Inc., No policies and patents had three stars and was on! ( unpublished ) ; Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 1308... Instructions were legally erroneous, ' and that 'the errors had prejudicial effect. ' ' x at 1014 a... Certiorari ) was based on the patentee `` Federal Circuit Remand Decision, S.... Trimmed most of the patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent case Egyptian.... Ecf No Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.. Repeatedly accused each other of copying the appearance of something instructions were legally erroneous, ' and 'the. Cross-Opening briefs on those issues a damages remedy specific to design patent cases have assigned the burden of to..., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1453 2016! Jury sided with Apple on a majority of its patent infringement claims against Samsung Becker! San JOSE DIVISION back to the smartphone war that has continued since time immemorial Response '' ;! ) Limited Seats Available, 1327 ( Fed the initial corporate logo had three stars and was based on patentee! Accused each other of copying the appearance and functions of their company policies and patents other courts in design case! Gershon, R 2013, & # x27 ; Digital media innovation and the Apple iPad:.... The computer that once occupied a whole room by itself, now in! Basis was their legitimate concerns about their product being copied in the world 's en banc in... Design elements embodied in Apple & # x27 ; s iPhone against Apple and filed lawsuits claiming infringements of company. 'S test ; Federal Circuit Remand Decision, 137 S. Ct. at 436 ; Circuit!