Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Apple's iPhone User Interface Held Functional for Trade Dress Infringement, But Not Design Patent Purposes
In the long-running Apple v. Samsung dispute, the Federal Circuit has highlighted a marked difference between the effectiveness of trade dress and design patents in protecting the visual characteristics of a product, which could potentially cost Apple hundreds of millions of dollars in lost damages. Explaining that both the registered and unregistered trade dress features of Apple's iPhone products are functional and thus not protectable, the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for entry of damages awards “not predicated on Apple's trade dress claims.” On the other hand, the court affirmed awards on design patents that arguably cover many of the same features present in the trade dress.
Trade Dress
The evisceration of the trade dress-related damages, which Samsung contends amount to $381,683,562, but which the Federal Circuit did not specifically account for, began with Apple's unregistered trade dress and the observation that trade dress can only protect the non-functional elements of an article. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2014-1335, 2015-1029, slip op. at 7 (Fed Cir. May 18, 2015). The unregistered trade dress claimed various hardware and software features, such as the rounded-corner rectangular design of the iPhone, and a user-interface including “a matrix of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners within the display screen, and an unchanging bottom dock of colorful square icons with evenly rounded corners set off from the display's other icons.” Id. at 9. Performing the analysis under Ninth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit concluded that Apple had not carried its allegedly heavy burden of proving non-functionality, noting that Apple “had not cited a single Ninth Circuit case that found a product configuration trade dress to be non-functional.” Id. at 7-8.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?