Skip to content
  • Patent Blog
  • Jobs

  • logo

  • Ethics
  • Journal

America's leading patent law source

Samsung v. Apple: Design Patent Damages May be Limited to Components

December 6, 2016PatentDamages, design patent, double patenting, paidDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Login

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. View all posts by Dennis Crouch →

Post navigation

← Effective December 1: No more 3 additional days in federal court to respond for papers served by e-mail LifeTech v. Promega Oral Arguments: What is a ‘Substantial Portion’ of the Components →

Patently-O Authors

Dennis Crouch
Professor, University of Missouri School of Law
SSRN Articles
Follow Dennis on LinkedIn
Jason Rantanen
Professor, University of Iowa College of Law
SSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics

Patently-O Tools

NEW: Patently-O Paid Membership
Join thousands of patent law professionals

Manage your Account
Reset your password, Manage Subscriptions, Force logout.

Free Daily E-Mail
About 25,000 individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.

Find a patent job
We regularly post top patent jobs from leading firms, corporations, and government and educational institutions.

Submit a patent job
Find a patent professional among the 15,000+ monthly visitors of the job board, many of whom are patent professionals at large firms and corporations.

Request a Free Membership
Students, professors, judges and their clerks, and folks making <$75k annual income all qualify.

Categories

Recent Patent Posts

  • Senate Committee Advances PREVAIL Act
  • Paws and Effect: Federal Circuit Rejects Indirect Causation Theory in Furbo Infringement Case
  • USPTO Implements Substantial Fee Increases for 2025: Revenue Needs and Behavioral Incentives
  • The NHK-Fintiv Saga Continues: USPTO and Amicus Defend Discretionary Denials
  • Safe Harbor at a Crossroads: Examining Regulatory Development Shield of 271(e)(1) in Edwards v. Meril
  • The Team-Based Reality of Modern Innovation: Average Patent Now Lists More Than Three Inventors
  • Patent Claim Count
  • USPTO Timeliness Slipping: Patent Term Adjustment Data Shows Growing Examination Delays
  • The Rise of ‘Non-Transitory’ Claims: How a Single Word Became Key to Software Patent Eligibility
  • Raw Story v. OpenAI: The Constitutional Hurdle That Tripped Up Raw Story’s AI Lawsuit

Popular Tags

Abstract Idea Affirmed Without Opinion ai AIA Trials anticipation Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Claim Construction Copyright Damages design patent double patenting DTSA Enablement en banc Federal Circuit Federal Circuit En Banc First to Invent Historical Cases Inequitable Conduct inventorship IPR Licenses Marking motivation to combine obviousness Oil States paid patent eligibility patent infringement patent law patent litigation patent prosecution Personal Jurisdiction PGR Printed Publication reasonable expectation of success Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Supreme Court Trademark Trade Secrets USPTO USPTO Director Venue Written Description

Archives

Contact Us

  • E-mail Dennis Crouch
  • E-mail Patently-O Jobs
  • Submit a Job Listing