snappsny

This article isn't correct. S Court simply said that the District Court must consider if the individual component can be considered for damages. Chances are the lower court will rule the same way it did before. Here is relevant text from the decision. "The only question we resolve today is whether, in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant “article of manufacture” must always be the end product sold to the consumer or whether it can also be a component of that product. Under the former interpretation, a patent holder will always be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from the end product. Under the latter interpretation, a patent holder will sometimes be entitled to the infringer’s total profit from a component of the end product." "Thus, reading “article of manufacture” in §289 to cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the phrase." "The parties ask us to go further and resolve whether, for each of the design patents at issue here, the relevant article of manufacture is the smartphone, or a particular smartphone component...We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the §289 damages inquiry in the absence of adequate briefing by the parties. "