{"has_more":true,"total_items":9,"items":[{"vg_id":0,"journal":"It did not grapple with the Circuit's legislative history analysis. In particular, the Supreme Court ignored the Circuit's position that in the Act of 1887, specific to design patents, Congress removed the apportionment requirement; i.e., it abrogated the requirement that a patentee show \"what portion of the infringer's profit, or of his own lost profit, was due to the design and what portion was due to the article itself"},{"vg_id":0,"journal":"While rejecting the Federal Circuit's narrower interpretation of \"article of manufacture\" as the entire product sold to consumers, the Supreme Court's limited opinion in Samsung Elecs. leaves difficult questions unanswered. Notably, the Court declined to set forth any test or rubric for determining what the relevant \"article of manufacture\" is for any particular infringed design patent. Rather, the Federal Circuit will need to \"address any [such] remaining issues on remand"},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":1931,"journal":"at __, 2016 WL 7078449, at *5 (citing Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1980) (observing that the Court had previously defined the verb form of \"'manufacture' in § 101 ... to mean 'the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by handlabor or by machinery","volume":801,"authors":[{"author_name":"Samsung Elecs"},{"author_name":" S __U"},{"author_name":"__ S __"},{"author_name":" Ct"}]},{"vg_id":0,"published_date":2014,"journal":"2016 WL 7078449","page_from":23,"authors":[{"author_name":"See Samsung Elecs"},{"author_name":" S __U"},{"author_name":"__ S __"},{"author_name":" Ct"}],"page_to":35,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.1787/888933273957"}]}