Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1447

ORDER Amending Design Patent Claim Construction. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/29/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER AMENDING DESIGN PATENT
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

18
Apple has raised two issues regarding the recent design patent claim construction. First,
19
Apple has identified two typos regarding the number of figures that appear in the D’677 and D’087
20
Patents. Samsung does not object to the correction of these errors, and accordingly, the Court
21
adopts Apple’s amendments regarding the number of figures in these two patents.
22
Second, Apple argues that the phrase “The use of oblique line shading on the D’677 Patent
23
is used to show a transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surface” should be
24
amended to read “The use of oblique line shading on the D’677 Patent is used to show a
25
transparent, translucent or highly polished or reflective surface.” Similarly, Apple argues that the
26
phrase “The oblique line shading in Figures 1-3 and Figure 9 depicts a transparent, translucent and
27
highly polished or reflective surface” should be changed to “The oblique line shading in Figures 128
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER AMENDING DESIGN PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

1

3 and Figure 9 depicts a transparent, translucent or highly polished or reflective surface” with

2

respect to the D’889 patent. Samsung objects to these proposed amendments.

3

The phrase that Apple seeks to amend comes from the MPEP 1503.02 (II), which states that

4

“[o]blique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or

5

reflective surfaces, such as a mirror.” However, the Court agrees with Apple that the current

6

constructions for the D’677 and D’889 Patents with respect to the oblique line shading are unclear.

7

The MPEP states that oblique line shading can be used to show a surface that is (1) transparent; (2)

8

translucent; or (3) highly polished or reflective. Accordingly, the Court adopts Apple’s proposed

9

amendments to the D’087, D’677, and D’889 Patents.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1. The D’087 Patent

11

The D’087 Patent claims the ornamental design of an electronic device as shown in Figures

12

1-48. The broken lines in the D’087 Patent constitute unclaimed subject matter. Thus, the D’087

13

Patent claims the front face, a ‘bezel encircling the front face of the patented design [that] extends

14

from the front of the phone to its sides,’ and a flat contour of the front face, but does not claim the

15

rest of the article of manufacture.

16

2. The D’677 Patent

17

The D’677 Patent claims the ornamental design of an electronic device as shown in Figures

18

1-8. The broken lines in the D’677 Patent constitute unclaimed subject matter. The use of “solid

19

black surface shading” on the D’677 Patent represents the color black. The use of oblique line

20

shading on the D’677 Patent is used to show a transparent, translucent, or highly polished or

21

reflective surface.

22

3. The D’889 Patent

23

The D’889 Patent claims the ornamental design of an electronic device as shown in Figures

24

1-9. The broken lines depicting the human figure in figure 9 do not form a part of the claimed

25

design. The other broken lines in the other figures are part of the claimed design. The D’889 also

26

includes oblique line shading on several of the figures. The oblique line shading in Figures 1-3 and

27

Figure 9 depicts a transparent, translucent, or highly polished or reflective surface from the top

28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER AMENDING DESIGN PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

1

perspective view of the claimed design, the top view of the claimed design, and the bottom

2

perspective view of the claimed design.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: July 29, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER AMENDING DESIGN PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION