| 2016/12/06 | Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. | 580 U.S. 53 | Federal Circuit | Decided | D593,087 Electronic Device, D618,677 Electronic Device, D604,305 Graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof | Sotomayer | Held that lost profit damages are based on the infringer's profit from sale of the patented article of manufacture, which can be the entire article sold or a component part thereof. The Court declined to establish a test for determining what the article of manufacture was calculating lost profit damages. |
| 1893/04/17 | Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co. | 148 U.S. 674 | Circuit Court D. Ct. | Decided | D10,844 Design for Saddles | Fuller | Held that an accused design must include the novel element of patented design to infringe. Arguably this was the origin of the so called "point of novelty test" later abandoned by the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008). |
| 1890/12/22 | New York Belting & Packing Co. v. New Jersey Car Spring & Rubber Co. | 137 U.S. 445 | Circuit Court for the S.D.N.Y. | Decided | D11,208 Rubber Mat | Bradley | Held that one claim of a multi claim design patent was valid because it was limited to the particular design disclosed in the patent. Discussed but did not decide whether a design creating a transitory kaleidoscope effect would be patentable. |
| 1886/04/19 | Dobson v. Dornan | 118 U.S. 10 | Circuit Court E.D. Pa. | Decided | D6,822 Design for Carpets | Blatchford | Held that damages are limited to only the infringer's profit attributable to the patented design rather than the total profit on the infringing product. Later overruled by statute. |
| 1885/04/20 | Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. | 114 U.S. 439 | Circuit Court E.D. Pa. | Decided | D11,074 Design for a Carpet, D10,778 Design for Carpet, D10,870 Design for a Carpet | Blatchford | Held that damages are limited to only the infringer's profit attributable to the patented design rather than the total profit on the infringing product. Later overruled by statute. |
| 1882/03/06 | Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus | 105 U.S. 94 | Circuit Court E.D. Mo. | Decided | D8,814 Design for Show-Cases | Woods | Held that a design patent was valid and infringed based on visual observation without any prior art analysis. |
| 1872/11/18 | Gorham Co. v. White | 81 U.S. 511 | Circuit Court for the S.D.N.Y. | Decided | D1,440 Spoon and Fork Handle | Strong | Held that infringement is determined through the eyes of an ordinary observer rather than through the eyes of an expert. |
