1. 35 U.S. Code § 289 - Additional remedy for infringement of design patent
Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.

2. 35 U.S. Code § 289 - Additional remedy for infringement of design patent
Whoever during the term of a patent for a design, without license of the owner, (1) applies the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or (2) sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties.

3. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2017)
“In the case of a design for a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task.”

4. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2017)
“In the case of a design for a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task.”

5. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2017)
“In the case of a design for a single-component product, such as a dinner plate, the product is the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied. In the case of a design for a multicomponent product, such as a kitchen oven, identifying the ‘article of manufacture’ to which the design has been applied is a more difficult task.”

6. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2017)
“[T]he term ‘article of manufacture’ is broad enough to encompass both a product sold to a consumer as well as a component of that product.”
The United States as amicus curiae suggested a test [for identifying the relevant article of manufacture at the first step of the § 289 damages inquiry]. . . We decline to lay out a test for the first step of the § 289 damages inquiry . . .”

7. US Patent D743,213 Fig. 1

8. The scope and design claimed in plaintiff’s patent
Department of Justice Proposed Four-Factor Test
The scope and design claimed in plaintiff’s patent
The relative prominence of the design within the product as a whole
Is the design conceptually distinct from the product as a whole
The physical relationship between the patented design and the rest of the product