US D618677

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent number.

Let me drill down on current prosecution/reexam status and any 2026 appellate activity.

US D618677 S1 — Summary and Status Check

1. Bottom line on the searches requested

• USPTO record: Confirmed. The patent is real, expired, and I found its front-page data reproduced verbatim in the litigation record (N.D. Cal. trial exhibit) and on Google Patents.
• CAFC 2026 docket: I found no CAFC docket, opinion, or pending appeal in 2026 involving D618677. I cannot confirm the absence with certainty (I did not run a full PACER/Docket Alarm docket query), but on the facts below a 2026 appeal is highly unlikely: the patent's 14‑year term ran out on June 29, 2024, and the last relevant appellate activity I can document ended in 2016–2018. Treat "no 2026 CAFC activity" as an absence of evidence, not authoritative proof.
• One 2026 search hit (a Docket Alarm blog snippet) mentioned IPR2026-00337 and IPR2026-00508, both filed by Samsung at the PTAB. The snippet did not identify the challenged patent, and I could not confirm any link to D618677. I flag this as an unverified lead, nothing more.

2. Bibliographic data (verbatim from the patent front page)

Inventors (as listed): Bartley K. Andre; Daniel J. Coster; Daniele De Iuliis; Richard P. Howarth; Jonathan P. Ive; Steve Jobs; Duncan Robert Kerr; Shin Nishibori; Matthew Dean Rohrbach; Douglas B. Satzger; Calvin Q. Seid; Christopher J. Stringer; Eugene Antony Whang; Rico Zorkendorfer.
(The litigation-record OCR shows "Daniele De Iullis" and "Calvin Q. Seld"; these are OCR artifacts. The Google Patents text — which I treat as authoritative — gives De Iuliis and Seid.)

Priority chain (as printed on the patent):

• Division of 29/282,834, filed Jul. 30, 2007, now Pat. No. D581,922
• Which is a continuation of 29/270,888, filed Jan. 5, 2007, now Pat. No. D558,758
• Google Patents renders the family priority date as 2007‑01‑05 (with 29/270,888 itself shown elsewhere in the family table as having a priority date of 2006‑09‑11 and a filing date of 2007‑01‑05 — an internal inconsistency in the source that I have not resolved).
• Related child: 29/364,661 → D698,352 (continuation, filed Jun. 25, 2010). Later family members: D834,013, D918,897, D937,826, D1,087,080. Foreign siblings: AU 315640 S, CA 121234 S.

3. Abstract

There is no abstract. Design patents do not carry one. The functional equivalent is the "Description" section, which states:

FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of an electronic device in accordance with the present invention; FIG. 2 is a rear perspective view thereof; FIG. 3 is a front view thereof; FIG. 4 is a rear view thereof; FIG. 5 is a top view thereof; FIG. 6 is bottom view thereof; FIG. 7 is a left side view thereof; and, FIG. 8 is a right side view thereof.
The claimed surface of the electronic device is illustrated with the color designation for the color black.
The electronic device is not limited to the scale shown herein. As indicated in the title, the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design has been applied is an electronic device, media player (e.g., music, video and/or game player), media storage device, a personal digital assistant, a communication device (e.g., cellular phone), a novelty item or toy.

4. Claims — plain language

Single claim (there are no independent/dependent claims in a design patent):

"The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described."

Plain-language reading:

• The claim covers only the ornamental appearance of the article as depicted in FIGS. 1–8 — not any structure, function, or internal component.
• Per the Description, the claimed surface is shown in solid black; the color black is part of the claimed design.
• The design is what practitioners describe as the iPhone front face: a flat, substantially planar rectangular front surface with rounded corners, a continuous black/translucent-black face, a capsule-shaped (elongated oval) speaker opening near the top, and a round home button region near the bottom.
• Broken lines in the figures show unclaimed subject matter/environment and provide context; they do not themselves form part of the claimed design (this point was heavily litigated — expert reports in Apple v. Samsung disputed whether the broken lines narrow or merely contextualize the claim, and whether they signal that the design is applied to an entire device).
• The claim is not limited to the scale shown, and the recited "article of manufacture" expressly includes media players, PDAs, cellular phones, novelty items or toys.

5. Prosecution / post-grant history worth knowing

• Ex parte reexamination 90/012,884 — request filed May 31, 2013; granted (Art Unit 2976, examiner Jeffrey D. Asch). This was surfaced in the N.D. Cal. litigation at Dkt. 2372 (Samsung's statement of recent decision).
• On August 5, 2015, the Central Reexamination Unit issued a non-final rejection that:
  • Held the priority claim "must be canceled" for lack of written-description support under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶1 — reasoning that the '677 design (front surface entirely covered in translucent black with no color contrast, excluding the round home button surface but including the entire capsule-shaped speaker opening) is a different design from the parent applications 29/282,834 and 29/270,888. Note: the IPWatchdog article and Google's rendering of the examiner's text both garble the parent application numbers (e.g., "29/282,2834", "29/270999") — those are typos, not real application numbers.
  • With priority lost, D602,014 and D618,204 became pre‑AIA §102(e) prior art; D546,313 became §102(b) art; D577,703 and D562,285 were cited under §102(a)/(e); D543,183 under §102(b).
  • Raised obviousness grounds (D546,313 + WO 2006/038499 or JP D1235888; JP D1204221 as primary reference) and a double-patenting position against 29/332,683 (D618,678).
• I could not authoritatively confirm the final outcome (i.e., whether a reexamination certificate issued cancelling claim 1, or whether Apple prevailed). Widely circulated reports in 2015 characterized the patent as "invalidated," but that was a non-final action and those reports overstated it. I am explicitly flagging this as unresolved rather than asserting validity or invalidity. Google Patents shows no reexam certificate in the "Also Published As" list, but that list is not a reliable indicator either way.

6. Litigation context (why this patent number is well known)

• Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (Judge Lucy H. Koh). D618,677 was one of three design patents‑in‑suit (with D593,087 and D604,305). Accused devices included Galaxy S i9000, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II variants, Fascinate, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant, and others.
• 2012 jury verdict: infringement; ~$1.05 B initial award, later reduced.
• CAFC Nos. 2014‑1335, 2015‑1029 (decided May 18, 2015): affirmed design-patent infringement and the total-profits approach under 35 U.S.C. §289; reversed on trade dress.
• Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2016) (No. 15‑777), decided Dec. 6, 2016: unanimously reversed, holding that the "article of manufacture" for §289 purposes need not be the end product sold to consumers; remanded without adopting a test.
• Post-remand, the §289 damages question was litigated further in the district court with competing expert "article of manufacture" opinions (e.g., Dkt. 3592-20, which argued the articles were the entire phones).

(I state the dollar amounts with lower confidence than the procedural history; figures shifted across trials and any global settlement amount was not publicly itemized with certainty.)

7. Uncertainty disclosure

1. No 2026 CAFC docket for D618677 was found. Given the June 29, 2024 expiration, this is expected — but it is an unverified negative.
2. No 2026 USPTO activity for D618677 was found.
3. Final reexamination outcome unconfirmed (see §5).
4. The apparent family priority-date discrepancy (2007‑01‑05 vs. 2006‑09‑11 for 29/270,888) in the Google Patents family table is unresolved.
5. IPR2026-00337 / IPR2026-00508 (Samsung) are mentioned in a 2026 secondary source, but the challenged patent is not identified. Do not assume a connection to D618677 — indeed, note that D618677 expired in 2024, which would make a 2026 validity challenge pointless in practical terms.

Primary sources cited:

• Google Patents, USD618677S1 — https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677/en
• Patent front page reproduced in N.D. Cal. case file — https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.[239768](/patent/239768)/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.1089.8.pdf
• Reexam transmittal (90/012,884) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089/2372](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=4178089-2372)/1/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/
• IPWatchdog on the 2015 non-final rejection — https://ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/18/apple-design-patent-rejected-in-reexamination-by-uspto/
• Banner & Witcoff on Samsung v. Apple (2016) — https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ALERT-SCOTUS-Decision-in-Apple-v.-Samsung.pdf
• Docket Alarm (2026 PTAB snippet) — https://sandbox.docketalarm.com/blog/category/Samsung/

I'll research litigation involving US D618677, the Apple iPhone design patent. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific case details and check other possible litigants (ITC, HTC, etc.).

Let me verify the ITC and second-case involvement, and check the litigation database.

I'll start by verifying the structured data (no AIA trials on file) against public sources before writing the analysis.

No AIA trials surfaced. Let me verify the parallel post-grant activity that does exist (ex parte reexam) and any PTAB appeal, plus a direct check for IPR/PGR filings.

Let me pin down the reexamination disposition and confirm no AIA trial was ever filed.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Design Patent No. D618677 ("Electronic device," Apple Inc.)

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for D618677 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM — so the scoreboard reads 0 active / 0 claims invalidated by the Board / 0 claims sustained by the Board / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and the defensive posture is neither "hardened patent" nor "dead patent" but rather "expired patent whose validity was attacked through the back door (ex parte reexamination) rather than the front door (IPR)."

The reason this matters for a defendant is the timing and the statutory architecture, not the absence of paperwork:

• D618677 has only one claim ("The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described"), and that claim is expired as of 2024-06-29 (14-year pre-Hague design term from the 2010-06-29 grant, per the structured record). There is no live injunctive exposure.
• Every real challenge to this patent ran through (a) district court (N.D. Cal. No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK, Apple v. Samsung), (b) an ex parte reexamination filed 2013-05-31, and (c) the ITC — never through the PTAB.
• Critically, the theory that put this patent in jeopardy was a § 112 first-paragraph written-description / priority defect, plus § 102(e)/§ 103 art that only became available once priority was lost. § 112 is categorically unavailable as an IPR ground under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). That is almost certainly why no IPR was ever filed — the winning invalidity theory was statutorily out of IPR's reach. It is also why CBM was never available: a design patent claiming an ornamental surface has no claim "for a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing… used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service."

Bottom line for a defendant today: there is no PTAB final written decision to cite, and there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against anyone (estoppel requires a petitioner and a final written decision; neither exists). You also get no free cancellation to lean on. Your defenses, if a demand letter ever surfaces, are expiry, § 286 damages look-back limits, and the district-court/reexam record on priority — not a PTAB kill.

AIA trial proceedings

None. (Zero IPR / PGR / CBM petitions on D618677.)

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: N/A — the structured USPTO Open Data Portal field returns no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — no PTAB decision exists to appeal under § 134(c).
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-adverse in an unusual way. You cannot walk into court and say "the Board already canceled this claim." You must litigate validity from scratch (subject to the record below), but the patent is expired, so the practical question is only backward-looking money damages — and 35 U.S.C. § 286 caps that at six years pre-complaint, well within the expired term.

I searched for any IPR/PGR/CBM petition naming D618677 (including by Samsung, LG, Sharp, Google/Motorola and defensive aggregators such as Unified Patents) and found none. Absence of an IPR on a patent this heavily asserted is itself diagnostic: design patents are poor IPR candidates because (i) IPR grounds are limited to patents and printed publications, while design-patent anticipatory art is frequently a physical product or a photograph; (ii) a design patent carries a single claim, so there is no fallback claim set to pick off; and (iii) where the real defect is priority/written description, IPR cannot reach it.

Adjacent proceedings (NOT AIA trials — included because they define the defensive landscape)

Ex parte reexamination of D618677 (requested anonymously; requester widely reported to be Samsung)

• Type: Ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. §§ 301–307. This is a Central Reexamination Unit prosecution, not an AIA trial. The requester's role ends with the request; there is no petitioner, no panel, no FWD, and no § 315(e) estoppel.
• Filed: 2013-05-31 (reported as filed "Friday" by the WHDA blog post of 2013-06-04; a companion request was filed the same day against Apple's sibling patent D618678, the white-iPhone counterpart). The request was filed ex parte rather than as an IPR — a deliberate choice to avoid disclosing the requester's identity, per contemporaneous commentary.
• Status: Non-final rejection issued 2015-08-05. The single claim "stands twice rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)/102(e), and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)." I could not verify a final disposition or reexamination certificate for D618677 with high confidence, and I will not assert one. Treat the ultimate outcome as unconfirmed — note that an ex parte reexam is ex parte precisely because the requester has no seat at the table after filing, so the requester (and anyone else) had no visibility into Apple's amendments and arguments.
• Judge panel: N/A (CRU examiner; not a Board panel).
• Petition grounds / rejections applied (this is the valuable part):
  • § 112, first paragraph (written description) — priority defect: The CRU found the D'677 design "is not described in the originally filed disclosure of earlier applications, 29/282834 or 29/270999," reasoning that "[t]he design in this patent is different from that of the earlier applications in that the new claim includes a front surface entirely covered with a translucent black surface without color contrast and excludes the surface within the round home button while including the entire capsule-shaped speaker opening." Conclusion: the patent could not claim benefit under § 120 to the 2007-01-05 priority date; effective date slid to the 2008-11-18 actual filing date.
  • Consequence: Apple's own D602014 (filed 2007-08-31) and D618204 (filed 2007-06-27) became pre-AIA § 102(e) prior art (both pre-date 2008-11-18).
  • § 103(a) rejections: (1) D546313 (LG) in view of either WO 2006/038499 or JPD1235888 — it would have been obvious to expand the size of the display; (2) JPD1204221 as primary reference in view of other art; (3) D602014 (Apple's own) in view of other art; (4) D618204 (Apple's own) — also the basis of the standalone § 102(e) rejection,
  • Post-grant work on the companion '678 reexam was announced by Oblon; the '678 patent was also asserted at the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-794).
• Institution decision: N/A (ex parte reexam has no institution decision; the CRU made the rejections final/actionable on its own).
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no Board decision identified.
• Settlement / termination: N/A (ex parte reexam cannot settle).
• Appeal: No PTAB or Federal Circuit appeal of a reexamination decision was identified in my search. (Had Apple appealed a CRU rejection, that appeal would have gone to the PTAB under pre-AIA practice and then possibly to the Federal Circuit — but I found no record of one and will not invent it.)
• Defensive value: High, if you can independently re-prove the priority defect. The § 112 written-description finding is a devastating, art-independent attack: if D'677 is not entitled to the 2007-01-05 priority date, Apple's own D602014 and D618204 become prior art and the claim falls under § 103. But note the procedural asymmetry that hurt challengers: because this ran ex parte, the requester could not participate, could not cross-examine, and could not appeal the examiner's resolution of Apple's arguments. If you are facing assertion, you want those findings de novo in district court, not by citing the reexam.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., N.D. Cal. No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (the real forum)

• Filed: April 2011. D618677 was one of three asserted Apple design patents (with D593087 and D604305).
• 2012-08-24 jury verdict: Samsung infringed D'677, D'087, D'305 plus three utility patents; ~$1.05B. D'677 alone carried several accused products (Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II variants, Epic 4G Touch, Skyrocket, Showcase, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Vibrant) — on the Skyrocket and Epic 4G the infringement finding rested solely on D'677.
• Fed. Cir. No. 2014-1335, 786 F.3d 983 (2015-05-18): affirmed design-patent infringement and the § 289 total-profit award; vacated the trade-dress award (~$382M) as unprotectable/functional.
• **Supreme Court, Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 (2016-12-06)**: reversed the Federal Circuit's end-product-only reading of "article of manufacture," holding it may be a component; remanded with a two-step framework (identify the article; compute total profit on it) and no test.
• Remand: N.D. Cal. 2017-10-22 order requiring a new § 289 damages trial under a four-factor article-of-manufacture test; 2018-05-24 jury awarded Apple $539M; the parties settled the entire dispute on 2018-06-27 (terms undisclosed).
• Validity preclusion to keep in mind: the 2012 jury's validity finding for D'677 survived JMOL and Federal Circuit review, so Samsung and its privies are bound on validity for the products/grounds actually litigated. A new defendant is not — but as of today there is nothing left to assert against current sales.
• Docket (CourtListener): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089](/patent/4178089)/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/
• PTAB E2E (absence check): https://ptab.uspto.gov/

Foreign invalidation proceedings on the Chinese counterparts

The patent's own Non-Patent Citations (from the Google Patents record) list three PRC Patent Reexamination Board invalidation requests against the Chinese design registrations corresponding to this family — ZL200730148719.0, ZL200730148751.9, and ZL200730148767.X — all with a mailing date of 2008-12-11. These are CNIPA proceedings, not PTAB proceedings, but they confirm the pattern: this design family was attacked in every venue except the PTAB.

Strategic summary

Claim status. D618677 has exactly one claim, and it is neither canceled by the PTAB nor sustained by the PTAB — it is simply untested at the Board and now expired (2024-06-29). There are no surviving claims to list and no canceled claims to cite, because there was never an AIA trial. The one substantive validity cloud on record is the CRU's 2015-08-05 non-final rejection: a § 112 written-description defect in the priority chain that knocked the effective filing date from 2007-01-05 to 2008-11-18 and thereby elevated Apple's own D602014 and D618204 to prior art, yielding four separate § 103(a) rejections and a § 102(e) rejection — the art being D546313 (LG), JPD1204221, JPD1235888, WO 2006/038499, D602014, and D618204. I could not confirm the reexam's final outcome; that gap is the single most important thing to verify on PAIR before relying on this patent being invalid.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel at all — no petitioner, no instituted trial, no FWD. That cuts both ways. Nobody is barred, but nobody has won anything either. The only preclusion that exists is district-court collateral estoppel from the N.D. Cal. judgment (Apple v. Samsung), which binds Samsung and its privies on the validity of D'677 but does not bind unrelated defendants. If you are a new defendant, every prior-art ground remains fully available to you — including § 112 priority/written-description attacks and the physical-product design art that IPR could never have reached. If anything, a declaratory-judgment or invalidity posture is easier to run through a district court or the ITC than through the PTAB for this patent.

Pattern signals. No repeat petitioner (there was no petitioner). No defensive aggregator — no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar IPR against D618677 appears in the record; the 2013 challenge was stealth-filed ex parte, widely attributed to Samsung, with Oblon announcing the results. The patent owner (Apple) did not pursue PTAB appeals on this patent, because there were no Board decisions to appeal; Apple's appellate energy went to the Federal Circuit (Nos. 2013-1129, 2014-1335) and the Supreme Court (No. 15-777). The strategic read is that the whole fight was fought in Article III courts and at the ITC, and the PTAB was bypassed by design — for a single-claim design patent resting on a priority defect, that was the correct choice by the challenger.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the reexamination's final disposition before relying on anything. Pull the file history for D618677 on USPTO Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov) and check for an ex parte reexamination certificate. The 2015-08-05 action was non-final, and Apple's response, any final rejection, and any appeal are all unverified here. My searches did not confirm a certificate, and I will not guess at one. If a certificate issued canceling the claim, that is the single best piece of paper a defendant could have; if it issued confirming the claim, the 2015 rejection is worth very little.
2. If you have already received a demand letter, the first response is not an IPR — it is expiry plus § 286. The term ran to 2024-06-29; damages are limited to the six years preceding the complaint (35 U.S.C. § 286) and to the expired term. Any theory built on current sales is a non-starter.
3. If you need a validity judgment or an early knock-out (e.g., you sell into a market where a foreign counterpart is live), go to district court or the ITC, not the PTAB: attack the § 120 priority chain under § 112 ¶ 1, which is exactly the theory the CRU credited on 2015-08-05 and which IPR cannot hear. The CRU's priority reasoning gives you a road map and the examiner's own words on non-description of the claimed design in App. Nos. 29/282,834 and 29/270,999.
4. No litigation milestones to calendar on the PTAB side. With zero AIA proceedings there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory 1-year FWD clock running. Any PTAB-timeline tracking for this patent is idle; the only live clocks are in whatever district court or ITC action you or a counterparty have filed.
5. Do not cite the 2015 non-final rejection as "the patent was invalidated." Multiple outlets made that error, and the IPBiz and IPWatchdog contemporaneous coverage corrected it: a non-final office action in reexam invalidates nothing, and the patent remained presumptively valid throughout. Any brief that says otherwise is sanction-bait.

Sources: USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, returns none); Google Patents record for USD618677S1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en); PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/); CourtListener docket for Apple v. Samsung, N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178089/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/); IPWatchdog, 2015-08-18; Oblon announcement; WHDA reexam filing note, 2013-06-04; Fed. Cir. 786 F.3d 983 (2015); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 (2016).

Confidence flags: (a) no PTAB proceedings — high confidence; (b) reexam filed 2013-05-31 and non-final rejection 2015-08-05 with the grounds quoted — high confidence; (c) reexam final disposition — unknown, not verified; (d) reexam control number — not stated, because I could not verify it; (e) identity of the requester as Samsung — reported, not confirmed (the request was filed ex parte specifically to conceal identity).

I'll research the assignment record for US D618677. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig further into whether the USPTO Assignment Center has any recorded assignment for this patent, and verify the prosecution correspondent.

Ownership & Assignment Record — US D618677 S1 ("Electronic device")

Access note (read first): In this session I could only reach the open web, not authenticated USPTO Assignment Center directly. The authoritative Google Patents text supplied for this analysis — which mirrors USPTO bibliographic/legal-events data — contains no assignment event of any kind, and I could not surface a reel/frame for this patent from any indexed source. I therefore report the assignment-record section below as a negative finding, and flag exactly what is and is not verified. Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by entering D618677 (or application 29/328,018).

Inventors

Fourteen named inventors on the face of D618677. All are determinable as Apple Inc. employees at the time of filing (Nov 18, 2008) — they constitute Apple's industrial-design organization, not independent inventors:

Pattern analysis (contrary to the usual fire-sale tell):

• The 14-inventor entity is a corporate design team, the classic indicator of an operating-company-owned design portfolio, not an individual-inventor asset that later gets sold.
• No mass-departure pattern leading to a transfer. There is no evidence any inventor assigned away from Apple; the only individual-event of note is the death of inventor Steve Jobs on 2011‑10‑05 — which does not disturb title, because rights had vested in Apple (see gap noted below), not in the individual inventor.
• Individual designer departures from Apple (a well-documented exodus concentrated around 2019) post-date both the suit and the damages awards and produced no reassignment of this patent. I did not independently verify departure dates and am not asserting specific ones.
• This patent sits inside a very large Apple design-patent family sharing the 2007‑01‑05 priority (D558758, D581922, D618677 and continuations D698352 → D834013 → D918897 → D937826 → D1087080, per the Google Patents family table), reinforcing corporate ownership continuity.

Original assignee

Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA (US) — named on the face of the patent as assignee (USPTO "(73) Assignee" field, as reproduced in the Apple v. Samsung papers; CourtListener Ex. A, docket 5:11‑cv‑01846).

• Product embodying the claims: Yes. D618677 claims the black, rounded-corner front face of the iPhone; it was asserted against the Samsung Galaxy S/Infuse/Vibrant line. This is a design actually shipped in commerce by the assignee.
• Primary line of business: Consumer electronics (hardware, software, services).
• Current status: Operating; publicly traded (NASDAQ: AAPL). No acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy filing has ever occurred. Apple remains the current assignee of record per the supplied Google Patents data ("Current Assignee: Apple Inc.; Original Assignee: Apple Inc.").
• Terminal disclaimer: The printed patent carries "This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer," meaning its enforceable term and its assertion are tied to a commonly owned reference patent — an ownership-coupling detail that is consistent with a single corporate owner holding the whole family.
• SEC-filing cross-reference: Apple's 10‑K/8‑K filings do not itemize individual design patents and disclose no sale, divestiture, or securitization of this asset. No transfer appears in any public disclosure.

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record shows NO recorded assignment (no reel/frame) for US D618677 — not at filing, not post-issuance. The supplied event list contains only: Application filed by Apple Inc. (2008‑11‑18), priority events, Application granted (2010‑06‑29), publication, and Anticipated expiration (2024‑06‑29). There is no Assignment, Security Agreement, Merger, Change of Name, License, Release, or Correction entry.

Two important qualifications:

• Likely inventors→Apple assignment at filing (reel/frame NOT verified). The original application transmittal for 29/328,018 (introduced as Ex. 16, part 1, in Apple Inc. v. Samsung, N.D. Cal. 5:11‑cv‑01846, Dkt. 943‑7) contains an "Assignment Papers (cover sheet & document(s))" item and a "37 CFR 3.73(b) Statement / Power of Attorney" item, and the application was filed by attorney Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Reg. No. 32,831 (correspondence customer no. 63975, Alexandria VA). That is the prosecution attorney of record, not a recorded assignment correspondent. If assignment papers were in fact filed with the application, a reel/frame from roughly Nov–Dec 2008 should exist — I could not retrieve that number and will not fabricate one.
• No post-issuance assignment. Even granting the filing-time assignment, the record contains zero post-issuance conveyances, which as a matter of practice means the original assignee (Apple) still owns the patent. This aligns with the fact that Apple asserted D618677 in its own name against Samsung starting April 2011 (5:11‑cv‑01846) and in the parallel ITC/other district actions — a plaintiff cannot assert standing it does not hold.

Because there is no assignment chain to report, no chronological reel/frame list is rendered. That absence is the finding.

Timeline diagram

The diagram below tracks ownership continuity (all events verifiable from the supplied record and public litigation), not a recorded assignment chain:

timeline
    title Ownership of US D618677
    2008 : Filed by Apple Inc
    2010 : Granted to Apple Inc
    2011 : Apple asserts patent vs Samsung
    2015 : USPTO reexam reported invalid
    2018 : Jury awards Apple 539M
    2024 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Data discrepancies / caveats flagged for the record:

1. The supplied Google Patents header lists "Prior art date 2007‑01‑05," but the same page's family table lists the earliest family member US29/270,888 with a 2006‑09‑11 priority date while giving it a 2007‑01‑05 filing date. That is an internal inconsistency in the source data; the chain relevant to D618677 runs 2008‑11‑18 (filing) ← 2007‑07‑30 (parent 29/282,834, a division parent) ← 2007‑01‑05 (29/270,888).
2. No reexamination / invalidity event appears in the Google Patents legal events, even though numerous secondary sources reported an August 2015 USPTO finding that D'677 was invalid on priority grounds. I cannot confirm the final disposition of that proceeding from the supplied record, and the patent is listed as "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration 2024‑06‑29. Treat the 2015 "invalidation" as reported but not confirmed as final.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Apple Inc. is both the original and the current assignee of record for D618677 — the Google Patents legal-events data contains no assignment of any kind, and the patent's face names Apple Inc. as assignee — and Apple embodies the claimed design in a shipping product (the iPhone) while asserting the patent directly against actual competitors (Samsung, 5:11‑cv‑01846; HTC and others). Every NPE indicator (1–8) is affirmatively not present, and no defensive aggregator terminates the chain.

Caveat on the assignment-record axis: because I could not surface even the inventors' filing-time assignment reel/frame, a strict reading of the source data is "no records." On the substance of who owns and asserts the patent, however, the evidence is unambiguous, so the operating-company verdict controls over "insufficient data."

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search D618677 / 29/328,018) · https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677/en

I'll verify the USPTO record and the cited references before building the prior-art analysis.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Design Patent D618,677

1. What I verified about the record

I could not reach USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR directly with the tools available to me; the verification below comes from the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record for USD618677S1 and from USPTO filing documents reproduced in Apple Inc. v. [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.) (N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846) on CourtListener. I am flagging that as a source limitation rather than implying a direct PAIR query.

Record as reflected in the authoritative full text:

Because a design patent carries exactly one claim, the answer to "which claim(s) does reference X potentially anticipate" is, in every case, claim 1 — or nothing at all. The discriminating question is never which claim, but whether the reference is § 102 prior art at all and whether it discloses the same overall visual appearance.

Note for the reader: the Google Patents page presents two overlapping lists — a "Patent Citations (74)" table and a "Citations (69)" table — plus a "Non-Patent Citations (34)" list. Several entries (e.g., USD602014, USD618204, USD577703, USD543183, USD562285) appear in other family members' citation lists rather than on the face of the '677 patent itself; I treat those separately in § 7 because they matter to validity.

2. Legal framework applied

1. Pre-AIA law governs. Application 29/328,018 was filed 2008-11-18, before the AIA first-to-file date of 2013-03-16, so §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e) and 103(a) pre-AIA apply. This matters because the 2015 reexamination was decided under pre-AIA § 102(e).
2. Anticipation standard for a design claim. A single prior-art design anticipates only if it is substantially the same as the claimed design to the ordinary observer — identity is not required. In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982); International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Only one reference may be relied on for § 102; combining references is § 103.
3. "Analogous art" is irrelevant to § 102. A reference disclosing the same design anticipates regardless of field. Non-analogousness is a § 103 argument.
4. The effective-date problem is dispositive. The '677 patent's claimed design adds matter over its parents. In inter partes reexamination 90/012,884 the Central Reexamination Unit held (non-final action mailed 2015-08-05) that the design "is not described in the originally filed disclosure of earlier applications" because the new claim "includes a front surface entirely covered with a translucent black surface without color contrast and excludes the surface within the round home button while including the entire capsule-shaped speaker opening," so the § 120 priority claim "must be canceled" under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. That produces two competing prior-art landscapes:

• Scenario A — effective date 2007-01-05 (as originally prosecuted). § 102(b) art must predate 2006-01-05; § 102(a) art must predate the invention date (late 2006/early 2007); § 102(e) art must be a U.S. patent/application filed before that invention date (for design patents, the § 102(e) date is the U.S. filing date).
• Scenario B — effective date 2008-11-18 (reexam position). § 102(b) art must predate 2007-11-18; § 102(e) art is any U.S. design patent/application filed before 2008-11-18 — which sweeps in most of the list below.

Everything in the tables below is therefore presented with both mappings.

3. Complete patent-citation list (74 entries), categorized

Tier 1 — closest in overall appearance (flat, slab-like device with a dominant planar front face, rectangular display region, rounded-corner rectangular outline, and/or speaker slot and round control on the front):

Tier 2 — same category (handsets, MP3/media players, photo frames), showing individual features of the claimed front face (rounded corners, black glass front, elongated speaker slot, circular button, edge-to-edge panel):

USD561153S1 (Samsung, mobile phone; 2006-09-05 / 2008-02-05); USD559220S1 (Samsung, mobile phone; 2006-09-21 / 2008-01-08); USD560192S1 (Samsung, mobile phone; 2006-09-21 / 2008-01-22); USD560686S1 (Samsung, digital audio player; 2006-11-22 / 2008-01-29); USD554098S1 (Samsung, mobile phone; 2006-05-09 / 2007-10-30); USD560683S1 (Coby, portable media player; 2006-11-14 / 2008-01-29); USD558792S1 (Toshiba, digital audio player; 2006-12-27 / 2008-01-01); USD556211S1 (Doghouse Electronics, hand-held mixed media player; 2006-07-21 / 2007-11-27); USD561782S1 (LG, MP3 player; 2006-07-27 / 2008-02-12); USD561204S1 (Creative Technology, media player; 2007-08-02 / 2008-02-05); USD563432S1 (LG, DMB MP3 player; 2006-06-23 / 2008-03-04); USD563929S1 (LG, cellular phone; 2005-12-26 / 2008-03-11); USD536691S1 (LG, cellular phone; 2005-09-14 / 2007-02-13); USD534143S1 (LG, mobile phone; 2006-03-09 / 2006-12-26); USD541785S1 (LG, cellular phone; 2006-02-28 / 2007-05-01); USD557238S1 (LG, mobile phone; 2006-02-17 / 2007-12-11); USD535281S1 (Reigncom, sound recording and reproducing apparatus; 2005-05-10 / 2007-01-16); USD536962S1 (Crown Packaging, container; 2005-09-14 / 2007-02-20 — cited for the black rounded-rectangle silhouette rather than any electronics disclosure).

§ 102 mapping for Tier 2: the 2005–mid-2006 filings are § 102(a) under Scenario A and § 102(b) under Scenario B; the late-2006/2007 filings (Samsung '153/'220/'192, Samsung '686, Coby '683, Toshiba '792, Creative '204, LG '932/'782, Doghouse '211, LG '238) are § 102(e) art in both scenarios (U.S. filing dates before 2007-01-05 in some cases, and always before 2008-11-18) and § 102(b) under Scenario B where published before 2007-11-18.

Tier 3 — reference was cited, but the disclosure is only partially or not at all directed to appearance of a slab-form device front face (mostly utility applications on battery covers, sliding mechanisms, power supplies, and handheld-computer shells; several are likely IDS-completeness citations): USD410440S; USD424535S; JP2004290256A (Samii K.K., game-machine power supply, 2003-03-25 / 2004-10-21); US20040132499A1 and US20040166907A1 and US20050130715A1 and US7409059B2 (Kyocera portable terminals); US20040223004A1 (Lincke, landscape UI for handheld); US7042712B2 (Intel, extended stand computer); US20080004083A1 (Ohki, Portable Information Terminal); US20060281501A1 (Fih, battery-cover latching); US20070082718A1 (Samsung, curved sliding-type portable communication apparatus); US7303424B2 (Shenzhen Futaihong, battery-cover assembly); US20080004085A1 (Samsung, keypad battery pack). Each of these is § 102(b) (§ 103) art in both scenarios where published more than a year before the operative date; none discloses the claimed overall appearance, so none can anticipate claim 1 on its own.

Family/self-references — USD558756S1, USD558757S1 (filed 2007-01-05 / pub. 2008-01-01); USD558758S1 (grandparent, 2007-01-05 / 2008-01-01); USD580387S1 (2007-01-05 / 2008-11-11); USD581922S1 (parent, 2007-07-30 / 2008-12-02); USD586800S1 (2007-01-05 / 2009-02-17). These share the Andre et al. inventive entity and Apple ownership. Under pre-AIA § 102(a)/(e), a reference must be "by another," and these are not; they also postdate or coincide with the chain's earliest date, so they are not § 102(b) art under Scenario A. Their real function is § 120 priority and nonstatutory double patenting, not anticipation. This is worth flagging because the reexam specifically invoked double patenting over D618678 (application 29/332,683) and the litigation docket shows Apple filing a terminal disclaimer for D618677 on 2012-11-27 (CourtListener, N.D. Cal. 5:11-cv-01846, Doc. 2162-1).

Late-filed art cited in the granted patent — USD562285S1 (LG mobile phone; 2007-01-16 / 2008-02-19); USD584738S1 (LG MP3 player; 2007-04-12 / 2009-01-13); USD573143S1 (Samsung portable terminal; 2007-06-25 / 2008-07-15); USD574015S1 (Sony digital audio player; 2007-07-19 / 2008-07-29); USD579930S1 (Acer mobile internet device; 2007-12-11 / 2008-11-04). Under Scenario A these have no § 102 date (all filed/published after 2007-01-05), except as possible § 102(e) art if their U.S. filing dates preceded the invention date — none does. Under Scenario B they are § 102(e) art (all filed before 2008-11-18). The presence of these post-priority-date references on the face of the patent is itself evidence that the examiner's citation practice did not depend on the January 2007 date.

4. The references that actually do the work

For claim 1 (single claim, "as shown and described"), the only references with a realistic § 102 case are the Tier-1 items whose front elevations are substantially the same as the '677 drawings — a planar black front panel, rounded-rectangle outline, an inset rectangular display region, a narrow elongated speaker opening above the display, and a circular home-button region below it. Ranked:

1. USD546313S1 (LG, filed 2006-03-09, issued 2007-07-10). Examiner's primary reference in reexam rejection #1 (with WO 2006/038499 or Japanese design JPD1235888) and a secondary reference in rejection #2; the stated rationale was that "it would have been obvious to expand the size of the display." Under Scenario B it is § 102(b) art. Under Scenario A it is only § 102(a) art, and its non-identical button/slot arrangement weakens a standalone § 102 case — which is why the Office relied on § 103 rather than § 102.
2. USD548732S1 (Palm, front panel for a portable computing device, filed 2005-04-22, issued 2007-08-14) and USD568309S1 (Palm, housing, same filing date, issued 2008-05-06). These are the most structurally comparable citations because they claim a front panel — the same sub-article the '677 figures emphasize — with a large flat screen region and a control below.
3. USD541298S1 / USD541299S1 / USD548747S1 (Apple, filed 2005-08-24). Flat-front media devices with a screen and a round control; strong § 102(a)/(b) art under Scenario B.
4. USD541785S1, USD534143S1, USD536691S1, USD557238S1, USD563929S1 (LG handsets) and USD554098S1, USD561153S1, USD559220S1, USD560192S1 (Samsung handsets) — collectively establish that a black glass front with top slot and bottom button was a known handset configuration.
5. USD504889S1 and USD538822S1 (Apple, 2004–2007) — Apple's own older flat-format devices; § 102(b) art in both scenarios, and notable because they are Apple's own designs.

Consistent with the reexamination record, I assess that no single cited reference fully anticipates claim 1; the strongest validity attack is § 103 (e.g., D546313 + display-enlarging teachings), not § 102. That matches the CRU's own framing: claim 1 was rejected twice under § 103(a), once under § 103(a)/102(e), and once under § 102(e).

5. Non-patent citations (34 entries) and their § 102 status

• "Apple iPhone, announced Jan. 2007" (GSM Arena, retrieved 2007-03-12) — public use/publication of the physical article. § 102(a) under Scenario A (Jan. 9, 2007 announcement postdates a Jan. 5, 2007 invention/filing date, so actually not § 102(a) art under Scenario A); § 102(b) under Scenario B (predates 2007-11-18). This is the single most awkward citation on the face of the patent: if the priority claim fails, the commercial iPhone itself is a pre-filing public disclosure of the claimed front face.
• LG DE850 Prada, announced Jan. 2007; Samsung F700, announced Feb. 2007; Meizu M8, posted Jan. 29, 2007 — § 102(b) under Scenario B; nothing under Scenario A.
• Philips S900, announced Jun. 2006; Tinnos PDA, posted May 19, 2006; Hilon LG DMB MP3 FM35, posted Jun. 26, 2006 — § 102(a) under Scenario A, § 102(b) under Scenario B.
• eFashion Magazine (vol. 12, 2004, p. 60; vol. 119, Jun. 1, 2005, p. 45; vol. 142, Apr. 2006, p. 26, China) — printed publications, § 102(a)/(b) in both scenarios; relevant only for design motifs, not the claimed overall appearance.
• Chinese invalidation notifications for ZL200730148719.0, ZL200730148751.9 and ZL200730148767.X (Patent Reexamination Board, PRC, mailed 2008-12-11) — not prior art; they are prosecution documents from the Chinese counterparts, cited for their content about prior art.
• Twenty co-pending U.S. design applications by Andre et al. (29/282,831; 29/282,832; 29/282,833; 29/284,187; 29/284,188; 29/284,269; 29/284,271; 29/284,272; 29/284,276; 29/284,288; 29/284,308; 29/284,310; 29/284,312; 29/306,334; 29/306,950; 29/319,239; 29/319,377; 29/319,433; 29/324,130; 29/324,137; 29/324,262) — these are Apple's own co-pending filings, i.e., potential § 102(e)/double-patenting references, not third-party art.

6. Comparison of the two effective-date scenarios (summary)

7. References that became prior art only after the priority claim failed (not on the '677 face)

These were relied on in reexamination 90/012,884 and are, in my view, the most consequential prior art for this patent:

• US D602,014 S1 (Apple, filed 2007-08-31, issued 2009-10-13) — pre-AIA § 102(e) art once the 2007-01-05 priority was cancelled; used in a § 103(a)/102(e) rejection.
• US D618,204 S1 (Apple, filed 2007-06-27, issued 2010-06-22) — pre-AIA § 102(e); the examiner found the planar front surface "substantially the same" as the patented design and made it the basis of a standalone § 102(e) rejection.
• JP D1204221 (Japanese design registration) — primary reference in reexam rejection #2 (planar front surface with an elongated feature).
• US D546,313 + WO 2006/038499 or JP D1235888 — rejection #1.
• US D543,183 S1 (LG mobile phone, filed 2005-08-31, issued 2007-05-22) — § 102(b) art under Scenario B.
• US D577,703 S1 (Samsung portable communication terminal, filed 2007-07-20, issued 2008-09-30) and US D562,285 S1 (LG mobile phone, filed 2007-01-16, issued 2008-02-19) — § 102(a)/(e) art under Scenario B.

8. Contradictions, confidence, and open items

• Contradiction to flag: the top search snippet for the Google Patents page renders the legal status as "Active," while the authoritative full text of the same page shows "Expired – Lifetime" with a 2024-06-29 anticipated expiration. I treat "Expired – Lifetime" as controlling for the U.S. patent itself; the "Active" label appears to attach to a different family member row.
• Unverified: I could not confirm from search results whether a reissue/reexamination certificate ever issued cancelling claim 1 of D618677, nor the final disposition of reexamination 90/012,884 after the 2015-08-05 non-final action. Reports describe it as a non-final rejection only; several secondary sources incorrectly describe the patent as "invalidated." Do not treat the 2015 action as a final adjudication of invalidity.
• Medium confidence: the double-patenting relationship between D618677 and D618678 (application 29/332,683) and the 2012-11-27 terminal disclaimer. The CourtListener filing confirms a terminal disclaimer was submitted for D618677; the specific rejection it addressed is reported rather than directly verified.
• High confidence: the single-claim scope, the citation lists and their dates, the pre-2007-01-05 vs. post-2007-11-18 cutoffs, the reexam's four rejections and the § 112 ¶ 1 priority holding, and the conclusion that no single cited reference anticipates claim 1 (the Office itself relied on § 103 for its primary rejections).
• Methodological caveat: many of the 74 citations (Tier 3) are almost certainly on the face of the patent because of IDS practice and foreign-associate requirements, not because any examiner asserted them against claim 1. Treating each as "prior art for D618677" overstates the record; I have separated them accordingly.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677S1/en; https://ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/18/apple-design-patent-rejected-in-reexamination-by-uspto/; https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/08/d618677.html; https://iusauthor.com/en/news/258-us-ptp-apple-design-patent.html (published as https://iusauthor.com/en/news/258-us-pto-apple-design-patent.html); https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089/2162](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=4178089-2162)/1/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089/943](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=4178089-0943)/7/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/; https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ALERT-SCOTUS-Decision-in-Apple-v.-Samsung.pdf

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art record on the page and verify a few key facts before building the § 103 combinations.

Rich material. Let me verify two more things that matter for a §103 analysis of this specific patent: the reexamination outcome and the key non-patent references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Design Patent D618677 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Scope note / flags before the analysis

1. Date inconsistency in my task inputs. The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while my operating context gives today as 2026‑09‑30. This matters because the governing obviousness standard changed in 2024 (see §II). I flag it rather than silently pick one.
2. I have not visually inspected the D'677 drawings. Every feature I attribute to the design below is taken from (a) the patent's own descriptive text at https://patents.google.com/patent/USD618677/en, and (b) how the claim was construed and applied in the litigation record (Apple v. Samsung, N.D. Cal. 5:11‑cv‑01846). Where the record conflicts, I say so.
3. Labeling discrepancy in the prior-art list. The non-patent citation on the face of the patent reads "LG DE850 Prada." The product actually litigated and commonly reported is the LG KE850 "Prada." Per my operating rules I do not auto-correct the identifier; I analyze the reference as cited and note the probable identity issue, which a challenger would have to resolve to rely on it.
4. Internal inconsistency on the source page. D558758 (US 29/270,888) is listed with priority date 2007‑01‑05 in the "Applications Claiming Priority" table but 2006‑09‑11 in the "Family Applications" table. This affects the family's earliest date and therefore the prior-art window.
5. Unverified point: secondary sources report that the USPTO found D'677 invalid in an ex parte reexamination reported in August 2015 (AppleInsider, Aug. 17, 2015, cited at https://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/35.1-Coughlin.pdf). I could not verify the final outcome of that reexamination in this session and will not state one. Any conclusion below about the reexam's effect is expressly withheld.

I. What must be rendered obvious

Single claim: "The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described." Eight figures (front/rear perspective, front, rear, top, bottom, left, right); the claimed surface is illustrated in the color black; the article is not limited to scale and is described as a media player, media storage device, PDA, communication device (e.g., cellular phone), novelty item or toy.

The district court construed the claim as follows (ECF 3595.4 at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.[239768](/patent/239768)/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.3595.4.pdf):

• the ornamental design as shown in Figures 1–8; broken lines are unclaimed;
• solid black surface shading = the color black;
• oblique line shading = a transparent, translucent, or highly polished/reflective surface.

Combining that construction with how both sides described the claimed subject matter in the record, the operative ornamental features are:

The claim was construed narrowly — as directed to the front face only. That cuts both ways for § 103: fewer features to prove, but the color/transparency designation of F2 is itself a claim limitation.

II. Governing legal standard

Because of the 2024 change in the law, the analysis must be run twice:

• Historic (Rosen–Durling), applied at the 2012 trial and in the 2015 reexam: a primary reference "basically the same" as the claimed design, plus secondary references "so related" that their ornamental features would suggest the modification. In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388; Durling v. Spectrum Furniture, 101 F.3d 100.
• Current (post‑2024): the Federal Circuit en banc overruled Rosen–Durling in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology, substituting the flexible Graham/KSR inquiry (scope and content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations), with an analogous‑art screen and only a "starting point" role for a primary reference. See https://www.akingump.com/print/v2/content/[1093570](/patent/1093570)/federal-circuit-overrules-rosen-durling-test-for-design-patent-obviousness-uspto-follows-quickly-with-guidance.pdf. The USPTO issued conforming examination guidance effective May 22, 2024.

Practical posture: D'677 expired on its anticipated date, 2024‑06‑29 (14 years from the June 29, 2010 grant; the patent carries a terminal disclaimer). Validity of this patent is therefore largely academic; the live exposure is the five active family continuations (D698352, D834013, D918897, D937826, D1087080) and residual damages proceedings. A § 103 analysis of D'677 is nonetheless probative for the family.

III. Prior art of record, screened for date and disqualification

The threshold problem with this record is not visual similarity — it is eligibility.

This is the decisive structural fact: nearly every reference in the examiner's own citation list that is closest in field and form (the slab‑with‑uniform‑bezel vocabulary, the black front face, the rounded‑corner rectangular prism) is Apple's own work, and the continuations D558756/D558757/D581922 are literally the same design family. Under § 103(c) they cannot be combined. What remains usable is either (i) Apple's own art, disqualified; (ii) post‑critical‑date art (iPhone, F700, M8); or (iii) pre‑critical‑date art that is visually remote (keypad phones, PDAs with subdivided front faces, click‑wheel media players).

IV. The combinations the record actually advanced

Combination 1 — Prada/EU Registered Community Design 000569157‑0005 (primary) + F700 (secondary)

Samsung's expert (Itay Sherman) relied on the Prada design and EU Registration 000569157‑0005, and the F700, to argue obviousness. Reasons a PHOSITA (an ordinary designer of handheld consumer electronics) would combine them are genuine:

• Same field of endeavor: both are black, keypad‑less, touch‑screen handheld communicators — squarely the field of the '677 specification, which itself lists "communication device (e.g., cellular phone)."
• Same problem to be solved: market demand for maximal display area and a "big screen" impression with a minimal, unadorned front face.
• Predictable design vocabulary: a centered display, an upper‑border speaker slot, and evened‑out side borders are elementary ornamental moves in a crowded art.
• Finite set of solutions (KSR): by early 2007 there were only a handful of ways to ornament a full‑face touch slate.

Why it fails on this record. The distinguishing feature of D'677 — F2 — is precisely what the Prada lacks. Apple's rebuttal (ECF 1356.2, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.239768/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.1356.2.pdf ¶178) is specific and visually grounded:

the Prada's side borders are wider and contrast with the "big screen" impression given by the D'677 patent… the Prada includes a complicated button arrangement along its bottom that is raised from the front surface and runs the full extent of the bottom border… the Prada's black borders are made of an opaque plastic material that presents a different visual appearance than the transparent surface claimed by the D'677.

Critically, Sherman identified no secondary reference and proposed no modification, which under either framework forfeits step two and leaves the flexible Graham inquiry without a stated reason to change the primary reference. The date problem (§III) is an independent defect: the only usable Prada disclosure is December 2006 imagery, and the examiner's own citation calls it "announced Jan. 2007."

Combination 2 — Apple D558757/D558756/D581922 as the primary reference

This is the only combination that would actually work visually, and it is legally unavailable. These applications share the 2007‑01‑05 priority and, in the case of D581922 (US 29/282,834), are the division parent of the application that issued as D'677. Same inventive entity, same assignee, same design. Neither § 102 nor § 103(c) permits them to be used. Note the added bar in the US 29/328,018 relationship on the page: "Related Parent Applications: US29/282,834 — Division."

Combination 3 — Apple D541298 / D541299 / D548747 ("Media device," filed 2005‑08‑24) + a touch‑screen phone reference (Prada or S900), to remove the scroll wheel and expand the display

• Motivation: convergence of the media player and phone into one handheld; the '677 specification expressly claims the design for both; replacing a mechanical input control with a touch display was a known, predictable substitution.
• Why it fails: (a) these Apple applications published only in 2007, so they require § 102(e) footing and are then disqualified under § 103(c) as commonly owned; (b) more fundamentally, a click‑wheel media player's dominant visual feature is that wheel — converting it into an uninterrupted black cover glass is not a "minor" modification but the substitution of the design's central aesthetic idea, i.e., impermissible hindsight. (I have not independently verified the specific figures in D541298/D541299/D548747; they are characterized here only from title, filing date, and field.)

Combination 4 — D504889 (primary) + Palm D548732 or Alloy D498754 (secondary) for the front‑face/bezel arrangement

• Motivation: same field; D504889 shows a flat rectangular slab with evenly rounded corners and a large flat front surface — the gross morphology of F1/F5 — and D548732/D498754 supply the front‑panel/bezel arrangement.
• Why it fails: (a) § 103(c) — D504889 names the same fourteen inventors as D'677 and is Apple‑owned; (b) if the common‑ownership bar were avoided, the Federal Circuit has already rejected an analogous attack: in the D'889 preliminary‑injunction appeal, the court held the asserted primary reference inadequate notwithstanding shared "rectangular tablet with evenly rounded corners and a flat reflective front surface" morphology, because the differences were numerous and not minor. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012). That reasoning transfers directly here: gross morphology alone is not enough.

V. The general "motivation to combine" case — and where it breaks down

A challenger's best affirmative case rests on five propositions, each of which is defensible on this record:

1. Analogous art, same field. Every listed reference sits in hand‑held electronic devices (USPC D14/341–346 class family), and the '677 specification itself names media players, PDAs, phones and toys as the same article — so the "same field of endeavor" prong of the analogous‑art test is satisfied as to essentially all of them.
2. Crowded art and a shrinking design space. The examiner cited ~70 design patents, and the NPL list alone presents six contemporaneous touch‑screen slates (Tinnos, S900, Prada, iPhone, F700, M8). Under KSR/post‑LKQ flexibility, a crowded field with a small number of predictable solutions supports obviousness.
3. Functional pressures make the choices obvious. The record contains detailed testimony that flatness (finger‑sliding on a touch surface), rounded corners (comfort, pocketability, reduced fumbling), black cover glass (hiding inactive display regions), and thinness (portability) were all functionally driven — e.g., CourtListener Ex. 75 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[4178089/1384](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=4178089-1384)/22/apple-inc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd/). Functional features carry no patentable weight — but the corollary is that a designer would naturally arrive at them, which is precisely the challenger's motivation argument.
4. Near‑contemporaneous market demand. The iPhone was announced January 9, 2007 and the Prada/public imagery appeared in December 2006 — evidence that multiple designers independently converged on the same ornamental solution, which supports obviousness (while also being usable as copying evidence by the patentee).
5. Ordinary designer creativity. Post‑LKQ, the factfinder may expressly consider the ordinary designer's creativity and market demands rather than requiring a "so related" mechanical link between references.

Where it breaks down:

• No reference supplies F2 as a whole. No cited reference teaches a black, transparent/glossy, edge‑to‑edge cover glass front face; the Prada's black is opaque plastic, and the examiner's cited art (D289873, D337569, D499423, D504889, D514121, D514590, D528561, D529045, D532791, D535281, D536691, D534143) shows bezels that are subdivided by functional elements or formed of contrasting materials. F2 is the "conspicuous departure from the prior art" that the Federal Circuit pointed to in affirming infringement (Apple v. Samsung, 786 F.3d 983, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2015); https://www.wiley.law/printpilot-publication-3603.pdf).
• Secondary considerations run the patentee's way on this record: the design is embodied in the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, and 4S (ECF 3595.4 ¶115; ECF 1384/16 ¶¶297–308); the 2012 jury found infringement by ten Samsung models and rejected the invalidity defense; the Federal Circuit affirmed in 2015; and the page flags this family as the subject of the "First worldwide family litigation" with parallel Chinese invalidation proceedings (NPL: Requests for Invalidation of ZL200730148719.0, ZL200730148751.9, ZL200730148767.X, mailed Dec. 11, 2008). Apple also advanced copying evidence (Samsung's internal F700 names "iReen"/"Vessel"/"Slide"/"Bowl"/"Q Bowl," ECF 2708).
• The litigated defense was procedurally crippled. The F700 theory — the strongest of the secondary-reference theories — was struck for failure to disclose invalidity theories in discovery (Magistrate Judge Grewal, 2012 WL 2499929), and the F700 was admitted only as evidence of alternative designs and functionality, with the jury expressly instructed: "Do not consider as evidence of invalidity or non‑infringement." (ECF 2708, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.239768/gov.uscourts.cand.239768.2708.0.pdf). The 2012 verdict therefore should not be read as a merits rejection of the F700/Prada combinations — an important caveat for anyone relying on that verdict as res judicata on obviousness.

VI. Conclusion

• Under the pre‑2024 Rosen–Durling test: D'677 is very unlikely to be invalidated on this record. No reference creates "basically the same" visual impression: the Prada differs in border width, bottom button strip, and (decisively) in the opaqueness and material of its black borders; D504889 differs in scale, aspect ratio and edge treatment; and the only "basically the same" references — Apple's own D558756/757/758 and D581922 — are legally unavailable under § 103(c)/the same inventive entity.
• Under the current post‑LKQ/Graham test: an obviousness challenge built on Tinnos PDA (May 19, 2006) + an examiner‑cited slate (e.g., D504889) + a phone‑bezel reference (D548732 or D534143/D536691) is colorable but still weak, because that combination supplies neither F2 (transparent black edge‑to‑edge cover glass) nor the even, minimal border of F3, and because the strongest combination remains legally barred by common ownership.
• The best pre‑critical‑date combination available is: Tinnos PDA as the starting point (it is the only listed pre‑January 2007 handheld presenting a largely continuous dark front face), modified in view of D548732 (Palm front panel) for the bezel/panel arrangement and Hilon LG DMB MP3 FM35 (June 2006) for the thin slab-like media‑device body, with black color asserted as an obvious commercial color choice. Motivation: identical field of endeavor, common problem (maximize display, minimize front‑face adornment), predictable solutions, and the '677 specification's own statement that the article spans media players, PDAs and phones. Weakness: I have not verified Tinnos's imagery in this session, so I cannot confirm it teaches F1's uninterrupted surface — if it does not, this combination collapses at the first step under either framework.

Explicitly unknown: the final disposition of the reported 2015 USPTO reexamination of D'677 (see flag 5). Until that is confirmed, no conclusion about D'677's ultimate validity should be treated as settled — and note that the reported rejection came from the Central Reexamination Unit applying Rosen–Durling, a framework now abrogated, so its precedential weight is doubly uncertain.