Justice Sotomayor’s opinion did not resolve the question of whether the article of manufacture at issue in the case was the whole phone or just parts of it. She said only that the Federal Circuit had been wrong to rule that “the relevant ‘article of manufacture’ must always be the end product sold to the consumer.”

“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,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “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.”

The Supreme Court returned the case to the Federal Circuit for further consideration, drawing out the final resolution of a case that has transfixed Silicon Valley since it was filed in 2011.

Technology companies often imitate innovations made by their rivals and incorporate hundreds or thousands of patented ideas in a new product. The largest companies often cross-license their patents to one another to minimize infringement claims.

The Supreme Court battle between Apple and Samsung centered on what happens when the infringement involves just a few features of a product’s design.

Apple — backed by dozens of independent designers as well as fashion-focused companies like Nike and Tiffany — argued that design is central to many products and that a patent violator should be forced to turn over the full profits it made from infringing designs.

Samsung — whose position was backed by Silicon Valley giants like Google, Facebook, eBay and HP — argued that any penalties should be proportionate to the importance of the infringing features to the overall product.