Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 15-2088 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2015)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-2088
Decided
October 13, 2015
Judge
Prost, C.J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION

CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD.,

REUTERS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants

2015-2088

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK, Judge Lucy H. Koh.

ON MOTION

2Before PROST, Chief Judge, O'MALLEY and CHEN, Circuit

Judges.

O R D E R

Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al. (Samsung) move to stay enforcement of the district court's judgment, pending appeal, and for approval of the supersedeas bond. Apple Inc. opposes. Samsung replies. Apple moves for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment entered upon remand from this court. Samsung opposes. Apple replies. Summary affirmance is appropriate when “the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED and this court’s clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. (2) The motion to stay is granted to the extent that enforcement of the district court’s judgment is stayed pending issuance of this court’s mandate. This court’s temporary stay is therefore lifted. Absent a petition for rehearing, this court’s mandate will issue in seven days.

3FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 15-2088 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-15-2088-20151013
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-2088-20151013

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.