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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 16-2451 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2018)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-2451
Decided
April 11, 2018
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
4 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

SMARTFLASH LLC,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., APPLE INC,

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellees

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

SMARTFLASH LLC,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC

Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

2Intervenor

SMARTFLASH LLC,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC, GOOGLE LLC,

Appellees

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

2016-2451, 2016-2452, 2016-2455, 2016-2457, 2016-2458, 2017-1056, 2017-1102, 2017-1104, 2017-1109, 2017-1110, 2017-1111, 2017-1833, 2017-1834, 2017-1835, 2017-1836,

2017-1837, 2017-1846, 2017-1847

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. CBM2014-00190, CBM2014-00192, CBM2014-00193, CBM2014-00194, CBM2015-00016, CBM2015-00017, CBM2015-00028, CBM2015-00029, CBM2015-00031, CBM2015-00032, CBM2015-00033, CBM2015-00059, CBM2015-00117, CBM2015-00118, CBM2015-00119, CBM2015-00120, CBM2015-00121, CBM2015-00123, CBM2015-00124, CBM2015-00125, CBM2015-00126, CBM2015-00127, CBM2015-00130, CBM2015-00131, CBM2015-00132, CBM2015-00133.

3JUDGMENT

AARON MARTIN PANNER, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by NICHOLAS O. HUNTER; MICHAEL CASEY, GREGORY A. KRAUSS, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA. MARK ANDREW PERRY, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, argued for all appellees. Appellee Apple Inc. also represented by BRIAN BUROKER; BLAINE H. EVANSON, BRADLEY JOSEPH HAMBURGER, JENNIFER RHO, Los Angeles, CA; HERVEY MARK LYON, Palo Alto, CA; BRETT ROSENTHAL, Dallas, TX; JON STEVEN BAUGHMAN, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC; DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC; JAMES RICHARD BATCHELDER, East Palo Alto, CA. MICHAEL J. MCKEON, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, for appellees Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Also represented by WALTER KARL RENNER; CRAIG E. COUNTRYMAN, San Diego, CA.

CHARLES KRAMER VERHOEVEN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for appellee Google LLC. Also represented by MELISSA J. BAILY. WILLIAM LAMARCA, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

4ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner 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

Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 16-2451 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-16-2451-20180411
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-2451-20180411

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.