Cases

DYK, Circuit Judge. The current appeal results from a patent infringement suit and countersuit between Apple Inc.- (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). Apple alleged infringement of five U.S. patents that it owns: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 (the '647 patent), 6,847,9

MOORE, Circuit Judge. Apple Inc. appeals from an order of the district court denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collec*1356tively, “Samsung”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings. B

REYNA, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The court should not have granted en banc review in this case. En banc review is disfavored and granted only when necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions or when thp proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. Fed. R. App. Proc. 35(a); Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 46 n.14, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 109 L.Ed.2d 31 (1990). This ca

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees ____________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING . EN BANC PER CURIAM. ORDER Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellant Apple, Inc. The petition and response were referred to the panel that heard

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees ____________________

PROST, Chief Judge. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Apple Inc. (“Apple”). A jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and d

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE, in which Circuit Judge REYNA joins. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge PROST. MOORE, Circuit Judge. Apple Inc. appeals from an order of the district court denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.; Samsung Elect

PROST, Circuit Judge. Apple Inc. appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denying Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

PROST, Circuit Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) challenge orders of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denying requests to seal various confidential exhibits attached to pre-trial and post-tr

PROST, Circuit Judge. Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal from the district court’s order granting Apple, Inc., a preliminary injunction and enjoining Samsung from selling its Galaxy Nexus smartphone. Because the district court abused its discretion in entering an inj

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON. Concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. While the appeal presents substantial issues of law and fact, the decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction is one that is committed to the discretion of the district court,

768 F.Supp.2d 1040 (2011) APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean business entity; Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a New York corporation; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. Jun

*1017ORDER RE: WILLFULNESS AND ENHANCED DAMAGES Re: Dkt. Nos, 2186, 2191 LUCY H.' KOH, United States District Judge On May 5, 2014, after a thirteen-day trial and approximately four days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict, which included a finding of willful infringement'of one of Apple’s patents, U.S

Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 289 of the Patent Act provides a damages remedy specific to design patent infringement. A person who manufactures or sells "any article of manufacture to which [a patented] design or colorable imitation has been applied shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit."

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL (Re: Docket Nos. 3212, 3213) PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge Day 1,449 in this case. *237Following remand by the district judge on two issues arising out of the undersigned’s January 29, 2014 sanctions order, Plaintiff Apple Inc., Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC PER CURIAM. ORDER Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellant Apple Inc. The petition and response were first referred to the panel that heard the appeal and a majority of the panel granted the petition fo

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW • [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION] LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge On May 5, 2014, after a thirteen-day trial and approximately four days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict. ECF No. 1884. On May 23, 2014, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, amended j

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. On August 24, 2012, after a thirteen day trial and approximately three full days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict. See ECF No. 1931. Apple now seeks judgment as a matter of law to overturn certain of the jury’s findings, and judgment as a matter of law as to

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed this action against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) on April 15, 2011, alleging infringement of several Apple patents and dilution of Apple’s trade dress. On August 21, 2012, a j