Cases

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

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

OPINION TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: This action involves a challenge contesting subsidy calculations that were made by defendant Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the final results of a countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation covering large residential washers (“LRWs”) from the Republic of Korea. See Large Residential Washers

OPINION GORDON, Judge: This consolidated action involves a U.S. Department of Commerce (“Defendant” or “Commerce”) final determination in the less than fair value investigation of large residential washers from the Republic of Korea. Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,988 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 26

OPINION GORDON, Judge: This consolidated action involves a U.S. Department of Commerce (“Defendant” or “Commerce”) final determination in the less than fair value investigation of large residential washers from the Republic of Korea. Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, 77 Fed.Reg. 75,988 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 26

OPINION and ORDER TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), moves for judgment on the agency record contesting defendant United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination in Large Residential Washers From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,

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

ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF DISPOSITIVE MATTER REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Samsung moves for relief from portions of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s July 24, 2012 Order Granting-in-Part Apple’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Jury Instruction. See

ORDER AND OPINION STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR., District Judge. Before the Court is the “Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Michael Schulz” filed on behalf on behalf of defendants General Electric Company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Louisiana, LLC, Samsung Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., and Electric Insurance Company (Doe. 164). Having reviewed the pleadin

989 F.2d 1512 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1362, 21 Media L. Rep. 1330 Vanna WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; David DeutschAssociates, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-55840. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. March 18, 1993. Prior report: 971 F.2d 1395

524 F.Supp.2d 628 (2006) SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., Ltd., a corporation, and Panasonic Corporation of North America, a corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-1680. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. February 28, 2006. *629

STARK, U.S. District Judge: *646Plaintiff Koninklijke KPN N.V. ("KPN") sued multiple defendants in numerous related actions for alleged infringement of KPN's U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 ("'662 patent"). Pending before

McConchie v . Samsung Electronics CV-99-040-JD 08/11/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Donald and Susan McConchie v. Civil N o . 99-40-JD Opinion N o . 2000 DNH 180 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. O R D E R The plaintiffs, Donald and Susan McConchie, brought suit agai

GOODWIN, Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves a promotional “fame and fortune” dispute. In running a particular advertisement without Vanna White’s permission, defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) and David Deutsch Associates, Inc. (Deutsch) attempted to capitalize on White’s fame to enhance their fortune. White sued, alleging infringement of various intellectual property rights, but the district cour

790 F.Supp.2d 708 (2011) LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., a subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc., a Korean company, Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 08 C 242. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. May 9, 2011. *709 Ronald Y. Rothstein, Bryna Joyce Roth Dahlin, Eric L. Broxterman, John George

157 F.Supp.2d 172 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Assn. Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, et al Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754 JBA. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. July 16, 2001.

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

157 F.Supp.2d 190 (2001) SONY ELECTRONICS, INC. Consumer Electronics Association; Electronic Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. Soundview Technologies, Inc., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, Et al. Counterclaim Defendants. No. 3:00CV754(JBA). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. June 14, 2001.

ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM