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

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

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

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

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I For the first time in 26 years, this court has taken an obviousness case en banc. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Remarkably, the majority has done so without further briefing and argument from the parties, amici, or the government, as has been our almost uniform practice in this court’s en banc decisions.

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 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed a motion for summary judgment against Defendants and Counterclaimants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) on May 17, 2012 (“MSJ”). Samsung filed its opposi

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

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

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.,

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

ORDER RE: INDEFINITENESS LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. In this patent case, a jury found that Samsung had infringed several of Apple’s patents, including Claim 50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,168 (“the '163 Patent”) and four design patents: No. D618,677 (“the D'677 Patent”); No. D593,087 (“the D'087 Patent”); No. D604,305 (“the D'305 Patent”); and No. D504,889 (“the D'889 Patent”). Samsung now argues that Clai

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) brings this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing

ORDER RE: DAMAGES LUCY H. KOH, District Judge. In this patent case, a jury found that a range of Samsung products infringe several of Apple’s design and utility patents, and that several Samsung products dilute Apple’s trade dress. The jury awarded $1,049,343,540.00 in damages, and provided a breakdown of this award by Samsung product. In their post-trial motions, the parties have raised a number of issue

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

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

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

35 F.Supp.2d 942 (1999) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Slip Op. 99-3. Court No. 91-04-00288. United States Court of International Trade. January 6, 1999. *943 Irving A. Mandel, Aventura, FL; Thomas J. Kovarcik, New York, NY, and Jeffrey H. Pfeffer, Lake Worth, FL, of counsel, for plaint

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1802 MICHAEL JAFFÉ, Insolvency Administrator, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LIMITED; INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; INTEL CORPORATION; NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; MICRON TECHNOLOGY, Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION STARK, U.S. District Judge: Pending before the Court are Defendants’ (1) Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (C.A. No. 12-804 D.I. 78; C.A. No. 12-964 D.I. 70); (2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Damages in the Case to Post-Complaint Activities (C.A. No. 12-804 D.I. 69; C.A. No. 12-964 D.I. 59); and (3) Motion to Strike Declaration of E