APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. , No. 14-1802 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 17, 2015.
Download PDF
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 ______________________ 2014-1802 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, Judge Lucy H. Koh. ______________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 2 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 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 the appeal. IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) Samsung’s petition for rehearing is granted by a majority of the panel for the limited purpose of modifying the previously filed majority opinion. Page 17 of the original opinion reads: “Apple did not establish that that these features were the exclusive or significant driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed more heavily in its favor. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction.” The corrected opinion reads: Apple did not establish that these features were the exclusive driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed more heavily in its favor. Apple did, however, show that “a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions.” Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1364. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction. The dissenting opinion was also amended. Samsung’s petition is denied in all other respects. 2) The prior opinions in this appeal, which issued on September 17, 2015, and were reported at Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 801 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015), are withdrawn and replaced with the revised opinions accompanying this order. APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. FOR THE COURT December 16, 2015 Date /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
