APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. , No. 15-2088 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-2088 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2015 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD., REUTERS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants ______________________ 2015-2088 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK, Judge Lucy H. Koh. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Case: 15-2088 2 Document: 29 APPLE INC. Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2015 v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before PROST, Chief Judge, O'MALLEY and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PROST, Chief Judge. ORDER Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al. (Samsung) move to stay enforcement of the district court's judgment, pending appeal, and for approval of the supersedeas bond. Apple Inc. opposes. Samsung replies. Apple moves for summary affirmance of the district court's judgment entered upon remand from this court. Samsung opposes. Apple replies. Summary affirmance is appropriate when “the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments and conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED and this court’s clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. (2) The motion to stay is granted to the extent that enforcement of the district court’s judgment is stayed pending issuance of this court’s mandate. This court’s temporary stay is therefore lifted. Absent a petition for rehearing, this court’s mandate will issue in seven days. Case: 15-2088 APPLE INC. Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2015 v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. FOR THE COURT /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.
