APPLE INC. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. , No. 12-1506 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 19, 2012.

Download PDF

Case: 12-1506 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 09/28/2012 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Wniteb ~tate~ <!Court of §ppeaI~ for tbe jfeberaI <!Circuit APPLE INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. 2012-1506 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-1846, Judge Lucy H. Koh. ON MOTION Before BRYSON, PROST and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. move for a limited remand for the purpose of permitting the United States District Court for the Northern District of Califor- Case: 12-1506 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 09/28/2012 APPLE INC. V SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 2 nia to consider Samsung's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Apple Inc. opposes the motion. We grant the motion and remand for the purpose of allowing the trial court to consider Samsung's motion and Apple's arguments in opposition thereto. The appeal is held in abeyance pending further ruling from the trial court. The parties are to inform this court promptly of the trial court's ruling on the motion and propose how they believe the appeal should proceed in light of such ruling. In granting the motion, the Federal Circuit takes no position on the proceedings the trial court should employ in considering the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction or on the merits of the motion. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion to remand is granted. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time. FOR THE COURT SEP 282012 Date cc~ s19 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. Michael A. Jacobs, Esq. /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk u.s.1lfE FEDERAL CIRCUITFOR COUftf~IfJPEALS SEP 282012 JANHORBALY LURK

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.