APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 808 F.3d 517 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Number: infco20151216216
Filed: Dec. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 16, 2015
Summary: 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 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 file
Summary: 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 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..
More
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 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 [Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.], 735 F.3d [1352] at 1364 [(Fed.Cir.2013)]. 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.
Source: Leagle
