Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-777	Fed. Cir.	Oct 11, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Dec 6, 2016	8-0	Sotomayor	OT 2016

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.

Holding: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under Section 289 of the Patent Act need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on December 6, 2016.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 19 2015	Application (15A421) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 11, 2015 to December 14, 2015, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Oct 20 2015	Application (15A421) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 14, 2015.
Dec 14 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 15, 2016)
Dec 21 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Jan 4 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 16, 2016.
Jan 14 2016	Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.
Jan 15 2016	Brief amici curiae of The Hispanic Leadership Fund, et al. filed.
Jan 15 2016	Brief amici curiae of Dell Inc., et al. filed.
Jan 15 2016	Brief amici curiae of 37 Intellectual Property Professors filed.
Jan 15 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed.
Jan 15 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Systems, Inc. filed.
Feb 3 2016	Brief of respondent Apple Inc. in opposition filed.
Feb 16 2016	Reply of petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed.
Feb 17 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.
Mar 14 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.
Mar 21 2016	Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.
Apr 5 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 1, 2016.
Apr 5 2016	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 29, 2016.
May 18 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Jun 1 2016	Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes)
Jun 1 2016	Brief of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. filed.
Jun 7 2016	Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of the United States in support of neither party filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of BSA I The Software Alliance in support of neither party filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Nike, Inc. in support of neither party filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Software Freedom Law Center filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of The Internet Association, et al. filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of neither party filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of Engine Advocacy and Shapeways, Inc. filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of 50 Intellectual Property Professors, David Abrams, et al. filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Industrial Designers Society of America in support of neither party filed.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of The Hispanic Leadership Fund, et al. filed.
Jul 13 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 11, 2016.
Jul 22 2016	Record requested from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.
Jul 22 2016	Records received from U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. Also received is a confidential Joint Appendix not available on PACER is also electronic.
Jul 22 2016	Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of California is electronic and located on PACER.
Jul 29 2016	Brief of respondent Apple Inc. filed.
Aug 4 2016	Brief amici curiae of 113 Distinguished Industrial Design Professionals and Educators filed.
Aug 4 2016	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Aug 5 2016	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Crocs, Inc. filed. (Distributed).
Aug 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Nordock, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2016	Brief amici curiae of Tiffany and Company, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Boston Patent Law Association filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2016	Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed. (Distributed).
Aug 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of ACT \| The App Association filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2016	Brief amici curiae of Bison Designs, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 9 2016	CIRCULATED
Aug 29 2016	Reply of petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 26 2016	Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Oct 11 2016	Argued. For petitioners: Kathleen M. Sullivan, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.
Dec 6 2016	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Jan 9 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the April 18 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
On Monday, the justices hear oral argument in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, Mitchell v. Wisconsin and Rehaif v. United States.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Quarles v. United States and Taggart v. Lorenzen.
On Friday, the justices met for their April 26 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

Editor's Note :

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award