Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple

Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

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.

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

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
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 released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
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.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- 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 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74