Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
839 F.3d 1034 (2016)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Apple Inc. (Apple) (plaintiff) owned three patents disclosing portable devices with touchscreen displays having unlock features whereby users moved images from predefined locations on the screens to predefined unlock regions. The unlock feature was embodied in Apple’s iPhone and solved the problem of inadvertent activation. Apple sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries (Samsung) (defendants), alleging infringement of claims including the feature in all three of its patents. Samsung argued Apple’s claims were invalid for obviousness considering prior art references Neonode, teaching touchscreen mobile phone activation by sweeping right, and Plaisant, teaching use of a sliding toggle to prevent inadvertent activation of wall-mounted touchscreens. In rebuttal, Apple presented testimony regarding the need for the feature, evidence of consumer adulation of the feature at a public unveiling, and Samsung internal documents applauding the feature’s functionality and encouraging incorporation of a similar feature into Samsung’s devices. The district court granted summary judgment that Samsung’s device infringed one of Apple’s patents. After trial, a jury found none of Apple’s claims were invalid and all infringed on various grounds including obviousness. The district court denied Samsung’s requests for judgments as a matter of law (JMOL). An en banc panel reversed the JMOL denials and a petition for rehearing en banc followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
Dissent (Dyk, J.)
Dissent (Prost, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.