Case ID: f3d_808/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPLE INC., A California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., A New York Corporation, Samsung Telecommunications America, Llc, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 2014-1802.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2015.
    
      William F. Lee, Andrew J. Danford, Mark Christopher Fleming, Lauren B. Fletcher, Sarah R. Frazier, Esq., Richard Wells O’Neill, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Rachel Krevans, Christopher Robinson, Nathaniel Bryan Sabri, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Erik Jeffrey Olson, Esq., Litigation Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA, James Quarles, III, Thomas Gregory Sprankling, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Mark D. Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kathleen M. Sullivan, William Adams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, N.Y., Brian Cosmo Cannon, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney, Victoria Fishman Maroulis, Esq., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, John B. Quinn, Scott L. Watson, Michael Thomas Zeller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin Alexander Smith, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 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 first referred to the panel that heard the appeal and a majority of the panel granted the petition for the limited purpose of amending the court’s opinion. Thereafter, the petition, response, and amended opinions were sent to the en banc court.

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

(2) The mandate of the court will issue on December 23, 2015.