Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-00630/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-00630-209/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK 

ORDER ENTERING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK 

ORDER ENTERING PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION

Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 (the “’647 patent”); 8,046,721 (the 

“’721 patent”); and 8,074,172 (the “’172 patent”), which each cover features that Apple contends 

are related to the ease of using smartphones. Apple asserted these three patents and two others 

against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung 

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). On summary judgment, the Court 

found that Samsung infringed the ’172 patent. A jury then found that Samsung also infringed the 

’647 and ’721 patents, and awarded damages for all infringed patents. Apple moved, based only 

on these three patents, to enjoin Samsung from making, selling, developing, or advertising 

infringing features in its products. See ECF No. 1895-4 (“Proposed Order”).

A patentee seeking a permanent injunction must make a four-part showing: 

Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 2157 Filed 01/18/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK 

ORDER ENTERING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies 

available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to 

compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of 

hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is 

warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by 

a permanent injunction. 

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 

The Court found that the first and second eBay factors weighed against entry of a 

permanent injunction but that the third and fourth eBay factors weighed in favor of entry of a 

permanent injunction. ECF No. 1953. Weighing all of the eBay factors, the Court denied Apple’s 

motion for a permanent injunction. Id.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that all of the eBay factors weighed in favor of a 

permanent injunction. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., --- F.3d ----, 2015 WL 9014387, at 

*11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit vacated this Court’s denial of a permanent injunction 

and remanded for further proceedings. Id. Samsung sought en banc review, which the Federal 

Circuit denied on December 16, 2015. This Court received the Federal Circuit’s mandate on 

December 29, 2015. ECF No. 2154.

As the Federal Circuit has held that all four eBay factors weigh in favor of entry of a 

permanent injunction, this Court finds that entry of a permanent injunction is appropriate. On 

January 5, 2016, Apple submitted a letter requesting that the Court enter a new proposed

permanent injunction that differs from the original proposed permanent injunction litigated in this 

Court and appealed to the Federal Circuit. ECF No. 2155. Specifically, Apple’s new proposed 

permanent injunction would exclude the 30-day “sunset provision” contained in Apple’s original 

proposed permanent injunction. Compare ECF No. 2155-1, with ECF No. 1895-2. Samsung has 

submitted a response objecting to Apple’s letter. ECF No. 2156. 

Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction contained solely the original proposed 

permanent injunction. Apple never argued for the new proposed permanent injunction before 

Apple’s January 5, 2016 letter. Similarly, Apple never argued for the new proposed permanent 

injunction before the Federal Circuit. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit’s analysis of the third 

Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 2157 Filed 01/18/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK 

ORDER ENTERING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and fourth eBay factors explicitly cited Apple’s inclusion of the “sunset provision” in the original 

proposed permanent injunction. See Apple Inc., 2015 WL 9014387, at *9-10. The Court will not 

permit Apple on remand to alter the language of the permanent injunction that has been approved 

by the Federal Circuit.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, ECF No. 1895.

The terms of the injunction are filed separately.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document 2157 Filed 01/18/16 Page 3 of 3