Apple Inc., a California corporation v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION
CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD.,
REUTERS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants
______________________
2015-2088
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK,
Judge Lucy H. Koh.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Case: 15-2088 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2015

-- 1 of 3 --

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 2
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, O'MALLEY and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
P ROST , Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al. (Samsung)
move to stay enforcement of the district court's judgment,
pending appeal, and for approval of the supersedeas bond.
Apple Inc. opposes. Samsung replies. Apple moves for
summary affirmance of the district court's judgment
entered upon remand from this court. Samsung opposes.
Apple replies.
Summary affirmance is appropriate when “the posi-
tion of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law
that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the
appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380
(Fed. Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the parties’ argu-
ments and conclude that summary affirmance is appro-
priate.
Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED and this
court’s clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accord-
ingly.
(2) The motion to stay is granted to the extent that
enforcement of the district court’s judgment is stayed
pending issuance of this court’s mandate. This court’s
temporary stay is therefore lifted. Absent a petition for
rehearing, this court’s mandate will issue in seven days.
Case: 15-2088 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2015

-- 2 of 3 --

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 3
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
Case: 15-2088 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2015

-- 3 of 3 --