Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

IP News

By Howard J. Shire and Joseph Mercadante
June 28, 2012

Apple's Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction

Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California held in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 11-1846, that Apple's bid for injunctive relief to stop sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet is premature because the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over the matter. The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the case on May 14, 2012, but has yet to issue a mandate. The Federal Circuit held that Judge Koh had erred in denying Apple's bid for a preliminary injunction with respect to one tablet design patent. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2012-1105 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2012). “Until the court of appeals issues the mandate, the case ordinarily remains within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and the district court lacks power to proceed further with respect to the matters involved with the appeal.” Order at 2. Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction “seeks to have the Court adjudicate anew the preliminary injunction motion while the same issue is on appeal before the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 3.

Howard J. Shire is a partner and Joseph Mercadante is an associate in the New York office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.

Apple's Preliminary Injunction Motion Denied for Lack of Jurisdiction

Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California held in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 11-1846, that Apple's bid for injunctive relief to stop sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 tablet is premature because the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over the matter. The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the case on May 14, 2012, but has yet to issue a mandate. The Federal Circuit held that Judge Koh had erred in denying Apple's bid for a preliminary injunction with respect to one tablet design patent. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2012-1105 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2012). “Until the court of appeals issues the mandate, the case ordinarily remains within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and the district court lacks power to proceed further with respect to the matters involved with the appeal.” Order at 2. Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction “seeks to have the Court adjudicate anew the preliminary injunction motion while the same issue is on appeal before the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 3.

Howard J. Shire is a partner and Joseph Mercadante is an associate in the New York office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.