Search Results:

 17-204 Apple Inc. v. Pepper (05/13/2019)
by independent developers under contracts with Apple. Apple charges the developers a $99 annual took a commission on each sale. Third, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic

 15-777 Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. (12/06/2016)
grid of colorful icons on a black screen.Apple was awarded $399 million in damages—Samsung’s entire that it is not. 2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. v. APPLE INC. Opinion of the Court I A The federal patent

 QPReport
indirect purchasers"). Electronic marketplaces such as Apple's App Store present a new wrinkle on alleging monopolization of distribution services Apple provides to app developers were necessarily

 QPReport
15-777 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. V. APPLE INC. DECISION BELOW: 786 F.3d 983 LIMITED TO QUESTION 2

 Where to Find Briefs of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary Where to Find Briefs (October 2017) Electronic versions of most filings submitted after November 13, 2017, are Apple Courier: (202) 338-0930

 Argument Audio
Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are posted on this website on the same day an

 Granted & Noted List October Term 2018 (As of July 1, 2019)
AND REMANDED (BK – no part) 17-204 CFX APPLE INC. V. PEPPER Court: USCA-9 Granted: 6/18/18 Argument