Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Australia | 1-800-335-6202

Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Company Ltd

Cited authorities 37 Cited in 126 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
CourtFull Federal Court (Australia)
Neutral Citation[2011] FCAFC 156
Date2011
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
99 cases
6 firm's commentaries
  • Being litigation ready: Getting Australian patent ownership and licensing right
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 21 November 2016
    ...11 Patents Act 1990 (Cth), Schedule 1 - Dictionary. 12 Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156 (30 November 2011), applying Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide ......
  • Will "hot-tubbing" catch on in England and Wales?
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 1 August 2016
    ...the Federal Court of Australia, hot-tubbing was used despite there being numerous experts (Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v. Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156). There is, therefore, no rule as to when hot-tubbing is appropriate. Judges will need to assess the appropriateness of hot-tubbing on a ......
  • STOP in the name of the law - interlocutory injunctions
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 1 February 2012
    ...Christmas. Footnotes 1 Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] FCA 1164 2 Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156 3 Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited [2011] HCATrans The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subjec......
  • Limeburst v Freshburst? Application for finger limes interlocutory falls flat
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 17 March 2012
    ...J relied on the traditional principles most recently expounded by the Full Federal Court in Samsung Electronics Co Limited v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156. Namely, in order to secure an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must show there is a serious question to be tried or that there is a......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT