Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-1701 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2015)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Appellants, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Ele c- tronics Co., Ltd. , Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, HTC Co r- poration, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectiv e- ly, “ Samsung”), appeal from the district court’s order denying their motions to stay patent infringement l itiga- tion pending covered business method (“CBM”) review of the asserted claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s order as to Apple, but reverse as to Samsung.