
    APPLE INC., A California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., A New York Corporation, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 2014-1802.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2015.
    William F. Lee, Andrew J. Danford, Mark Christopher Fleming, Lauren B. Fletcher, Sarah R. Frazier, Esq., Richard Wells O’Neill, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Rachel Krevans, Christopher Robinson, Nathaniel Bryan Sabri, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Erik Jeffrey Olson, Esq., Litigation Counsel, Morrison .& Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA, James Quarles, III, Thomas Gregory Sprankling, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Mark.D. Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kathleen M. Sullivan, William Adams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, N.Y., Brian Cosmo Cannon, Kevin P.B, Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney, Victoria Fishman Maroulis, Esq., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, John B. Quinn, Scott L. Watson, Michael Thomas Zeller, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kevin Alexander Smith, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION FOR REHEARING . EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellant Apple, Inc. The petition and response were referred to the panel that heard the appeal.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1) Samsung’s petition for rehearing is granted by a majority of the panel for the limited purpose of modifying the previously filed majority opinion. Page 17 of the original opinion reads: “Apple did not establish that that these features were the exclusive or significant driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed more heavily in its favor. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction.” The corrected opinion reads:

Apple did not establish that these features were the exclusive driver of customer demand, which certainly would have weighed more heavily in its favor. Apple did, however, show that “a patented feature is one of several features that cause consumers to make their purchasing decisions.” Apple III [Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.], 735 F.3d [1352] at 1364 [(Fed.Cir.2013)]. We conclude that this factor weighs in favor of granting Apple’s injunction.

The dissenting opinion was also amended. Samsung’s petition is denied in all other-respects.

2) The prior opinions in this appeal, which issued on September 17, 2015, and were reported at Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elees. Co., Ltd., 801 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2015), are withdrawn and replaced with the revised opinions accompanying this order.  