On September 17, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an Opinion vacating an order of the district court denying Apple’s post-trial motion to permanently enjoin Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) from “making, using, selling, developing, advertising, or importing into the United States software or code capable of implementing the infringing features of its products.” Although the district court found that the balancing of hardships and public interest factors from the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), favored Apple’s request, it held that Apple had not shown irreparable harm or an inadequate legal remedy. In holding that the district court abused its discretion by not enjoining Samsung’s infringement, the Federal Circuit found that the district court misapplied the causal nexus test for irreparable harm by requiring Apple “to show that the infringing features were the reason why consumers purchased the accused products.” The Federal Circuit held that Apple was only required to show that “the patented features impact consumers’ decisions to purchase the accused devices,” and that Apple had met its burden because it established that (1) customers “wanted, preferred, and would pay extra for these features,” (2) Samsung “believed these features were important and copied them,” (3) “Samsung’s carriers and users wanted these features on phones,” (4) Apple “believed these features were important to customer demand,” and (5) Samsung was Apple’s largest rival. The Federal Circuit held that the district court also erred in finding that Apple had not demonstrated an inadequate legal remedy, because that holding was based upon its erroneous conclusion that Apple had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The Federal Circuit held that this eBay factor strongly favored an injunction because as the district court found, Apple’s “sales-based losses were difficult to quantify.”