On August 9, 2013, a Federal Circuit three judge panel presided at oral argument (Appeal No. 2013-1129) to determine whether U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California erred in denying Apple’s request to permanently enjoin sales of 26 Samsung phones that a jury found infringed 6 Apple patents in Civil Action No. 11-cv-01846-LHK. Judge Koh’s Order found that no “causal nexus” had been established to justify an injunction against the infringing phones and that it would not be in the public interest “to deprive consumers of Samsung’s infringing phones when. . . only limited features of the phones have been found to infringe.” Before the Federal Circuit, Apple argued that, since eBay, no Federal Circuit decision has required a causal nexus in a permanent injunction context. Apple contends that when there has been an adjudication of infringement and sale of the infringing product has caused irreparable harm, that should be enough for a permanent injunction. Samsung asserted that it is not arguing for a categorical rule against injunctions. Samsung cited, for example, when a patent is coextensive with the accused product, an injunction may be proper, but also noted that if a patent is not coextensive, it may be more difficult to meet the causal nexus standard. Samsung asserted that, in this case, Judge Koh found only that Apple lost sales, and did not find irreparable harm because causal nexus was not proved.