Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 900

NOTICE by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) Translations of Foreign Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53, #54 Exhibit 54, #55 Exhibit 55, #56 Exhibit 56, #57 Exhibit 57, #58 Exhibit 58, #59 Exhibit 59, #60 Exhibit 60, #61 Exhibit 61, #62 Exhibit 62, #63 Exhibit 63)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

Exhibit 31

On: 12/23/2011
Court of cassation
Civil chamber 3
Public hearing of October 3, 1968
Appeal no.:
Published in the bulletin
REJECTION.

FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON THE FIRST GROUND: WHEREAS IT IS SEEN FROM THE STATEMENTS OF
THE CHALLENGED REVERSED JUDGMENT THAT MISS Y…, REQUESTED BY
HER PROPRIETORS, MR AND MRS. X…, TO PAY 6 MONTHS RENT, I.E. 2000
FRANCS, CLAIMED THAT THE ANNUAL PRICE AGREED UPON WAS 2000
FRANCS AND THAT SHE BROUGHT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SAID COUPLE X…
IN NULLITY OF THE ORDER DELIVERED TO HER, REQUESTING ADDITIONALLY
THE EXPERT OPINION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE;
WHEREAS SUBSEQUENTLY, UPON ACTION BROUGHT BY COUPLE X…, THE
JUDGE HEARING APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM RELIEF APPOINTED AN EXPERT,
AND THE EXPERT SET THE PRICE OF THE RENT AT 3600 FRANCS, WHICH WAS
REDUCED TO 2904 FRANCS BY THE COURT OF APPEAL;
WHEREAS THE TRIAL JUDGES WERE CHALLENGED, AND NOT WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION, FOR HAVING THUS RULED SINCE, ACCORDING TO THE
APPEAL, ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE, A PROVISION OF PUBLIC ORDER,
WOULD ALLOW, OUTSIDE OF THE PROOF OF THE PRICE OF THE RENT BY
PRODUCING RECEIPTS OR BY THE OATH REFERRED TO THE OWNER, ONLY
THE EVALUATION BY EXPERT OPINION, SUCH THAT THE TRIAL JUDGES
COULD NOT, WITHOUT VIOLATING THIS TEXT, BASE THEIR RULING ON A
FORMER PROPOSAL ORIGINATING WITH THE LESSOR HIMSELF AT THE TIME
OF A PRIOR REVISION PROCEDURE WHICH CONCERNED NEITHER THE LEASE
IN QUESTION NOR THE SAME PROPERTY AND WHICH, MOREOVER, HAD NOT
PRODUCED ANY EFFECTS, SINCE, AS WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE
RULING, IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF DETERMINING THE LEASING AMOUNT AND
THE PRICE OF THE LEASE WAS TO BE BASED ON THE PRICE OF THE
PROPERTY;

BUT WHEREAS, ON THE ONE HAND, ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE DOES
NOT HAVE THE NATURE OF A PROVISION OF PUBLIC ORDER AND IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT FALLS TO THE
COURT OF APPEAL TO SET THE PRICE BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
WHEREAS, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TRIAL JUDGES WERE NOT REQUIRED
TO FOLLOW THE EXPERT IN HIS CONCLUSIONS AND BY SETTING OUT THE
PRICE OF THE RENT PROPOSED BY THE LESSOR HIMSELF, WHEN HE WAS
STILL ONLY THE LESSEE OF THE PREMISES OF WHICH HE BECAME THE
OWNER, THE COURT OF APPEAL, WITHOUT CONTRADICTING ITSELF AND
WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY OF THE TEXTS CITED IN THE GROUND, LEGALLY
JUSTIFIED ITS DECISION;
ON THE SECOND GROUND; WHEREAS THE APPEAL BRINGS COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR HAVING ORDERED MISS JORGE TO PAY
THE EXPENSES OF THE EXPERT REPORT, SINCE THIS MEASURE BROUGHT IN
COMPLAINT IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE WAS NOT
REQUESTED BY HER, BUT BY HER LESSORS;
BUT WHEREAS IN HER OPPOSITION TO THE ORDER, MISS Y…HAD REQUESTED
IF NEEDED THE EXPERT OPINION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 1716 OF THE
CIVIL CODE, AND THE TRIAL JUDGES RULED ON THIS OPPOSITION AND SET
OUT THE EXPERT OPINION ORDERED;
THEY HAD TO REQUIRE MISS JORGE Z… TO BEAR THE COSTS OF THIS
PREPARATORY INQUIRY WHICH ESTABLISHED A PRICE HIGHER THAN WHAT
SHE HAD STATED:
WITH THE RESULT THAT THE GROUND IS WITHOUT MERIT;
FOR THESE REASONS: IT REJECTS THE APPEAL BROUGHT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON JULY 6, 1965, BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF AIXEN-PROVENCE, NO. 65-13 962. DELLE Y… C/X…. PRESIDENT: MR. DE MONTERA
– RAPPORTEUR: MR. TRUFFIER – ADVOCATE GENERAL: MR. LAGUERRE –
ATTORNEYS: MR. LEMAITRE AND MR. CALON.
Publication: N 356
Headings and summaries: 1 LEASES IN GENERAL PRICE SETTING ARTICLE 1716
OF THE CIVIL CODE (NON) PUBLIC ORDER NATURE
1 ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE DOES NOT POSSESS THE NATURE OF A
PUBLIC ORDER PROVISION. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES, IT FALLS TO THE JUDGES TO SET THE PRICE OF THE RENT
BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO FOLLOW
THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERT.

2 LEASES IN GENERAL PRICE SETTING ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE
EXPERT OPINION FEE CHARGED
2 THE LESSEE WHO, FOR THE SETTING OF THE RENT, REQUESTED- AS
NEEDED – THE EXPERT OPINION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL
CODE MUST BEAR THE COSTS OF THIS PREPARATORY MEASURE WHEN IT
ESTABLISHES A PRICE HIGHER THAN WHAT THE LESSEE STATED.