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 35

On: 12/23/2011
Court of cassation
Civil chamber 1
Public hearing of June 30, 2004
Appeal no.: 01-00475
Published in the bulletin

QUASHING.
Mr. Lemontey., president
Ms. Marais., reporting judge
Ms. Petit., advocate general
SCP [Professional Law Firm] Tiffreau, Ms. Choucroy., attorney(s)

FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
THE COURT OF CASSATION, FIRST CIVIL CHAMBER, has delivered the following
judgment:

With respect to the four branches of the single ground:
Considering articles 1134 and 1135 of the Civil Code;
Whereas Ms. X… rented from the BNP [Banque Nationale de Paris] two vaults, on the
basis of open-ended contracts of December 29, 1987 and February 3, 1989, specifying
that the price of the rent would be set by the bank at each leasing period and
cancellable at any time, by each of the parties, with prior notice of one month; whereas
by letter of June 18, 1996, the bank informed Ms. X… that the leasing price would be
increased, for the year 1997, from 54,000 to 145,000 francs, indicating that changes in
the expenses related to its facilities did not allow it to maintain the “exceptionally low”
prices offered previously; whereas upon protest by the client, the bank proposed to set
the price of leasing the two vaults at the lump sum of 200,000 francs; whereas having

renewed her contracts under reserve, Ms. X… brought proceedings against the bank for
damages due to abusive price-setting ;
Whereas in order to grant this request, the judgment maintained that the increase made
is an obvious anomaly that the bank had not justified with regard to the change in
expenses which stayed the same, or with regard to taking into account the respective
square footage of vaults considered to be equivalent;
Whereas in thus ruling, when, on the one hand, the bank was free to set the price that it
intended to charge, and when, on the other hand, it was seen from her own
acknowledgements that Ms. X… who was given prior notice of one month to cancel her
contract, had been kept informed of the change in the bank’s policy more than six
months before the due date, thereby having the time needed to approach competitors,
such that it was not shown in what manner she was constrained to be subject to BNP’s
conditions in renewing a contract which she was free to not continue, the court of
appeal, which did not characterize the wrongful conduct of the bank, violated the abovecited texts;
FOR THESE REASONS:

QUASHES AND ANNULS, in all of its provisions, the judgment delivered on October 24,
2000, between the parties, by the Paris Court of Appeal;

Returns, therefore, the cause and the parties to the status which it had before said
judgment, and in order to do justice, refers them to the court of appeal of Versailles;

Orders Ms. X… to pay the costs;
Considering article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejects the request of BNP
Paribas;

Says that acting through the Public Prosecutor with the Court of Cassation, this
judgment shall be transmitted in order to be transcribed in the margin or at the end of
the quashed judgment;
It is thus ordered and adjudged by the Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, and
ruled by the president in its public hearing of June thirty, two thousand four.
Publication: Bulletin 2004 I No. 190, p. 157
Decision challenged: Paris Court of Appeal, of October 24, 2000

Headings and summaries: BANK- Responsibility – Transactions related to
bank operations - Price setting – Abuse - Absence – Case. A court of appeal which, in
order to order a bank to pay its clients damages for abusive price setting, maintains that
the large increase in the price of leasing vaults was not justified by the change in its
expenses since on the one hand, the bank was free to set the price that it intended to
charge and on the other hand, the client, who was given prior notice of one month to
cancel the contract, had been kept informed of the change in the bank’s policy more
than six months before the due date, thereby having the time needed to approach
competitors, such that it was not shown in what manner she was constrained to be
subject to the bank’s conditions in renewing a contract which she was free to not
continue, does not characterize wrongful conduct and violates articles 1134 and 1135
of the Civil Code.
CONTRACTS AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS – Subject – Determination – Price
– Setting – Abuse – Absence – Case
Case-law precedents: On the characterization of abuse in price-setting, in the same
vein as: Full Court, 1965-12-01, Bulletin, Full Court no. 9. p. 16 (rejection)
Texts applied:
Civil Code 1134, 1135