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 36

Date: 12/27/2011

Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil chamber 3
Public hearing on March 15, 2000
Appeal no.: 98-14354
Published in the newsletter
Rejection.
Presiding judge: Mr. Beauvois, presiding judge
Reporter: Mr. Bourrelly, reporting judge
General Counsel: Mr. Weber, general counsel
Attorneys-at-law: SCP Guiguet, Bachellier et de la Varde, and SCP Vier et Barthélemy,
attorneys-at-law

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
On the sole argument:

Whereas, according to the contested ruling (Aix-in-Provence, January 15, 1998), Mr. Y... sold
a business to Mr. X... by official deed dated April 19, 1984 ; on November 21, 1991, the realestate investment company (SCI) Factor acquired by auction ownership of the premises
belonging to Mr. Y... where the business was being operated; SCI Factor filed suit against Mr.
X..., claiming to hold a lease, for cancellation of the lease and expulsion;

Whereas SCI Factor filed a grievance against the ruling to dismiss its claims, consequently,
according to the argument, 1) merely mentioning the existence of a lease in an official deed is
not sufficient to assign it a certain date if the particulars thereof, namely the price, are not
stated; the court of appeals, by asserting for its decision that the lease referred to by Mr. X...
was invokable against SCI Factor, that the mention appearing in the official deed of sale of
the business drawn up on April 19, 1984 and according to which "by private contract entered
into on this day, Mr. Y..., the seller herein, granted to Mr. X..., the acquirer herein, a lease for
said premises for a period of nine years" referring to essential points of the contract and thus
assigning it a certain date, even though the lease price is not indicated therein, violated Civil

Code Article 1326; 2° the court of appeals, further basing its decision that the lease claimed
by Mr. X... was invokable against SCI Factor on the statements of the poster produced for the
auction and the content of the specifications referring to the current occupation of the
premises and the obligation for the winning bidder to maintain all rental agreements,
indications which, however, did not allude in any way to the substance or even existence of
the lease invoked by Mr. X..., violated Civil Code Articles 1134 and 1743 and Article 684 of
the Former Civil Procedure Code;

Whereas, however, disregarding obiter dicta, the Court of appeal, that has stated that the
deed between Mr. Y… and Mr. X… dated 19 April 1984 for the sale of the business stated
that, by an act signed the same day, My. Y…, the seller, had granted a lease of the locales to
Mr. X… for nine years, could have considered that the deed has revealed essential elements
of the lease and that this contract has a certain date.

From which it follows that the argument is unfounded;

FOR THESE REASONS:

DISMISSES the appeal.
Publication: Bulletin 2000 III No. 55 p. 38

Contested decision: Court of appeals, Aix-en-Provence, January 15, 1998

Titles and abstracts: LEASE (general rules) - Sale of leased property - Invokability against
the acquirer - Conditions - Official deed containing the substance of the lease - Deed of sale
of the business. The court of appeal, finding that the official deed of sale of the business
stated that, by private contract of the same date, the seller had granted to the acquirer the
lease on the premises for a period of nine years, was able to deduce that the essential points
of the lease had been accounted for and that this contract had a definite date with respect to
the third party awardee of the premises in which the business is operated.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - Private contract - Definite date (Civil Code Article 1328) Official deed ascertaining the substance thereof - Lease referenced in a notarial deed of sale
of the business

Legal precedents: TO BE EXAMINED: Civil Chamber 3, 1978-02-01, Gazette 1978, III, no.
61, p. 49 (appeal).