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 48

15 February 2012

Court of cassation
Commercial division
Public hearing on 28 February 1995
Appeal no.: 93-14437
Published in the bulletin
Dismissal
President: M. Bézard, president
Rapporteur: Mr. Le Dauphin, reporting judge
Advocate general: Mr. de Gouttes, advocate general
Attorneys: Odent, Capron, attorney(s)

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
Sole grounds for appeal, based on two prongs:

Whereas, according to the disputed judgment (Angers, 5 February 1993), a judgment was
delivered after cassation, that the Debic Saint-Hubertus company (hereinafter, Debic), who
argued that the Laiteries Bridel company (hereinafter, Bridel) had ceased, under incorrect
conditions, purchasing goods from it, sued it for payment of damages;

Whereas, Bridel objected to the judgment for saying that it had improperly severed its
contractual relationship with Debic when, according to the appeal, on the one hand, by
denying the existence of a contract between the parties and at the same time affirming the
existence of contractual relations, the judgment, marred by contradictory reasoning,
violated Article 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure; and when, on the other hand, in
referring to contractual relations that, not coming from a contract between the parties,
could be severed at any time, without prior notice, the appellate court did not draw legal
consequences from its findings under Article 1134 of the Civil Code;

But whereas, on the one hand, the appellate court is not contradicting itself by stating that
if Bridel and Debic were not involved in the bonds of an agreement when the first decided
to no longer obtain supplies from the second, contracts had previously been concluded
between them;

Whereas, on the other hand, the judgment notes that Bridel had maintained for
approximately 7 years an ever-increasing business flow with Debic; that it adds that the
aforementioned needed to, given the time limits of manufacture and packaging of the
product, build up an inventory related to the volume of orders that were generally placed
only a week or two before delivery; that the judgment still maintains that Bridel, which did
not establish the wrongful conduct attributed to Debic, abruptly ceased, in March 1984, its
purchases from it after having been led to believe that their relationship would continue
normally, even though, since the beginning of January 1984, it had entered into an
agreement with another supplier; that considering the status of these findings, the
appellate court was entitled to consider that Bridel had abused its right to terminate its
business relationship with Debic;

From which it follows that the argument is not based on any of its prongs;

FOR THESE REASONS:

THE APPEAL IS REJECTED.
Publication: Bulletin 1995 IV N° 63 p. 60

Contested decision: Court of Appeals in Angers, on 5 February 1993

Titles and summaries: TORT LIABILITY - Misconduct - Abuse of rights - Company Sudden cessation of its business relationship with a supplier - Company who left him to
believe in the continuation of an ever-increasing business flow - Relationships that have
not resulted in the conclusion of a successive performance agreement. Having noted that
the supplier of a company, with which it maintained for about 7 years an ever-increasing
business flow, considering the time limits for manufacture and packaging of the product,
should have an inventory related to the volume of orders that were generally placed only a
week or two before delivery, and held that this company, which did not establish the
wrongful conduct attributed to the supplier, had abruptly ceased its purchases from the
latter after having been led to believe that their relationship would continue normally, the
appellate court was entitled to consider that the said company abused its right to terminate

its business relationship with this supplier, even though these relationships did not lead to
the concluding of a successive performance agreement.
.