The opinion is here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cafc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;opinions-orders&#x2F;15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cafc.uscourts.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;opinions-or...</a>.<p>The original judgment involved five patents. They went down for different reasons.<p>1. Recognizing dates, etc, in documents and highlighting them. Found not infringed because the court construed &quot;analyzer server&quot; in the claims to require a separate server process, while Samsung implemented them in a shared library. The Court did not address validity.<p>2. Slide to unlock. Killed as obvious because two prior art references (one disclosing slide to unlock and another disclosing sliding an image along a path traced by the finger) were obvious to combine.<p>3. Keyboard auto correction. Killed as obvious in light of prior art disclosing an autocorrect UI.<p>4. Universal search. Found not infringed. Essentially, Apple&#x27;s claims required the search to search the Internet, while Samsung&#x27;s implementation only searched Internet data previously downloaded. The Court did not address validity.<p>5. Background synchronization. Found not infringed because Apple&#x27;s claims recite a software component that synchronizes two databases in the background, while the corresponding component in Samsung&#x27;s implementation causes something else to perform the synchronization. The Court did not address validity.