survey evidence of its own customers is still relevant to the Court’s determination of what features drive consumer demand for either the iPhone or the Galaxy Nexus. This is particularly true in light of Samsung’s own documents confirming that Samsung and Apple compete directly with one another for the same customers. See, e.g., Vellturo Decl. ¶ 67; id. Exs. 23, 40 (commentators noting that Samsung’s marketing campaign for the S II (a predecessor to the Galaxy Nexus) “is [g]oing [r]ight for Apple [flanboys’ £j]ugular”). In any event, the Federal Circuit has not held that customer survey evidence or other direct proof of “consumer motivation” is “a prerequisite to a finding of irreparable harm” in every patent case. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1324 n. 3; see also i4i Ltd. P’ship, 598 F.3d at 862 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, notwithstanding Samsung’s
recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law holding that industrial wastes were not products under a products hazard exception because they were not intended for consumption sale or use by others  holding that i4i was not required to prove that its specific customers stopped using i4is products because they switched to the infringing word products holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products