Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, No. 07-1257 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2008)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 07-1257
Decided
February 27, 2008
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
3 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1257

JOHN R. GAMMINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE LP,

Defendant-Appellee. W. Mark Mullineaux, Flamm, Boroff & Bacine, PC, of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Mark B. Schoeller and Joseph R. Carnicella. Roger Fulghum, Baker Botts L.L.P., of Houston, Texas, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Scott F. Partridge, Shira R. Yoshor, Michael Hawes, Steven J. Mitby, and Robinson Vu. Of counsel on the brief were Timothy G. Newman and Russell W. White, Larson Newman Abel Polansky & White LLP, of Austin, Texas. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Ed Kinkeade

2United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1257

JOHN R. GAMMINO,

Appellant/Plaintiff, v.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE, L.P.,

Appellee/Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

No. 3:05-CV-0850, Judge Ed Kinkeade

DECIDED: February 27, 2008

Before BRYSON and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and WOLLE, District Judge.∗

In a thorough opinion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the asserted claims of the two patents at issue in this litigation, U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,125 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,650, are anticipated by prior art and therefore are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. No purpose would be served by simply retracing the analysis of3 the district court, which is fully sufficient to resolve this appeal. In light of our disposition of the invalidity claim, we need not address the district court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

2007-1257 2

Footnotes

  1. ∗ Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Gammino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, No. 07-1257 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2008).

Record ID
CAFC-07-1257-20080227
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-07-1257-20080227

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.