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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes, No. 07-1479 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2008)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 07-1479
Decided
September 8, 2008
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1479

RICOH CORPORATION

and RICOH COMPANY, LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.

PITNEY BOWES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. Lawrence B. Friedman, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were David H. Herrington, Roger A. Cooper, and Kathleya Chotiros. Jan M. Conlin, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Munir R. Meghjee, and Katie Crosby Lehmann. Of counsel were Kimberly G. Miller and Stacie E. Oberts. Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.

2United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1479

RICOH CORPORATION

and RICOH COMPANY, LTD,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.

PITNEY BOWES, INC,

Defendant-Appellee. Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey In CASE NO(S). 02-CV-5639 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (RADER, DYK, Circuit Judges, and WALKER, Chief District Judge*).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATE:__September 8, 2008__ _/s/ Jan Horbaly___________________ Jan Horbaly, Clerk * Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 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

Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes, No. 07-1479 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2008).

Record ID
CAFC-07-1479-20080908
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-07-1479-20080908

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.