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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Tech. Properties Limited v. ARM, Ltd., No. 08-1020 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2008)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 08-1020
Decided
May 9, 2008
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1020

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

ARM, LTD. and ARM, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Roger L. Cook, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for all plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief for Technology Properties Limited, Inc., were Nancy L. Tompkins, Eric P. Jacobs, and Cathy E. Cretsinger.

Charles T. Hoge, Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP, of San Diego, California, for plaintiff-appellant, Patriot Scientific Corporation. Kevin P. Anderson, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were Gregory R. Lyons and James H. Wallace, Jr. Of counsel was Brian H. Pandya. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Judge T. John Ward

2NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1020

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ARM, LTD. and ARM, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees. Judgment ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in CASE NO(S). 2:05-CV-494 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (DYK and PROST, Circuit Judges, and HOCHBERG, District Judge).∗ AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT DATED May 9, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk

∗ Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 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

Tech. Properties Limited v. ARM, Ltd., No. 08-1020 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2008).

Record ID
CAFC-08-1020-20080509
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-08-1020-20080509

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.