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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Spiroflow Systems v. Flexicon Corp., No. 08-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2008)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 08-1034
Decided
June 10, 2008
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

CORRECTED

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1034

SPIROFLOW SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

FLEXICON CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. W. Thad Adams, III, Adams Intellectual Property Law, P.A., of Charlotte, North Carolina, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Stephen S. Ashley, Jr. Randolph J. Huis, Volpe and Koenig, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stephen B. Schott. Of counsel on the brief were Michael S. Connor, Lance A. Lawson, and Brian F. McMahon, Alston & Bird, LLP, of Charlotte, North Carolina. Of counsel was John J. O’Malley, Volpe and Koenig, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Magistrate David Keesler

2NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1034

SPIROFLOW SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

FLEXICON CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Western District of North

Carolina

In CASE NO(S). 3:02-CV-70. This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (RADER, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, Circuit Judge).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT DATED: June 10, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk

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

Spiroflow Systems v. Flexicon Corp., No. 08-1034 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2008).

Record ID
CAFC-08-1034-20080610
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-08-1034-20080610

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.