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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., No. 08-1289 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2009)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 08-1289
Decided
April 2, 2009
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

2008-1289

CRATER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and AT&T COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees, and

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Robert Schultz, Schultz & Associates LLP, of Chesterfield, Missouri, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Ronald J. Eisenberg. K. Lee Marshall, Bryan Cave LLP, of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief was Louis F. Bonacorsi. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge E. Richard Webber

2NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1289

CRATER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and AT&T COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees, and

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Judgment ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Missouri

in CASE NO(S). 4:98-CV-00913 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge, SCHALL and LINN, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT DATED April 2, 2009 /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

Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., No. 08-1289 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2009).

Record ID
CAFC-08-1289-20090402
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-08-1289-20090402

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.