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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

MTS Systems Corp. v. Hysitron Inc., No. 09-1541 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2010)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1541
Decided
April 8, 2010
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1541

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

HYSITRON INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant.

Nicholas S. Boebel, Myers, Boebel & MacLeod L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellee. David P. Pearson, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Thomas H. Boyd and Brent A. Lorentz. Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota Chief Judge Michael J. Davis

2United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1541

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HYSITRON INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in CASE NO(S). 06-CV-3853 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (LOURIE, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED April 8, 2010 /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

MTS Systems Corp. v. Hysitron Inc., No. 09-1541 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1541-20100408
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1541-20100408

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.